It's time to toss this government which no longer represents the people!!

PACEDOG#1 wrote:You are a one person party of NO

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Person of NO

We don't live in a direct democracy.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Hey congress has a 6% approval rating . So don't feel like the Lone Ranger Slinger.  

Chrissy wrote:I don't agree with your reasons, but I agree with the premise. Im sick of all of them.

but lets be clear, I am NOT in favor of a DIRECT democracy.

Direct democracy was not what the framers of the United States Constitution envisioned for the nation. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy. For example, James Madison, in Federalist No. 10 advocates a constitutional republic over direct democracy precisely to protect the individual from the will of the majority


A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.[11]

John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, said "Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." Alexander Hamilton said, "That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this.


------

while we may be going down this road as it appears, do not expect this road to be the sweet taste of what you wish for. The masses have learned well how to milk the ballot.

Chrissy wrote:I don't agree with your reasons, but I agree with the premise. Im sick of all of them.

but lets be clear, I am NOT in favor of a DIRECT democracy.

Direct democracy was not what the framers of the United States Constitution envisioned for the nation. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy. For example, James Madison, in Federalist No. 10 advocates a constitutional republic over direct democracy precisely to protect the individual from the will of the majority


A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.[11]

John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, said "Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." Alexander Hamilton said, "That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this.


------

while we may be going down this road as it appears, do not expect this road to be the sweet taste of what you wish for. The masses have learned well how to milk the ballot.

Wordslinger wrote:

Chrissy wrote:I don't agree with your reasons, but I agree with the premise. Im sick of all of them.

but lets be clear, I am NOT in favor of a DIRECT democracy.

Direct democracy was not what the framers of the United States Constitution envisioned for the nation. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy. For example, James Madison, in Federalist No. 10 advocates a constitutional republic over direct democracy precisely to protect the individual from the will of the majority


A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.[11]

John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, said "Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." Alexander Hamilton said, "That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this.


------

while we may be going down this road as it appears, do not expect this road to be the sweet taste of what you wish for. The masses have learned well how to milk the ballot.

I'm not for a total democracy either.  Just major issues that seem improbable and insolvable at Washington.

Frankly, I don't give a damn for what the founding fathers envisioned -- none of us should be.  The government was formed by the rich to protect the rich at the expense of the rest of us, and nothing has changed in that regard from then till now.

No one in their right mind can argue with me that the issues I cited have been resolved against the wishes of the people.  You know I'm right.

If you have a better answer, I'm all ears.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

Chrissy wrote:I don't agree with your reasons, but I agree with the premise. Im sick of all of them.

but lets be clear, I am NOT in favor of a DIRECT democracy.

Direct democracy was not what the framers of the United States Constitution envisioned for the nation. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy. For example, James Madison, in Federalist No. 10 advocates a constitutional republic over direct democracy precisely to protect the individual from the will of the majority


A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.[11]

John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, said "Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." Alexander Hamilton said, "That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this.


------

while we may be going down this road as it appears, do not expect this road to be the sweet taste of what you wish for. The masses have learned well how to milk the ballot.

I'm not for a total democracy either.  Just major issues that seem improbable and insolvable at Washington.

Frankly, I don't give a damn for what the founding fathers envisioned -- none of us should be.  The government was formed by the rich to protect the rich at the expense of the rest of us, and nothing has changed in that regard from then till now.

No one in their right mind can argue with me that the issues I cited have been resolved against the wishes of the people.  You know I'm right.

If you have a better answer, I'm all ears.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well let me play Founding Fathers advocate.


Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured.

Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War. They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.  What kind of men were they?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags. Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton. At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr. noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire.  The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months. John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later, he died from exhaustion and a broken heart.

Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates. Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more.




WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS SOUGHT  WAS TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD ! SO THAT NOT ONLY ROYALTY HAD WEALTH.

Why is it people come here from foreign countries with little money and little understanding of the language and become wealthy ?,...Because they WORK damn hard that's why...that was the legacy of the founders.

Wordslinger wrote:Iraq:  You think that if Iraq's invasion was voted on by the American people, it would have been approved?  No way.

You think that our intention to keep troops in Afghanistan for another ten years would be approved if we the people voted?  No way.

You think that benefits would have been designed to help American factories re-establish their operations overseas, if the people voted on the issue?  No way.

You think that social security and healthcare benefits for the elderly would be cut if the people voted on the issue?  No way.

You think that women's rights would still be unequal and unfair if the people voted on the issues?  No way.

You think the minimum wage wouldn't be raised if the people voted on it?  No way.

You think we'd maintain more than a thousand overseas military bases if the people voted on it?  No way.

You think we'd keep building Abram's tanks well beyond any level that can be utilized if the people voted on the issue?  No way.

You think the FDA wouldn't have enough budget to allow proper food safety inspections if the people voted on the issue?  No way.

I could go on -- so could you.

The point is, our constitutional government and its form of representation no longer suits our needs -- not when our so-called representatives are totally beholden to corporate campaign financing.

Screw Amerika Inc!!

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Believe me Slinger it is a Hegelian dialectic better known as order out of chaos using irrational fear to herd us into more and more of a totalitarian world government. Of course they blame the founding fathers and demonize capitalism. Those are the very principles that empowered the individual. They want to bring it down around our heads and then show up as our saviors but with severe conditions to that salvation. It's a masterful plan and if it were not for the internet it would have already succeeded. For some the world is not enough. The powers that be want to return to a feudal system how be it a very closely monitored system. Serfs tend to revolt under oppression..see HUNGER GAMES.

The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution... like cowboys firing their pistols to make noise to frighten the herd into a pen to be held for slaughter.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Believe me Slinger it is a Hegelian dialectic better known as order out of chaos using irrational fear to herd us into more and more of a totalitarian world government. Of course they blame the founding fathers and demonize capitalism. Those are the very principles that empowered the individual. They want to bring it down around our heads and then show up as our saviors but with severe conditions to that salvation. It's a masterful plan and if it were not for the internet it would have already succeeded. For some the world is not enough. The powers that be want to return to a feudal system how be it a very closely monitored system. Serfs tend to revolt under oppression..see HUNGER GAMES.

The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution... like cowboys firing their pistols to make noise to frighten the herd into a pen to be held for slaughter.

Good analogy....

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Believe me Slinger it is a Hegelian dialectic better known as order out of chaos using irrational fear to herd us into more and more of a totalitarian world government. Of course they blame the founding fathers and demonize capitalism. Those are the very principles that empowered the individual. They want to bring it down around our heads and then show up as our saviors but with severe conditions to that salvation. It's a masterful plan and if it were not for the internet it would have already succeeded. For some the world is not enough. The powers that be want to return to a feudal system how be it a very closely monitored system. Serfs tend to revolt under oppression..see HUNGER GAMES.

The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution... like cowboys firing their pistols to make noise to frighten the herd into a pen to be held for slaughter.