All Forum Posts by: Karen Parker

Funny you should say that. Come to think of it I have another site where my headline states..."If you think politics has nothing to do with religion, you don't know what religion is" lol!

0 Votes

Originally posted by jawsette:

They chose to improve on the Democratic form of government which they mostly came from. Which was GB, Spain, France, and Portugal.

Those colonies being established for and by those countries they used their forms of organization to start with. But when it became evident that their rights were being trampled upon by those governments decocracies they then chose to improve the democracies to the said REPUBLIC based upon laws that could not be overturned or trampled upon.

As far as a pure form of any form of organization of any country or state. This has not been seen since almost the beginnings of CIVILIZATION as each country uses part of this and part of that to hopefully improve upon what was before them. So much so that even Capitalism when it originated was not "pure" but a merger of the best of several different forms of organization.

Thus we can engage in these fun debates because nothing is pure, not even our REPUBLIC as is it based upon Democracy mostly with touches of law (courts) and Kings (President) and class hieracy (the powerful).

All of this is true and yes it has been fun. Thank you for stretching my noodle again. But its been so much fun time got away from me again and I have to get up in 3 hours. Have a good night.

0 Votes

Originally posted by jawsette:

Originally posted by Karen Parker:

How is that (the republic) different from the mob rules mentality of the democracy? Only in that in the republic, there is even less control by the people and laws are being made without their consent and it was the mob (as you termed it) that voted the representative in.

A deomcracy can change the laws by majority opinion because the majority rules.
A republic can only amend the laws to further define them because the laws are supreme. Thus the majority wants are subject to the test of law whcih was described by those in the beginning as "certain unalienable rights" which can not be taken away by anyone or any group of people.

However, it is still the majority who has voted that these laws are the law, while the minority may feel that the laws are inappropriate or discriminating. I feel the majority should be able to change the law. Some laws are outdated and ridiculous such as some I read about it being illegal to eat ice cream on the sidewalk. I'm sure at the time there had to be some reason for that being enacted but now, if the majority of the people want to eat ice cream on the sidewalk they should be able to vote it out.

0 Votes

To clarify why I say they were originally a democracy is that these people did make the decision process in the beginning without a representative. They had to have voted, at some point, to organize the government into a republic which was the beginning of it. Puritans were a religious group, btw, not a political persuasion and there were many types of them.

0 Votes

Originally posted by jawsette:

They choose to improve upon that democracy with the "republic".

But they did start out as a democracy as I stated. Now whether or not that was an improvement or not is debatable. My personal opinion from where I stand today is that it is not. Just as I have had debates with people about pure Capitalism. My former husband and I still clash on this because he doesn't believe a purely Capitalistic society will function. He says the checks and balances by the fed that we have are necessary. I believe, in theory, and in a moralistic society, that pure Capitalism would work very well. However, its all theory. We do not have a moralistic society just like we do not have a society that was left to democracy so there is nothing but theory and no measurable way to determine if one would have been better than the other.

0 Votes

For the record, I'm Libertarian. And my solution is to let the poorly run companies fail, and the well-run companies succeed. If any Federal money was needed at all, it should have been offered to the successful companies to cover the needed duties in the financial sector when Citibank et al failed.

Or, as I frequently put it "The financial sector might need a Citibank, but it doesn't have to actually *be* Citibank."

WoooHOOO! FINALLY! Someone that thinks along the same lines as I do.

But for the record, the guy that wrote that article is a flake and should be hung by his toe nails from the nearest savings and loan sign for blasphemy.

0 Votes

Originally posted by jawsette:

The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]

I think that's a bit of a contradiction since dictatorship is defined as an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled an individual.

Either way, I'd think decisions voted in by the majority of the people would be better than that joke we have called the electoral college.

0 Votes

Jawsette, you are speaking again of the organization that we now call the United States. If you go back and read, I stated, "prior to incorporation of Congress and all of the other elected officials". I'm referring to the beginning...the organization of the individual states. This was a democracy, prior to the advent of the Fed.

Richard, I absolutely love that story. I had heard it before but still love it and its a wonderful example.

0 Votes

All Forum Posts by: Karen Parker

Karen Parker has started 17 posts and replied 384 times.

Post: Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure

Post: Communism

Post: Communism

Post: Communism

Post: Communism

Post: Communism

Post: Communism

Post: Reagan did it

Post: Communism

Post: Communism