Pic of the Day....

[layoutshooter]

I'm confused......you knew what I was talking about and agreed with me on the democratic process, then greg counters that we do not have a democratic process and you do not question why he thinks that.

What is the process called that allowed those men to take down the sign in the picture?

I did not make that as clear as I should. Sorry for the confusion, it was not intended. I understood what you meant. I don't agree that we have a "democratic process". We are a republic. I like the system as it is set up, NOT as it is practiced. Hope that clears it up for you.

 

[witness23]

I did not make that as clear as I should. Sorry for the confusion, it was not intended. I understood what you meant. I don't agree that we have a "democratic process". We are a republic. I like the system as it is set up, NOT as it is practiced. Hope that clears it up for you.

So what is the process called that allowed those men to take down that sign.

 

[layoutshooter]

So what is the process called that allowed those men to take down that sign.

Voting. The people of the country elected representatives to be their spokesperson to the Federal government. Those reps SHOULD be voting on issues based on what their employers, the voters of the district that they represent, want them to do. NOT what their party wants, not what the president wants. ONLY what the district wants. We have restricted voting rights. We restrict it by age and residency. Voting itself is not restricted to "democracies". They vote in Russia all the time. That is hardly a "democracy". What I mean by that is that the act of voting does not mean, in a lot of cases, a democratic process.

At one point in our history voting was restricted to property owners. It would be interesting is we were to restrict voting to only those people who have both reached the age of majority AND PAY TAXES!! Just an interesting thought.

Did you read that link I posted?

 

[greg334]

The speaker of the house has nothing to do with the election that took place but rather an internal move to fill one of the many seats that are there to provide direction of the house. It is can be a popularity contest among peers, or it can be a simple selection process.

Many times we are handed a blurred explanation of what happens in congress, much of it is not always accurate or reflecting facts but reflects political ideology. This election and the ones since 1994 have been part and parcel full of division and falsehoods - like the lie that with a republican congress, the dems never got anything passed.

The same goes for the idea that we are a democracy, we - thank God - are no where near one and if we were, we would have no rights as individuals. Layout's link puts things really well and should be taught to every kid from age 6 on up every year until they get out of college.

A democratic process wouldn't allow elite people running things, it would be run by the people as they see fit. There wouldn't be this aire of aristocracy that many have but rather a hodge podge of people running amok of our government and country by passing laws that for what ever whims that the public feels like allowing or restricting - a true form of governing by polls.

 

[layoutshooter]

The speaker of the house has nothing to do with the election that took place but rather an internal move to fill one of the many seats that are there to provide direction of the house. It is can be a popularity contest among peers, or it can be a simple selection process.

Many times we are handed a blurred explanation of what happens in congress, much of it is not always accurate or reflecting facts but reflects political ideology. This election and the ones since 1994 have been part and parcel full of division and falsehoods - like the lie that with a republican congress, the dems never got anything passed.

The same goes for the idea that we are a democracy, we - thank God - are no where near one and if we were, we would have no rights as individuals. Layout's link puts things really well and should be taught to every kid from age 6 on up every year until they get out of college.

A democratic process wouldn't allow elite people running things, it would be run by the people as they see fit. There wouldn't be this aire of aristocracy that many have but rather a hodge podge of people running amok of our government and country by passing laws that for what ever whims that the public feels like allowing or restricting - a true form of governing by polls.

That link does put is very well. That is how I was taught in school. I really wish that I could write like that. I understand what I think I just have difficulty explaining my self.

 

[witness23]

Voting. The people of the country elected representatives to be their spokesperson to the Federal government. Those reps SHOULD be voting on issues based on what their employers, the voters of the district that they represent, want them to do. NOT what their party wants, not what the president wants. ONLY what the district wants. We have restricted voting rights. We restrict it by age and residency. Voting itself is not restricted to "democracies". They vote in Russia all the time. That is hardly a "democracy". What I mean by that is that the act of voting does not mean, in a lot of cases, a democratic process.

At one point in our history voting was restricted to property owners. It would be interesting is we were to restrict voting to only those people who have both reached the age of majority AND PAY TAXES!! Just an interesting thought.

Did you read that link I posted?

phew....I really do not know what you are trying to say above. Anyway, I did just go to the link you provided. From the first paragraph, and what I was talking about.

It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically

Exactly what I was talking about when I said, "democracy is a wonderful thing isn't it?"

The key to this is that we have a Constitution that limits the Government(changeable by amendments) and the division of branches in Government. If we didn't have those two things and someone said, "We are a democracy", they would be correct in the way you are speaking of, and you could not claim to be a republic if those two things were missing.

I know you are all excited to preach to us how we are a Republic and not a Democracy, but my comments did not solicit such a response, it is semantics.

 

[layoutshooter]

phew....I really do not know what you are trying to say above. Anyway, I did just go to the link you provided. From the first paragraph, and what I was talking about.



Exactly what I was talking about when I said, "democracy is a wonderful thing isn't it?"

The key to this is that we have a Constitution that limits the Government(changeable by amendments) and the division of branches in Government. If we didn't have those two things and someone said, "We are a democracy", they would be correct in the way you are speaking of, and you could not claim to be a republic if those two things were missing.

I know you are all excited to preach to us how we are a Republic and not a Democracy, but my comments did not solicit such a response, it is semantics.

Did you read the ENTIRE article? IT is very well written and correct. I was not "preaching" I was stating a fact, a fact that MANY in this country have either not learned or refuse to understand.

We also do not have direct election of the president and do not have direct voting on most issues. We elect reps to handle that.
Too bad so many of those reps these days vote along party lines rather than as their employers, those who's district they represent, want them too. They are not there to vote party agenda, they are there to represent the views of the district.

There is one other legal way to change the Constitution. That is to call for a Constitutional Convention. Too bad our congress ignores that fine document.


Now, I am off to work. So you can pick on me as much as you like!!