XPost: talk.politics.drugs, talk.politics.guns, alt.current-events.usa   
   XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.republican   
   XPost: alt.politics.bush, alt.law-enforcement   
      
   Steve Krulick  wrote:   
      
   >Allan Lindsay-O'Neal wrote:   
   >>   
   >> "ulTRAX"  wrote in message   
   >> news:3513d8b1.0312122057.6d712b56@posting.google.com...   
   >>   
   >> > TRANSLATION: The US Constitution is anti-democratic...   
   >>   
   >> CLARIFICATION:  We don't live in a "democracy".  We live in a   
   >> "Constitutional Republic". If you don't know the difference, then shut up.   
   >   
   >   
   >Madison, in the Federalist (14) draws a distinction between a   
   >republic and a "true" or "pure" democracy: "It is, that in a   
   >democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in   
   >person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their   
   >representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be   
   >confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a   
   >large region... As the natural limit of a democracy is that   
   >distance from the central point which will just permit the most   
   >remote citizens to assemble as often as their public functions   
   >demand, and will include no greater number than can join in   
   >those functions."   
   >   
   >That being said, democracy IS currently defined as:   
   >"a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people   
   >and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of   
   >representation usually involving periodically held free   
   >elections."   
   >   
   >That is certainly broader than Madison's "true" democracy, but   
   >certain trolls and disingenuous obfuscators wish to ignore how   
   >words are actually used in context, but, like Humpty Dumpty, use   
   >words just as they want to use them, even defining OTHER persons   
   >idiosyncratically.   
   >   
   >Is this the old "We're a REPUBLIC, NOT a DEMOCRACY!" wheeze?   
   >   
   >If so, ObiRush has brainwashed you well, young Jedi!   
   >   
   >Here's another one: "Dubya is a husband, not a father." One   
   >more: "Ice Cream is a dessert, not a food."   
   >   
   >See the way this works... say that something is one thing, and   
   >therefore can't be something else. Now, maybe this can work in   
   >clearly mutually exclusionary cases -- "Steve is a boy, not a   
   >girl" -- but that isn't always so.   
   >   
   >We live in a constitutional representative democratic republic.   
   >We live in a republican democracy.   
   >   
   >Why don't we see what the dictionaries say:   
   >   
   >Democracy:   
   >   
   >Merriam-Webster New Collegiate: 1b) a government in which the   
   >supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them   
   >directly or indirectly through a system of representation usu.   
   >involving periodically held free elections.   
   >   
   >American Heritage Dictionary: 1) Government by the people,   
   >exercised either directly or through elected representatives.   
   >   
   >Let's see what Dubya said at his Inaugurauction:   
   >   
   >"Through much of the last century, America's faith in freedom   
   >and democracy was a rock in a raging sea. Now it is a seed upon   
   >the wind, taking root in many nations. Our democratic faith is   
   >more than the creed of our country. It is the in-born hope of   
   >our humanity, an ideal we carry but do not own, a trust we bear   
   >and pass along... The most important tasks of a democracy are   
   >done by everyone..."   
   >   
   >Personally, I think he's bloviating; and since the majority of   
   >voters did NOT vote for him, but he claims to be Prez in spite   
   >of that, I think he should be restricted from using the word   
   >"democracy," and have his knuckles rapped each time he utters   
   >the sacred meme.   
   >   
   >How about another prez, Ike, at his farewell from office?:   
   >   
   >"In the councils of government, we must guard against the   
   >acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or   
   >unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for   
   >the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.   
   >We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our   
   >liberties or democratic processes...  It is the task of   
   >statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and   
   >other forces, new and old, within the principles of our   
   >democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our   
   >free society... We want democracy to survive for all generations   
   >to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow..."   
   >   
   >I could go on and on with speeches from US presidents and   
   >from public documents going back over two hundred years, all   
   >matter-of-factly referring to the US as a democracy, indeed, the   
   >world's oldest continuous democracy. (What do you think   
   >Jefferson and his colleagues were thinking when they called   
   >their political party "Democrat-Republican"?)   
   >   
   >Trent Lott called Sen. Jeffords move to independence: "... the   
   >impetuous decision of one man to undermine our democracy!" OUR   
   >democracy? What do you think he was talking about? Is Lott   
   >standing at the head of some mob rule tyranny of the masses we   
   >never realized? Does he really believe in direct voting on   
   >legislation by the mob? Or was he just posturing and bloviating   
   >like Bush?   
   >   
   >Do YOU want to adhere to some musty and narrow Aristotelian   
   >equation that makes democracy = mob rule = tyranny of the   
   >masses?   
   >   
   >I will only accept people using Aristotle's narrow definition of   
   >democracy (mob rule! tyranny of the masses!) if they can explain   
   >it in original Greek!   
   >   
   >Are you a strict Aristotelian who can't abide standard usage of   
   >words as they've been used for over two hundred years? To quote   
   >fellow poster mahabarbara:   
   >   
   >> Yes, the United States is an indirect or representative democracy,   
   >> which is a type of democracy.   
   >>   
   >> The United States is NOT a pure or direct democracy, which is another   
   >> type of democracy.   
   >>   
   >> Tell me ... where did all this hysteria about "democracy" come from?   
   >> It's true the Founding Fathers (who were, after all, a pack of 18th   
   >> century aristocrats) didn't use the word much, but since about the   
   >> 1820s people commonly referred to the United States as a democracy,   
   >> understanding "democracy" to mean what it literally means -- rule of   
   >> the people. We've managed to limp along all these years like that.   
   >> What's the deal?   
   >   
   >Indeed, here's some commentary from the First Congress, 1789,   
   >during debates over the 1st Amen:   
   >   
   >GALES & SEATON'S HISTORY OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS   
   >761-762 / 771-772   
   >August 15, 1789   Amendments to the Constitution   
   >   
   >Mr. Page: ... The gentleman from Pennsylvania tells you, that in   
   >England this principle is doubted; how far this is consonant   
   >with the nature of the Government I will not pretend to say; but   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)