The democrats are just devoid of anything resembling intellectual honesty.

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The democrats are just devoid of anything resembling intellectual honesty. (Page 1 of 3)

Posted: 5/19/2005 7:43:48 AM EDT

I just heard on Fox News radio some florida politician (I think he was a senator) saying about Bush's judicial nominees, "The bigger issue here is, should Bush get all the judges he nominated?" I have heard a lot, but that just took the cake.

Does this so-called "person" not realize that we live in America, a democratic republic? It does not matter whether Bush "deserves" to get his judges! It depends on whether the judges get enough votes from the representatives that WE elected to make these decisions!

Furthermore, I thought the democrats were the party who wanted to "count every vote!"

I'm still mind-boggled. I know it's a losing battle, but I can't help but try to figure out what is goeing on in these democrats' heads.

Posted: 5/19/2005 7:49:32 AM EDT

[#1]

Dont try to figure any of them out.
It is pointless, just keep voting and telling others to vote.
Hopefully the Democrat will be an extinct species soon.

Posted: 5/19/2005 7:53:43 AM EDT

[#2]

Did you know we are a Republic, not a Democratic Republic?

Posted: 5/19/2005 7:57:01 AM EDT

[#3]

If the shoe was on the other foot, would you expect the Republicans to rubberstamp or roll over on every nominee from a Democrat President?

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:02:27 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
If the shoe was on the other foot, would you expect the Republicans to rubberstamp or roll over on every nominee from a Democrat President?

They did.

It is called Presidential prerogative and, while your hero Clinton is/was a slime bag, the Republicans gave him enough respect to honor his leftist judicial nominees with a VOTE.

Problem with Democrats is.... they don't believe in Democracy.

-LS

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:02:33 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
If the shoe was on the other foot, would you expect the Republicans to rubberstamp or roll over on every nominee from a Democrat President?

All of slick willies moonbats got a vote.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:02:46 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
If the shoe was on the other foot, would you expect the Republicans to rubberstamp or roll over on every nominee from a Democrat President?

If the Democratic Nominee correctly demonstrated knowledge of the Constitution, and what laws are okay and not okay under the Constitution, I'd say he'd probably make a good judge.
OTOH, if he said ANYthing condoning hate crimes laws (as a reasonable restriction), while also saying that pulling funding from the NEA was an unconstitutional restriction of freedom of speech, I'd hope the Republicans show him the door right that second.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:03:28 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Did you know we are a Republic, not a Democratic Republic?

Democratic republic. Our representatives are elected by the democratic process (pure vote count).

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:05:38 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If the shoe was on the other foot, would you expect the Republicans to rubberstamp or roll over on every nominee from a Democrat President?

All of slick willies moonbats got a vote.

Yup--whooopsie, Boomer, you stepped in it. The country has BTDT and has a bunch of Leftist turds on the Bench to show for it.

How could you forget the 1990's so quickly?

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:06:19 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Dont try to figure any of them out.
It is pointless, just keep voting and telling others to vote.
Hopefully the Democrat will be an extinct species soon.

No, stupid has always been with us. And it always will be.

Further proof that evolution is untrue.

Just look at the Deaniac Democrats. If there was ever living proof that evolution's concept of improvement and adaptation is untrue, they are it.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:07:05 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
If the shoe was on the other foot, would you expect the Republicans to rubberstamp or roll over on every nominee from a Democrat President?

They don't have to confirm them all.

But they damn sure owe them at least a straight up or down vote. The contraversy here is not over the fact that the dems are voting against judges, it is that they are refusing to even allow a vote.

Don't drink the media kool-aid.

Indefinately procedurally denying a bloody vote on a constitutional responsibility of the Senate is just plain temper tantrum. And yet the Dems are spinning the attempt to stop fillibusters of even a VOTE on nominees as some sort of Constitutional crisis.

All the Republicans want is a straight up or down vote on the President's nominees. The dems don't even want to allow a vote because odds are that they would loose the vote.

Just like the Dems. Every vote counts! Unless we will loose, in which case there will be no vote at all!!

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:10:41 AM EDT

[#11]

I don't have all the answers, but I'm ready for the politicians of BOTH parties to start acting like adults. I'm also ready for the Republicans to start acting like they've WON. I don't expect the Dems to agree on everything, but they need to play ball once in awhile. All they are doing now just demonstrates why they are losers. They don't have a message or a plan. Thier only stance seems to be bitching and complaining about President Bush. People get tired of hearing that shit.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:12:15 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Did you know we are a Republic, not a Democratic Republic?

Democratic republic. Our representatives are elected by the democratic process (pure vote count).

<sigh>
If you went through the new definitions, such as the ones you would pull up on the net, you'd come to the conclusion that we are a Democracy, or a Democratic Republic. That's the lie of "living language." In fact, you cast a vote, but that vote does NOT count directly for an office above state level. The electoral college takes the ratio and is supposed to vote accordingly.
In an 1870 textbook I recently read, the US was described as a Federated Republic.
Language evolves because social engineers want it to. Don't be fooled.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:13:28 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
I don't have all the answers, but I'm ready for the politicians of BOTH parties to start acting like adults. I'm also ready for the Republicans to start acting like they've WON.

I would say that using the majority the people of the US gave them to stop the Dems from obstructing a Constitutional right granted to the President that the people elected would be pretty much acting like they won, wouldn't it?

I don't expect the Dems to agree on everything, but they need to play ball once in awhile. All they are doing now just demonstrates why they are losers.

No, in their mind stopping anything Bush likes is winning. They are really that idiotic. Even Clinton figured out you can't play that way and win.

They don't have a message or a plan. Thier only stance seems to be bitching and complaining about President Bush. People get tired of hearing that shit.

I certainly hope you are right.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:16:10 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did you know we are a Republic, not a Democratic Republic?

Democratic republic. Our representatives are elected by the democratic process (pure vote count).
<sigh>
If you went through the new definitions, such as the ones you would pull up on the net, you'd come to the conclusion that we are a Democracy, or a Democratic Republic. That's the lie of "living language." In fact, you cast a vote, but that vote does NOT count directly for an office above state level. The electoral college takes the ratio and is supposed to vote accordingly.
In an 1870 textbook I recently read, the US was described as a Federated Republic.
Language evolves because social engineers want it to. Don't be fooled.

And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands.

In 6th grade a teacher asked me what kind of country we lived in. I said we lived in a Republic. She said I was wrong, that we lived in a Democracy. I told her that SHE was wrong, because the bloody encyclopedia agreed with me. So either the people at Britannica AND the pledge, AND the writings of guys like Jefferson and Madison were wrong, or ms. thing didn't know as much as she thought she did.

And the class?

Social studies.

It is a wonder I ever learned anything true.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:16:17 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did you know we are a Republic, not a Democratic Republic?

Democratic republic. Our representatives are elected by the democratic process (pure vote count).
<sigh>
If you went through the new definitions, such as the ones you would pull up on the net, you'd come to the conclusion that we are a Democracy, or a Democratic Republic. That's the lie of "living language." In fact, you cast a vote, but that vote does NOT count directly for an office above state level. The electoral college takes the ratio and is supposed to vote accordingly.
In an 1870 textbook I recently read, the US was described as a Federated Republic.
Language evolves because social engineers want it to. Don't be fooled.

Wow, Greenhorn, you really need to research the term "Representative Republic." Please.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:19:20 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't have all the answers, but I'm ready for the politicians of BOTH parties to start acting like adults. I'm also ready for the Republicans to start acting like they've WON.

I would say that using the majority the people of the US gave them to stop the Dems from obstructing a Constitutional right granted to the President that the people elected would be pretty much acting like they won, wouldn't it?

The President has the Constitutional Rights of every other Joe Sixpack, no more, no less.
The President DOES have a wide range of Constitutional Powers.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:20:49 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't have all the answers, but I'm ready for the politicians of BOTH parties to start acting like adults. I'm also ready for the Republicans to start acting like they've WON.

I would say that using the majority the people of the US gave them to stop the Dems from obstructing a Constitutional right granted to the President that the people elected would be pretty much acting like they won, wouldn't it?
The President has the Constitutional Rights of every other Joe Sixpack, no more, no less.
The President DOES have a wide range of Constitutional Powers.

Oh, go and blow your nose on a cactus.

You graymar nazis mak lifee no fun.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:21:34 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Wow, Greenhorn, you really need to research the term "Representative Republic." Please.

Would you believe "Representative Republic" is a redundancy?

By definition, a Republic is representative.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:23:22 AM EDT

[#19]

OK, I'm confused. Do we elect our representatives by the electoral vote too? I was under the impression that it was a pure vote.

However, it is certainly true that, for example, the judicial nominees are voted for by a democratic vote. If the judge gets enough votes, he is a judge. We do use the democratic process in this country, as well as the representative system. We have aspects of both that work together. Therefore it is accurate to say "democratic republic."

I fully realize that our country mostly uses the representative system, but our country is not purely a republic.

Give me a proof that we are NOT partially democratic, and I will stop using the term "democratic republic." Until then, stop talking down to me as if I were some ignorant peon.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:23:39 AM EDT

[#20]

Why use honesty when fear and demagoguery will get the job done in a more effective manner?

Hey, it worked for Hitler.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:24:23 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't have all the answers, but I'm ready for the politicians of BOTH parties to start acting like adults. I'm also ready for the Republicans to start acting like they've WON.

I would say that using the majority the people of the US gave them to stop the Dems from obstructing a Constitutional right granted to the President that the people elected would be pretty much acting like they won, wouldn't it?
The President has the Constitutional Rights of every other Joe Sixpack, no more, no less.
The President DOES have a wide range of Constitutional Powers.

Oh, go and blow your nose on a cactus.

You graymar nazis mak lifee no fun.

LOL, I'm not trying to be a grammar nazi, but I see this mistake very often.
NO government entity EVER EVER EVER has rights. Down to the last one, they all have powers. If you are speaking of an individual, he has the same rights every other citizen does.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:24:52 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Wow, Greenhorn, you really need to research the term "Representative Republic." Please.
Would you believe "Representative Republic" is a redundancy?
By definition, a Republic is representative.

Main Entry: re·pub·lic
Pronunciation: ri-'p&-blik
Function: noun
Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public -- more at REAL, PUBLIC
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
2 : a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>
3 : a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the U.S.S.R., or Yugoslavia

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:27:13 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If the shoe was on the other foot, would you expect the Republicans to rubberstamp or roll over on every nominee from a Democrat President?

They did.

It is called Presidential prerogative and, while your hero Clinton is/was a slime bag, the Republicans gave him enough respect to honor his leftist judicial nominees with a VOTE.

Problem with Democrats is.... they don't believe in Democracy.

-LS

Quoted:
All of slick willies moonbats got a vote.

Quoted:
Yup--whooopsie, Boomer, you stepped in it. The country has BTDT and has a bunch of Leftist turds on the Bench to show for it.

How could you forget the 1990's so quickly?

Okay, I know it's the LA Times and all, but I'm starting to think that a mountain is being made out of molehill and some politicians are crying that turnabout is not fair play:

To End Battle Over Judicial Picks, Each Side Must Lay Down Arms

The struggle over President Bush's judicial nominations is degenerating into the equivalent of a Civil War reenactment. Everyone knows his part. Everyone has rehearsed the hostilities. And everyone knows how the battle turns out.

Well, maybe not everyone.

Some Senate Republicans are optimistic that this time they can shatter the Democratic resistance to the most controversial nominees. That's always possible. But it's still not likely unless Republicans execute their threats to change Senate rules to prevent Democrats from filibustering nominees. And that could generate enough hostility in Congress to make the Civil War analogy frighteningly apt.

Rather than escalating the conflict so dangerously, each side would better serve the country by reaching an agreement that breaks the impasse over judges. It's a depressing measure of contemporary Washington that hardly anyone talks about such a compromise.

The first step toward solving the problem is measuring it. Congress has moved efficiently on Bush's nominations for the federal district courts, the lowest rung of the federal court system. In his first term, Bush made 179 district court nominations; Congress confirmed 170 of them.

The tension has come over Bush's appointments to the powerful Circuit Courts of Appeals. Bush nominated 52 appellate court judges in his first term; Congress approved 35 of them. That's prompted the GOP charge that Democrats are abusing the right to advise and consent on presidential appointees.

But Republicans blocked almost exactly as many of President Clinton's nominees. Clinton, during his second term, nominated 51 appellate court judges — and the Republican Senate confirmed 35.

The preferred GOP technique for sinking Clinton nominees was to deny them hearings or a floor vote. Since Democrats don't control committees or the floor schedule, they have been compelled to use the more incendiary weapon of the filibuster to stop the Bush nominees they oppose. But the result has been the same: frustration in the White House and rising bitterness in Congress.

Bush did nothing to lower the temperature last week when he resubmitted 20 nominations for judges the Senate had failed to confirm. Eight of those were district court nominations unlikely to provoke much controversy.

But the others included seven appellate court nominees that Democrats filibustered to stop over the last two years. The rest were appellate court selections whose nominations didn't reach the floor last year but also were likely to face Democratic resistance.

Republicans gained four more Senate seats in November — giving them 55 — and that's raised hopes among some GOP strategists that the party might attract the 60 votes needed to overcome Democratic filibusters. But the odds remain long.

None of the seven resubmitted nominees who were filibustered last year drew more than 54 votes, or support from more than two Democrats. So they would still appear short of the votes needed to end filibusters unless several Democrats relent — which seems unlikely in Capitol Hill's intensely partisan atmosphere.

Facing that prospect, Republicans are threatening Democrats with the "nuclear option" — a change in Senate rules that would effectively bar filibusters on judicial nominations. That would undoubtedly allow Bush to confirm more of his judges — but in a burning-down-the-village-to-save-it kind of way.

Democrats warn they would retaliate with procedural steps to derail the Senate, a meaningful threat in an institution so dependent on unanimous consent to operate. And the rancor would further reduce Bush's odds of attracting Democrats for the rest of his agenda, such as restructuring Social Security.

"The consequences would be apocalyptic," says Rutgers University political scientist Ross Baker.

The root of the problem over judicial nominations is that neither side sees political gain in compromise. Each energizes its electoral base by standing firm. That translates into money and activism for elections in 2006 and beyond. And the White House and Democratic leaders know their most ardent supporters would denounce any compromise as capitulation.

Both sides need a longer view. Democrats genuinely consider the nominees they have blocked to be out of the mainstream. But the republic has survived the appointment of individual judges that either side considered extreme. At this point, it's more important to establish a process that would allow future presidents to reach reasonable agreements with Congress on how to fill vacancies.

The solution may be no more complicated than reviving an idea that might seem quaint in this hyper-partisan era: making a deal.

Bush could quietly review his list of nominees with Senate Democratic leaders, drop a few they consider most objectionable and adopt a small number of choices they prefer (perhaps some of the blocked Clinton nominees).

In return, Democrats would accept the rest of his names. Then the two sides would agree to quietly construct slates for future vacancies that accept the president's predominance but acknowledge Democratic concerns.

Initially, Bush would surely resist that approach as an infringement on presidential prerogatives. But suffering a defeat on every third appellate court nominee hardly invigorates presidential authority.

Many Democrats might denounce such an arrangement as surrender. They might remember that another Democrat will be elected president someday — and will almost certainly face a Senate with enough Republicans to sustain their own filibusters.

Arguments over judicial nominations trace back to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and can never be entirely eliminated. But over the last decade, the rejection of the president's choices has become far too common. Unless both sides take a risk to break the cycle of conflict, Washington will be sentenced to unrelenting and unproductive warfare over the courts.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:27:30 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
OK, I'm confused. Do we elect our representatives by the electoral vote too? I was under the impression that it was a pure vote.

However, it is certainly true that, for example, the judicial nominees are voted for by a democratic vote. If the judge gets enough votes, he is a judge. We do use the democratic process in this country, as well as the representative system. We have aspects of both that work together. Therefore it is accurate to say "democratic republic."

I fully realize that our country mostly uses the representative system, but our country is not purely a republic.

Give me a proof that we are NOT partially democratic, and I will stop using the term "democratic republic." Until then, stop talking down to me as if I were some ignorant peon.

The error of your thinking lies within the definition of "democratic"--which means EVERY single citizen would have to vote on every single issue. We democratically elect our representatives, then THEY vote on our behalf. Democracy was considered briefly and soundly rejected by the Founders as completely unworkable. Ironically, a hundred years later Marx decided it would be just wonderful and called it "Communism"--or something like that.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:28:53 AM EDT

[#25]

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : 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
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

See, I can play the definitions game too.

1 a also applies in some cases.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:31:53 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
OK, I'm confused. Do we elect our representatives by the electoral vote too? I was under the impression that it was a pure vote.

However, it is certainly true that, for example, the judicial nominees are voted for by a democratic vote. If the judge gets enough votes, he is a judge. We do use the democratic process in this country, as well as the representative system. We have aspects of both that work together. Therefore it is accurate to say "democratic republic."

I fully realize that our country mostly uses the representative system, but our country is not purely a republic.

Give me a proof that we are NOT partially democratic, and I will stop using the term "democratic republic." Until then, stop talking down to me as if I were some ignorant peon.

When your representatives vote on something on your behalf, that's not Democracy. That's a Republic.
Here's the mistake: Just because a vote takes place, does NOT make it a Democracy.
It's is WHO is voting WHERE which makes the difference.
You vote for your representatives and they go and vote for a bill. That's a Republic.
You vote for the bill yourself. That's Democracy.
The difference? Whether the business of the country is getting done by the people directly, or whether they are using representatives.
When you vote LOCALLY for a certain measure on the ballot, that's democracy. You are DIRECTLY involved in what happens with the issue.
Conclusion? Locally, we're a democracy, when we vote on an issue. When our representatives, whether elected or appointed, vote on our behalf, we're a Republic.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:31:59 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

The error of your thinking lies within the definition of "democratic"--which means EVERY single citizen would have to vote on every single issue. We democratically elect our representatives, then THEY vote on our behalf. Democracy was considered briefly and soundly rejected by the Founders as completely unworkable. Ironically, a hundred years later Marx decided it would be just wonderful and called it "Communism"--or something like that.

THAT is why we are a democratic republic.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:32:31 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
The error of your thinking lies within the definition of "democratic"--which means EVERY single citizen would have to vote on every single issue. We democratically elect our representatives, then THEY vote on our behalf. Democracy was considered briefly and soundly rejected by the Founders as completely unworkable. Ironically, a hundred years later Marx decided it would be just wonderful and called it "Communism"--or something like that.

So do you disapprove of the initiative and referendum processes that some states utilize?

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:33:33 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:

The error of your thinking lies within the definition of "democratic"--which means EVERY single citizen would have to vote on every single issue. We democratically elect our representatives, then THEY vote on our behalf. Democracy was considered briefly and soundly rejected by the Founders as completely unworkable. Ironically, a hundred years later Marx decided it would be just wonderful and called it "Communism"--or something like that.

THAT is why we are a democratic republic.

Democracy and Republic are mutually exclusive propositions. See my above post.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:35:16 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The error of your thinking lies within the definition of "democratic"--which means EVERY single citizen would have to vote on every single issue. We democratically elect our representatives, then THEY vote on our behalf. Democracy was considered briefly and soundly rejected by the Founders as completely unworkable. Ironically, a hundred years later Marx decided it would be just wonderful and called it "Communism"--or something like that.

So do you disapprove of the initiative and referendum processes that some states utilize?

No, on a local basis I think it's a good thing.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:35:20 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

The error of your thinking lies within the definition of "democratic"--which means EVERY single citizen would have to vote on every single issue. We democratically elect our representatives, then THEY vote on our behalf. Democracy was considered briefly and soundly rejected by the Founders as completely unworkable. Ironically, a hundred years later Marx decided it would be just wonderful and called it "Communism"--or something like that.

THAT is why we are a democratic republic.
Democracy and Republic are mutually exclusive propositions. See my above post.

Yes. I realize that. Apparently you are not understanding me.

We democratically elect our representatives, who then, by definition, use the representative process by the mandate we gave them democratically. I.E. democratic republic.

The democratic and representative process cannot, as you said, be used together, but they can be used separately, and in our country they are.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:36:48 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The error of your thinking lies within the definition of "democratic"--which means EVERY single citizen would have to vote on every single issue. We democratically elect our representatives, then THEY vote on our behalf. Democracy was considered briefly and soundly rejected by the Founders as completely unworkable. Ironically, a hundred years later Marx decided it would be just wonderful and called it "Communism"--or something like that.

So do you disapprove of the initiative and referendum processes that some states utilize?

No, on a local basis I think it's a good thing.

So why would a similar system be bad on a national level?

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:36:54 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:

The error of your thinking lies within the definition of "democratic"--which means EVERY single citizen would have to vote on every single issue. We democratically elect our representatives, then THEY vote on our behalf. Democracy was considered briefly and soundly rejected by the Founders as completely unworkable. Ironically, a hundred years later Marx decided it would be just wonderful and called it "Communism"--or something like that.

THAT is why we are a democratic republic.

No, you are mixing/joining terms that are mutually exclusive. A democratic election is PART of a republican form of government--but the two terms are NOT compatible to be joined together as a form of government. I realize it's nitpicking, but what I'm saying is accurate, I promise.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:37:48 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The error of your thinking lies within the definition of "democratic"--which means EVERY single citizen would have to vote on every single issue. We democratically elect our representatives, then THEY vote on our behalf. Democracy was considered briefly and soundly rejected by the Founders as completely unworkable. Ironically, a hundred years later Marx decided it would be just wonderful and called it "Communism"--or something like that.

So do you disapprove of the initiative and referendum processes that some states utilize?

No, on a local basis I think it's a good thing.

So why would a similar system be bad on a national level?

It has been called "mob rule" and would leave the minority on any issue completely without a voice or recourse. Bad juju that.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:39:06 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

The error of your thinking lies within the definition of "democratic"--which means EVERY single citizen would have to vote on every single issue. We democratically elect our representatives, then THEY vote on our behalf. Democracy was considered briefly and soundly rejected by the Founders as completely unworkable. Ironically, a hundred years later Marx decided it would be just wonderful and called it "Communism"--or something like that.

THAT is why we are a democratic republic.
Democracy and Republic are mutually exclusive propositions. See my above post.

Yes. I realize that. Apparently you are not understanding me.

We democratically elect our representatives, who then, by definition, use the representative process by the mandate we gave them democratically. I.E. democratic republic.

I'm understanding you perfectly. I'm telling you you're wrong

What makes the difference in a Democracy or Republic is who is voting for the ISSUES, and where.
You've cast a vote for a representative. Representatives can be elected or appointed. If one is elected, that doesn't mean we're a democracy.
As beekeep stated, it can be stated that they were democratically elected, but that doesn't mean we're a democracy.
Who votes for the ISSUES makes the difference.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:39:37 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
No, you are mixing/joining terms that are mutually exclusive. A democratic election is PART of a republican form of government--but the two terms are NOT compatible to be joined together as a form of government. I realize it's nitpicking, but what I'm saying is accurate, I promise.

It seems quite simple to me. We use the democratic process as part of our government. How can you then say that our country is not partially democratic?

Democracy: 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

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:41:50 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
No, you are mixing/joining terms that are mutually exclusive. A democratic election is PART of a republican form of government--but the two terms are NOT compatible to be joined together as a form of government. I realize it's nitpicking, but what I'm saying is accurate, I promise.

It seems quite simple to me. We use the democratic process as part of our government. How can you then say that our country is not partially democratic?

Democracy: 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

Remember, that's the NEW definition. It used to be that directly made it a Democracy and indirectly made it a Republic.
Thus, the lie of living language.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:42:07 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The error of your thinking lies within the definition of "democratic"--which means EVERY single citizen would have to vote on every single issue. We democratically elect our representatives, then THEY vote on our behalf. Democracy was considered briefly and soundly rejected by the Founders as completely unworkable. Ironically, a hundred years later Marx decided it would be just wonderful and called it "Communism"--or something like that.

So do you disapprove of the initiative and referendum processes that some states utilize?

No, on a local basis I think it's a good thing.

So why would a similar system be bad on a national level?

It has been called "mob rule" and would leave the minority on any issue completely without a voice or recourse. Bad juju that.

I guess I just don't understand why "mob rule" is okay on a local basis but not a national one, especially given how powerful and influential the federal government has come to be in our individual lives. There are already checks and balances in current initiative and referendum processes that keep the minority far from being completely without voice or recourse.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:42:51 AM EDT

[#39]

Oh well, we disagree on the terms, but we both have the same understanding on how our government works, and this isn't the point of the post. Let's just drop it.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:44:11 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The error of your thinking lies within the definition of "democratic"--which means EVERY single citizen would have to vote on every single issue. We democratically elect our representatives, then THEY vote on our behalf. Democracy was considered briefly and soundly rejected by the Founders as completely unworkable. Ironically, a hundred years later Marx decided it would be just wonderful and called it "Communism"--or something like that.

So do you disapprove of the initiative and referendum processes that some states utilize?

No, on a local basis I think it's a good thing.

So why would a similar system be bad on a national level?

It has been called "mob rule" and would leave the minority on any issue completely without a voice or recourse. Bad juju that.

I guess I just don't understand why "mob rule" is okay on a local basis but not a national one, especially given how powerful and influential the federal government has come to be in our individual lives. There are already checks and balances in current initiative and referendum processes that keep the minority far from being completely without voice or recourse.

Because it isn't mob rule on a local level. If your crowd is small enough, you can't have enough screamers to turn it into a mob. You can't have enough followers to be whipped into a frenzy.
In a small enough group, the screamers just get ignored or cast out.

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:45:08 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Okay, I know it's the LA Times and all,

Should have known enough to stop right there.

That is what is called lying by omission.

What they are NOT telling you is the details. NO judicial nominee was blocked via filibuster. Some did not make it out of committee; others were voted down in honest Senatorial floor voting just as it is spelled out in the Constitution.

Democrats, specifically the Pelocie(sp?), Kennedy, Kerry, ultraliberal whack jobs, are forcing a supermajority requirement to call a vote on Presidential judicial nominees. Something that has never been done before, if for no other reason, out of respect for the office of the President and his authority to nominate at his choice as directed by (can you say it?)…. THE CONSTITUTION.

CommuRats have no respect for President Bush.

It is that simple.

Is the Constitution a molehill?

-LS

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:46:05 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Oh well, we disagree on the terms, but we both have the same understanding on how our government works, and this isn't the point of the post. Let's just drop it.

Of course its the point.
Lets say, 10 years down the road, you get hazy on the exact definitions, and they convince you that its a good idea to disband the electoral college, citing the superior morality of the one man one vote idea, and calling a return to the true idea of "Democratic Republic".
Would you buy it?

Posted: 5/19/2005 8:52:18 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh well, we disagree on the terms, but we both have the same understanding on how our government works, and this isn't the point of the post. Let's just drop it.
Of course its the point.
Lets say, 10 years down the road, you get hazy on the exact definitions, and they convince you that its a good idea to disband the electoral college, citing the superior morality of the one man one vote idea, and calling a return to the true idea of "Democratic Republic".
Would you buy it?

That was discussed at length last November (just after the election) by none other than Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. God save us from the likes of her.

This will come up more and more if the Democrats/Communists/Liberals keep losing elections.

Posted: 5/19/2005 9:19:55 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Okay, I know it's the LA Times and all,

Should have known enough to stop right there.

That is what is called lying by omission.

What they are NOT telling you is the details. NO judicial nominee was blocked via filibuster. Some did not make it out of committee; others were voted down in honest Senatorial floor voting just as it is spelled out in the Constitution.

Apparently you did stop right there.

Is this lying by omission?

The preferred GOP technique for sinking Clinton nominees was to deny them hearings or a floor vote. Since Democrats don't control committees or the floor schedule, they have been compelled to use the more incendiary weapon of the filibuster to stop the Bush nominees they oppose. But the result has been the same: frustration in the White House and rising bitterness in Congress.

Looks to me like the end result is the same. I guess it's okay to use some procedures but not others?

Posted: 5/19/2005 9:24:25 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I guess I just don't understand why "mob rule" is okay on a local basis but not a national one, especially given how powerful and influential the federal government has come to be in our individual lives. There are already checks and balances in current initiative and referendum processes that keep the minority far from being completely without voice or recourse.

Because it isn't mob rule on a local level. If your crowd is small enough, you can't have enough screamers to turn it into a mob. You can't have enough followers to be whipped into a frenzy.
In a small enough group, the screamers just get ignored or cast out.

So how is that different on a national level? How do the "screamers and their followers" magically gain a larger percentage of the population on a national level?

Posted: 5/19/2005 9:36:28 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Is this lying by omission?

The preferred GOP technique for sinking Clinton nominees was to deny them hearings or a floor vote. Since Democrats don't control committees or the floor schedule, they have been compelled to use the more incendiary weapon of the filibuster to stop the Bush nominees they oppose. But the result has been the same: frustration in the White House and rising bitterness in Congress.

Looks to me like the end result is the same. I guess it's okay to use some procedures but not others?

The same?

If you don't know the difference between filibuster and committee politics, I can't help you.

"to deny them hearings or a floor vote"

That statement is vague in HOW they were denied these. If they were voted down in BIPARTISAN committee, it could still be described as "deny floor vote" and the description is still accurate and the system still worked as designed.

That is the lie of omission. No details. Simple generalizations made to look like details.

Again, NO FILIBUSTER HAS EVER BEEN USED..... EVER to deny judicial nominees.

-LS

Posted: 5/19/2005 9:40:44 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Is this lying by omission?

The preferred GOP technique for sinking Clinton nominees was to deny them hearings or a floor vote. Since Democrats don't control committees or the floor schedule, they have been compelled to use the more incendiary weapon of the filibuster to stop the Bush nominees they oppose. But the result has been the same: frustration in the White House and rising bitterness in Congress.

Looks to me like the end result is the same. I guess it's okay to use some procedures but not others?

The same?

If you don't know the difference between filibuster and committee politics, I can't help you.

"to deny them hearings or a floor vote"

That statement is vague in HOW they were denied these. If they were voted down in BIPARTISAN committee, it could still be described as "deny floor vote" and the description is still accurate and the system still worked as designed.

That is the lie of omission. No details. Simple generalizations made to look like details.

Again, NO FILIBUSTER HAS EVER BEEN USED..... EVER to deny judicial nominees.

-LS

Exactly--voted down in committee falls under the Constitutional perogative of "advice and consent." The people's will is implemented differently depending upon what majorities the people have elected. The important distinction is to have a VOTE to determine the fate of nominees--THAT is the essence of "advice and consent."

Posted: 5/19/2005 9:43:17 AM EDT

[#48]

did anyone listen to Boortz this morning? The Dems are whining about "The Rights of the Minority" now.....meaning, they want their (minority) votes to carry more weight than the majority.

WTF?!?

Posted: 5/19/2005 9:44:39 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
It is pointless,

just like half the threads here...

Posted: 5/19/2005 9:50:07 AM EDT

[#50]

"...[Senate Democrats will] continue to resist any Neanderthal, that is nominated by this president of the United States for any federal court in the United States."
~ Ted Kennedy, November 14, 2003, explaining why Democrats were filibustering Janice Rogers Brown that day. A Lexis-Nexis search two days later showed that Kennedy's remark has been covered by just three newspapers nationwide.

This is who Kennedy called a "Neanderthal":

So much for standing up for Blacks and women.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The democrats are just devoid of anything resembling intellectual honesty. (Page 1 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us