Can the Republic be saved?

[mydoghasfleas]

Lol, beat me to it. Euro is on it's way out...

If they can prop it up long enough the Amero will follow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wCdULj6fOQ&feature=related

 

[traderdan]

The redistribution of wealth has taught the sheeple that industry is not essential to comfort,we trade every day with fake money that is worthless unless people continue to believe it is valuable....The idea that one should be self-reliant is almost gone....The rule of law has been ignored (Our Constitution)....

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think the first thing we have to do is define republic and democracy. Your definitions are wrong.

From dictionary.com, Republic is defined as:

1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.

3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

And Democracy:

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

All Republics are Democracies. Democracies may or may not be Republics. The United States is a Democracy and a Republic. Great Britian is a Democracy but not a Republic.

We get too hung up on these two words, and this poll (and thread) further muddle the issue and present the wrong question. The correct question is:

Can the United States return the Federal Government to its limited role of governance as envisioned by the Founders?

The answer is no. There are too many stakeholders that will not allow it. Elected officials who wield power through collection of taxes and distribution of money to constituents. Federal bureaucracies that have wrested legislative authority from Congress have become self supporting entities. The Bureaucrats who run them. The employees who work for them. The corporations that sell products and services to them. The people who receive benefits from them. I could go on, but it is pointless.

Who is the problem? It's not just selfish people on the government dole as you suggest. Do you work for any level of government? You're part of the problem. Do you work for a company that provides a product or service to the government? You're part of the problem. Do you work in an industry that is subsidized by the government? You're part of the problem. Do you work in an industry that is regulated by the government? You're part of the problem. Do you receive government benefits? You're part of the problem. Do you use any services provided by the government? You're part of the problem.

Is there anyone left? Nope. Everyone is part of the problem.

So what happens if there are cuts in government spending? Cut the Ethonol subsidies and gas prices go up and corn prices go down. Hurts everyone. Cut defense spending and the entire economy collapses because of the number of people that work in or supply the defense industry. Cut social benefits and you also cut the jobs of people that work in for profit and non-profit organizations that administer the benefits.

Again, I could go on an on with the list of unintended consequences as a result of cuts made to federal budgets and programs. "Just cut them" is not a serious response to a serious problem. It will take years, if not generations, to unravel the damage that has been done. The clock will not begin until everyone (not just some) decides that a reversal is needed.

I disagree absolutely! This entry is a fine example of the horsesh*t passing for 'fact' these days and the reason our public school students are hopeless ignorant. Anyone who has studies the greek democracies and the Roman republic knows better than this tripe. James Madison remarked that democracy is the most vile form of government, while obviously not considering the republic vile. Ben Franklin said that Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. Do you really think that the man who was one of the prime participants in the Constitutional Convention would be so ignorant as to say such a thing while estqablishing a republic not realizing that the two are supposedly the same thing?

The moron who wrote that definition you quoted is exactly that and apparently flunked history.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I disagree absolutely! This entry is a fine example of the horsesh*t passing for 'fact' these days and the reason our public school students are hopeless ignorant. Anyone who has studies the greek democracies and the Roman republic knows better than this tripe. James Madison remarked that democracy is the most vile form of government, while obviously not considering the republic vile. Ben Franklin said that Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. Do you really think that the man who was one of the prime participants in the Constitutional Convention would be so ignorant as to say such a thing while estqablishing a republic not realizing that the two are supposedly the same thing?

The moron who wrote that definition you quoted is exactly that and apparently flunked history.

You can disagree all you like, and quote all the pull quotes as well. The point remains you're wrong.

You speak of Greece as if it were a country. It wasn't. It was an empire of city states, the most powerful being at Athens. The Greeks at Athens was a democracy. It was also a Republic, as it lacked a monarch or dictator. Few other city states followed the Athenian lead - they had kings, dictators, and other rulers. None of the city states liked each other, and the only came together to trade and war against the Persians.

Rome was part of the Greek empire, a Greek city state that rose to power at the decline of Athens and Roman victory at Corinth. Rome was off and on a Republic, moving between Senate rule and dictatorship by the Ceasars. In fact Rome was a Democratic Monarchy betwoon 750 and 500 BC. Roman citizens elected a monarch who ruled for life.

Being a Republic has not one iota of common ground with being a limited government. I'd like to know where you get that from, in something other than pull quote form. The Founders, who at first wanted to establish a Monarchy with George Washington as King, guaranteed in the Constitution there would be no monarch, nothing more.

I share your sentiment about limited government, but to claim the Republic good and Democracy bad is just plain silly. They are one in the same.

 

[churchmouse]

Not saying a word, just reading and learning...

 

[Cerberus]

^^^This. There's little functional difference between republicanism and democracy. Both are rule by the masses.

Actually a republic is far different that a democracy. In their true forms one is the rule of law the other is rule of the mob.

 

[J_Wales]

Actually a republic is far different that a democracy. In their true forms one is the rule of law the other is rule of the mob.

Exactly correct.

 

[Pocketman]

Actually a republic is far different that a democracy. In their true forms one is the rule of law the other is rule of the mob.

Hard to distinguish between a mob and Congress. It's also increasingly more difficult to find the rule of law in Washington. Therefore, is the above definition absolute? (I started this as tongue in cheek / purple, but while I was typing, it seems too close to the truth.)

 

[Project972]

I refer you to the Canada Free Press.

 

[Cerberus]

Rome was part of the Greek empire, a Greek city state that rose to power at the decline of Athens and Roman victory at Corinth. Rome was off and on a Republic, moving between Senate rule and dictatorship by the Ceasars. In fact Rome was a Democratic Monarchy betwoon 750 and 500 BC. Roman citizens elected a monarch who ruled for life.

The Romans expelled their last king in 509 BC and at that time established the Res Publica, "the peoples thing" and forbid any one from ever being a king again. This arangement lasted, imperfectly, until 27 BC.

Being a Republic has not one iota of common ground with being a limited government. I'd like to know where you get that from, in something other than pull quote form. The Founders, who at first wanted to establish a Monarchy with George Washington as King, guaranteed in the Constitution there would be no monarch, nothing more.

You are only partialy correct. Res Publica was formed to hold all accountable to the law, not just the commoners.
I share your sentiment about limited government, but to claim the Republic good and Democracy bad is just plain silly. They are one in the same.

They are indeed completely different. Nothing emotional here, just reality.

.

 

[Cerberus]

Hard to distinguish between a mob and Congress. It's also increasingly more difficult to find the rule of law in Washington. Therefore, is the above definition absolute? (I started this as tongue in cheek / purple, but while I was typing, it seems too close to the truth.)

Oh, I do agree with you. Just stating that in all truthfulness there are vast differences between republic and democracy.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

****ing cowards.

 

[techres]

Wether it survives or fails, there sure will be a lot of people watching it happen one way or another from the sidelines.

Be it sitting on a couch watching TV or huddling in an ammo bunker reloading while watching Alex Jones, it is all the same thing.

Watching.

History belongs to those who acted. The watchers, at best, wrote down what they did - but most just sat by while the future was won or lost.

I prefer to act.

At least then I can tell my children and my maker that I tried.

They will appreciate that more than 50,000 rounds of reloaded 9mm that they have no place to shoot, no one to shoot it with, and no place to keep it other than at the police station when they turn it in for a free $200 gas card on buy back day.

Get up, get out, get involved.

And for those that are, but still feel it is a waste, I understand the emotion but all we have is one life to run as fast as we can to the end line. You might not win, but you just might.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

The Founders, who at first wanted to establish a Monarchy with George Washington as King, guaranteed in the Constitution there would be no monarch, nothing more.

I share your sentiment about limited government, but to claim the Republic good and Democracy bad is just plain silly. They are one in the same.

The only person that really pushed for a King was Hamilton. He had the complete opposite view of the majority of the founders. If you read the federalist papers you will see Hamiltons view of what he intended government to be. It is the book the big government pushers of today often try to quote and then claim it strait from the mouths of the founding fathers or say it is original intent. His view of government is what we have now. It is the stroussian republicans wet dream. Expanding the feds power, central banking and spreading Americas "good" all over the world.

The Jeffersonian view was the opposite of this.

If you read the Anti-federalist papers you will see what Patric Henry had to say in response to Hamilton and what he saidthe constitution would lead to (the constitution as written) and Patric Henry was right. It has lead us down a path of tyranny and the loss of states rights which is exactly what he said it would do.

Hamilton is the "founding father" the left usually quotes because he was a statist and not a man of the people. I for one am glad Aaron Burr was a better shot than him.

 

[J_Wales]

Wether it survives or fails, there sure will be a lot of people watching it happen one way or another from the sidelines.

Be it sitting on a couch watching TV or huddling in an ammo bunker reloading while watching Alex Jones, it is all the same thing.

Watching.

History belongs to those who acted. The watchers, at best, wrote down what they did - but most just sat by while the future was won or lost.

I prefer to act.

At least then I can tell my children and my maker that I tried.

They will appreciate that more than 50,000 rounds of reloaded 9mm that they have no place to shoot, no one to shoot it with, and no place to keep it other than at the police station when they turn it in for a free $200 gas card on buy back day.

Get up, get out, get involved.

And for those that are, but still feel it is a waste, I understand the emotion but all we have is one life to run as fast as we can to the end line. You might not win, but you just might.

My greater concern resides with the well being of Liberty than it does with the republic. I assure you, I am not sitting on the sidelines watching now.... and when push comes to shove the last place you will find me is on the sidelines.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I am for peace with decent people.

 

[techres]

JW,

I hope you are active now because when push comes to shove it will be too late. For most of the ammo hoarders (of which I am one), when push comes to shove, the ammo will just go to the winner or rot in the basement while the owner rots in jail.

I also am in no way convinced that those who find the current system too hard, worthless, or otherwise unsure - that those same people will suddenly have the strength, assuredness, and internal vision to do anything at all "when it goes to pot".

I have my suspicions about what they will actually do and it will be less than they are doing now.

Don't take that personal, just a general statement of observation.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I voted no. The system has to completely fail and be restarted much like a computer that has gotten a virus. It needs to crash so hard that it needs to be formatted and everything reloaded.

 

[hornadylnl]

JW,

I hope you are active now because when push comes to shove it will be too late. For most of the ammo hoarders (of which I am one), when push comes to shove, the ammo will just go to the winner or rot in the basement while the owner rots in jail.

I also am in no way convinced that those who find the current system too hard, worthless, or otherwise unsure - that those same people will suddenly have the strength, assuredness, and internal vision to do anything at all "when it goes to pot".

I have my suspicions about what they will actually do and it will be less than they are doing now.

Don't take that personal, just a general statement of observation.

Are you fighting to preserve this country so you can continue to coexist with the very people who caused this mess? Do you think they will see the error of their ways and start promoting liberty?

I'm not shedding my blood so that tyrants can continue to rule over me. I'm not shedding my blood for the neighbor who wants to control my property. No amount of war is going to beat the petty tyrant out of a person. It's in their DNA.

 

[techres]

hornadylnl,

I am spending my sweat, time & $ in bringing normal Americans around to new experiences and new ways of thinking. My ammo hoard now goes to other people and my rifles get thousands of rounds down range constantly at the hands of others than me.

Each gets a new moment, a new experience, and a new way to think. Sorry you think tyrrany is the DNA of Americans. Personally, I have found it to be liberty but they do not know it yet.

And tossing up our hands and giving up is no way to win. It is only a gauranteed way to lose.

As for who am I fighting for?

My children, my children's children and so on. To secure their future I have to win over their neighbors and their neighbor's children and so on. Without them all I can tell my children to do is take their ball and bat and go home to complain about how bad things are and wait for others to make the future in their absence.

Am I fighting for the republic? Yes. Because it is the best way we can secure all our futures. Secede? Yeah, that worked well before and will work worse now. Guess what? Being an island of one is an easy way to get taken over by many.

Either fight for a better future, or wait for the inevitable end.

You pick.