100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: QUESTION | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 06/04/12 11:44 AM
|
|
RESPONSIBILITY is key we are RESPONSIBLE for the choices we make we SHARE responsibility (on some level) for the outcome of the choice That is the problem with a "democracy" and why the founders gave us a REPUBLIC....as long as we can keep it. That is why Obozo and the dems, Robme and the GOP, are trying to keep RP out of the picture! democracy 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 republic 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 I dont see a major difference there or the relevance to the post about responsibility,,,,, In a democracy, majority (or money) rules! Republic, even the smallest person has a say! how do you come by that interpretation? under what circumstances, political or otherwise, in a capitalist society is money not going to be some significant part of the bottom line? That's where the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights come in....and courts... When ALL are followed, EVERYONE has a say, regardless of power or money! That's why we have an appeals system! In a democracy, such things would not exist as the majority would be the final rule! http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm fallacy as well the courts are one place especially where money will talk lawyers invest years in education and their time cost money the better lawyers cost more money better lawyers get better results so that still makes MONEY pretty significant in the grand scheme of things,,,, the d of I is so VAGUELY worded as to be but putty for the elite to play with and the constitution itself, as I have stated before, was written in times when 'all men' were not equal ,,,,, these three documents are not INFALLIBLE and not a magic cure for all that ails american humans,,,, uhmmmmmmm.... I think that's called corruption that you are condoning...... I am not condoning nor condeming anything Im pointing out the fallacy that the courts and the declaration and constitution would give us ALL any more say than what we already have and that MONEY(or its significance( would be out of the equation if we had some strict adherence to these three things - No society can make a perpetual Constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please during their usufruct. They are masters, too, of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The Constitution and laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every Constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer it is an act of force and not of right. HOW about term limits on constitutions? or at least a 'democratic' review period every so often where the majority can have a 'say' in what parts they wish to keep, toss, or revise,,,,,? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Mon 06/04/12 12:46 PM
|
|
RESPONSIBILITY is key we are RESPONSIBLE for the choices we make we SHARE responsibility (on some level) for the outcome of the choice That is the problem with a "democracy" and why the founders gave us a REPUBLIC....as long as we can keep it. That is why Obozo and the dems, Robme and the GOP, are trying to keep RP out of the picture! democracy 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 republic 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 I dont see a major difference there or the relevance to the post about responsibility,,,,, In a democracy, majority (or money) rules! Republic, even the smallest person has a say! how do you come by that interpretation? under what circumstances, political or otherwise, in a capitalist society is money not going to be some significant part of the bottom line? That's where the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights come in....and courts... When ALL are followed, EVERYONE has a say, regardless of power or money! That's why we have an appeals system! In a democracy, such things would not exist as the majority would be the final rule! http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm fallacy as well the courts are one place especially where money will talk lawyers invest years in education and their time cost money the better lawyers cost more money better lawyers get better results so that still makes MONEY pretty significant in the grand scheme of things,,,, the d of I is so VAGUELY worded as to be but putty for the elite to play with and the constitution itself, as I have stated before, was written in times when 'all men' were not equal ,,,,, these three documents are not INFALLIBLE and not a magic cure for all that ails american humans,,,, uhmmmmmmm.... I think that's called corruption that you are condoning...... I am not condoning nor condeming anything Im pointing out the fallacy that the courts and the declaration and constitution would give us ALL any more say than what we already have and that MONEY(or its significance( would be out of the equation if we had some strict adherence to these three things - No society can make a perpetual Constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please during their usufruct. They are masters, too, of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The Constitution and laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every Constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer it is an act of force and not of right. HOW about term limits on constitutions? or at least a 'democratic' review period every so often where the majority can have a 'say' in what parts they wish to keep, toss, or revise,,,,,? Like Obozo....just change it to fit what you want to get away with? Because NOBODY can be trusted to act in the peoples behalf, how about you just leave OUR constitution or any other founding documents the phuck alone! That way we don't have to worry about which corrupt this or that is influencing it! Hitlers, or Obozos, idea of a perfect constitution may not fit into mine or vice-versa! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RESPONSIBILITY is key we are RESPONSIBLE for the choices we make we SHARE responsibility (on some level) for the outcome of the choice That is the problem with a "democracy" and why the founders gave us a REPUBLIC....as long as we can keep it. That is why Obozo and the dems, Robme and the GOP, are trying to keep RP out of the picture! democracy 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 republic 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 I dont see a major difference there or the relevance to the post about responsibility,,,,, In a democracy, majority (or money) rules! Republic, even the smallest person has a say! how do you come by that interpretation? under what circumstances, political or otherwise, in a capitalist society is money not going to be some significant part of the bottom line? That's where the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights come in....and courts... When ALL are followed, EVERYONE has a say, regardless of power or money! That's why we have an appeals system! In a democracy, such things would not exist as the majority would be the final rule! http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm fallacy as well the courts are one place especially where money will talk lawyers invest years in education and their time cost money the better lawyers cost more money better lawyers get better results so that still makes MONEY pretty significant in the grand scheme of things,,,, the d of I is so VAGUELY worded as to be but putty for the elite to play with and the constitution itself, as I have stated before, was written in times when 'all men' were not equal ,,,,, these three documents are not INFALLIBLE and not a magic cure for all that ails american humans,,,, uhmmmmmmm.... I think that's called corruption that you are condoning...... I am not condoning nor condeming anything Im pointing out the fallacy that the courts and the declaration and constitution would give us ALL any more say than what we already have and that MONEY(or its significance( would be out of the equation if we had some strict adherence to these three things - No society can make a perpetual Constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please during their usufruct. They are masters, too, of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The Constitution and laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every Constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer it is an act of force and not of right. HOW about term limits on constitutions? or at least a 'democratic' review period every so often where the majority can have a 'say' in what parts they wish to keep, toss, or revise,,,,,? Like Obozo....just change it to fit what you want to get away with? Because NOBODY can be trusted to act in the peoples behalf, how about you just leave OUR constitution or any other founding documents the phuck alone! That way we don't have to worry about which corrupt this or that is influencing it! Hitlers, or Obozos, idea of a perfect constitution may not fit into mine or vice-versa! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a document that offers protections is ignored, do not place the blame on the document for the outcomes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RESPONSIBILITY is key we are RESPONSIBLE for the choices we make we SHARE responsibility (on some level) for the outcome of the choice That is the problem with a "democracy" and why the founders gave us a REPUBLIC....as long as we can keep it. That is why Obozo and the dems, Robme and the GOP, are trying to keep RP out of the picture! democracy 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 republic 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 I dont see a major difference there or the relevance to the post about responsibility,,,,, In a democracy, majority (or money) rules! Republic, even the smallest person has a say! how do you come by that interpretation? under what circumstances, political or otherwise, in a capitalist society is money not going to be some significant part of the bottom line? That's where the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights come in....and courts... When ALL are followed, EVERYONE has a say, regardless of power or money! That's why we have an appeals system! In a democracy, such things would not exist as the majority would be the final rule! http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm fallacy as well the courts are one place especially where money will talk lawyers invest years in education and their time cost money the better lawyers cost more money better lawyers get better results so that still makes MONEY pretty significant in the grand scheme of things,,,, the d of I is so VAGUELY worded as to be but putty for the elite to play with and the constitution itself, as I have stated before, was written in times when 'all men' were not equal ,,,,, these three documents are not INFALLIBLE and not a magic cure for all that ails american humans,,,, uhmmmmmmm.... I think that's called corruption that you are condoning...... I am not condoning nor condeming anything Im pointing out the fallacy that the courts and the declaration and constitution would give us ALL any more say than what we already have and that MONEY(or its significance( would be out of the equation if we had some strict adherence to these three things - No society can make a perpetual Constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please during their usufruct. They are masters, too, of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The Constitution and laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every Constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer it is an act of force and not of right. HOW about term limits on constitutions? or at least a 'democratic' review period every so often where the majority can have a 'say' in what parts they wish to keep, toss, or revise,,,,,? Like Obozo....just change it to fit what you want to get away with? Because NOBODY can be trusted to act in the peoples behalf, how about you just leave OUR constitution or any other founding documents the phuck alone! That way we don't have to worry about which corrupt this or that is influencing it! Hitlers, or Obozos, idea of a perfect constitution may not fit into mine or vice-versa! actually like Thomas Jefforson, who is responsible for the quote cited regarding the longevity of a constitutions application,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a document that offers protections is ignored, do not place the blame on the document for the outcomes. that assumes it offers protections, and it assumes the outcomes are because it WASNT followed as opposed to because it was bottom line, the HUMAN element makes it much more complex than black and white strict adherence,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If people here don't wake the **** up we won't have to worry about capitalism or democracy because we are heading at light speed toward becoming a plutocracy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes this is a dating site but this is an area on the site where politics and current affairs topics can be discussed, hence it's not moaning and bitching' it's discussion... Perspective? In relation to the deserve has nothing to do with it bit, well it could be argued that if you do vote then you cannot really complain about how your government works because you have givern your consent to be governed by it. And by that logic, if you make no effort to vote, and you get a government that causes you to complain, you deserve what you get.  How so? If by your inaction, you find yourself in a situation not to your liking, who is culpable? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hotrod Persiflage...... Clearly, you missed my point. Must I be obvious? Bushi ...... With her . . . YES, but that is no guarantee she will get it. Very flipant remarks  Youz are getting your Panties in a bunch again boys  Not at all. Are you employing ad hominem? Note, the question is rhetorical. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think everyone in this thread needs to watch V for Vendetta. Sometimes I worry about your government slowly becoming like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HOW about term limits on constitutions? There is a process to amend the constitution . . . I have not heard something more goofy in a long time MS, nice one!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HOW about term limits on constitutions? There is a process to amend the constitution . . . I have not heard something more goofy in a long time MS, nice one! the way people talk, you would guess they think the constitution was written as a perfect and complete guide as is they want the politicians to change, but they want no changes in the constitution thus , the sarcastic comparison,,, |
|
|
|
|
