StarGateWars Forums

Crying NOOOOO wrote:

Thriller wrote:I beleive the US describes itself as a democratic republic..... you can be both

Article Four of the United States Constitution wrote:“ The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government ”

wow...Just like the old USSR that was composed of distinct and nominally sovereign Soviet Socialist Republics.

seriously learn what republic means.. and also democracy.

Republic: ruled by the people

Democracy: Majority vote wins the decision.

GO read machiavelli, this is where the founding fathers got their idea for what a republic means.

Hitchkok wrote:

Thriller wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Thriller wrote:
So you beleive democracy has turned into a tyranny of the ignorant? I can see that... that's why things like education are so important. Also we could use some actual leaders instead of just getting a micro manager in office. I think were going to move past the days of politicians making legislation through a focus group just to stay in power due to the fact the our generation has become disalutioned with the all flash no substance leadership of the past 50 years.

it hadn't turned.
it was always that why. demos litteraly means "rabble".

you can't just break down a word to give meaning to your interpration. Etymology doesn't really apply alot of the time

to illustrate my point
"Fornication comes from the word fornix, which means "arch." In Roman times, customers used to identify the brothels by a prominent archway at the entrance. (Coincidentally, we refer to the anterior, posterior, and lateral fornices as components of the uterus, but we also have a fornix in the brain, so interpret that as you will)."

Edit: Also i just looked up the etymology of democracy and it breaks it down to demos (δημος, which means "people") and kratos (κρατος, which means "force" or "power"). where are you getting your translation? Or are you trolling me hitch?

i am getting my translation from plato.
and also my interpration.
and i'll take a competent, benevolant dictator over a democrachy any day.
now, this:
"Democracy= Goverment is the master, citizens are the servant."
intrest me. where does this statement come from?
and please remember that both the USSR and current day china are defined as republics.

LOL benevolent dictrator,

The idea that power corrupts should be a universal scientific law

Edit: if you want to discuss plato's The Republic, i'm all up for that. But that would turn into a discussion of human nature and might be better in a different thread.

Thriller wrote:

Crying NOOOOO wrote:

Thriller wrote:I beleive the US describes itself as a democratic republic..... you can be both

Article Four of the United States Constitution wrote:“ The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government ”

wow...Just like the old USSR that was composed of distinct and nominally sovereign Soviet Socialist Republics.

seriously learn what republic means.. and also democracy.

Republic: ruled by the people

Democracy: Majority vote wins the decision.

GO read machiavelli, this is where the founding fathers got their idea for what a republic means.

A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals. In this consitution the people have the power to change goverement, and force it to be accountable, thus Republic = Citizen is the master, goverement is the servant.

A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). Democracy has been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, meaning goverment can tap your phone, can look at your email, can take your right to bear arms and far more then what is "right" for goverement to do, so Democracy = Goverment is the master and citizen is the servant.


"...It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers..." ~James Madison

"right" to bear arms?
it's a privilage.
and one that should be very scarcely allowed.

Hitchkok wrote:"right" to bear arms?
it's a privilage.
and one that should be very scarcely allowed.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms wrote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Ratified 12/15/1791

though it is regulated as a privillage by goverement that acts as a democracy, It is the right of a citizen to bear arms for protection and hunting, law probits the use of weapons, unless they are to hunt or protect yourself. Goverment does not have the right to tell you that you cannot bear arms unless you have had that right removed for a justified reason (example i shoot someone without justified cause to do so). Telling people they do not have the right to bear arms to hunt, protect themselves, their property and/or families (one example would be hurricane katrina) is against the law (the consititution). Goverment does not have the "privillage" to deny someone thier inalienable right proved to them by the law.

You are a sadly misinformed individual

You by chance might be a glen beck fan?

you only think so because youre an american, and grew up with the concept of " 'right' to bear arms".
in other countries it is not considered a right, but a privilege, and for good reasons.

EDIT: also, please, please, please (!!!) stop trying to prove points using the US legal system. the whole "one nation, under god" thing, doesn't make the founding fathers prophets, or the constitution a scripture.

Hitchkok wrote:you only think so because youre an american, and grew up with the concept of " 'right' to bear arms".
in other countries it is not considered a right, but a privilege, and for good reasons.

He also beleive republic = his written constitution

What if the peopel don't want a constitution?


DO you see yet why i get upset hitchcock?

Thriller wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:you only think so because youre an american, and grew up with the concept of " 'right' to bear arms".
in other countries it is not considered a right, but a privilege, and for good reasons.

He also beleive republic = his written constitution

What if the peopel don't want a constitution?


DO you see yet why i get upset hitchcock?

oh. ih understand pefectly well why you get upset.
i'm just saying, try crafting your insults with some more, um, let's say, oomph to them. you know, more of a dagger between the ribs, not a bludgeon to the face.
hey, do you think we can get sandman to declare the american constitution a religious creed?

Hitchkok wrote:

Thriller wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:you only think so because youre an american, and grew up with the concept of " 'right' to bear arms".
in other countries it is not considered a right, but a privilege, and for good reasons.

He also beleive republic = his written constitution

What if the peopel don't want a constitution?


DO you see yet why i get upset hitchcock?

oh. ih understand pefectly well why you get upset.
i'm just saying, try crafting your insults with some more, um, let's say, oomph to them. you know, more of a dagger between the ribs, not a bludgeon to the face.
hey, do you think we can get sandman to declare the american constitution a religious creed?

Maybe, But i beleive god isn't mentioned in that document. Though that might not concern him.

so when we have nothing intelligent to add we mock and insult, well played. Is this your version of a intelligent conversation?

As for assuming i believe a replublic is my consititution? no. Did I use examples from my consistitution? yes. However I have placed forth information of the distiction and difference, as well as my opinions/points of view. So with that I leave you those and the last post i make in this topic since we lack the ability to communicate in a productive manner.

Crying NOOOOO wrote:so when we have nothing intelligent to add we mock and insult, well played. Is this your version of a intelligent conversation?

As for assuming i believe a replublic is my consititution? no. Did I use examples from my consistitution? yes. However I have placed forth information of the distiction and difference, as well as my opinions/points of view. So with that I leave you those and the last post i make in this topic since we lack the ability to communicate in a productive manner.

can't speak for thrila, but i got bored of arguments that goes along these lines, so i opted for these lines instead.
seems reasonable to me.