Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Military Which do you prefer?

Democracy Defined
The following information is taken from an official United States publication (U.S. War Department, Training Manual No.2000-25, November 30,1928). This publication was withdrawn from the Government Printing Office and the Army posts and was to be suppressed and destroyed without explanation:

"Democracy: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of 'direct' expression. Results in mobocracy (mob rule). Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism (trying to stir up the people by appeals to emotion, prejudice, etc., in order to establish a new leader), license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

Republic: Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best suited to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles that establish evidence with a strict regard for consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass, it avoids the dangerous extremes of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice contentment and progress, is a standard for government around the world.


WHICH DO YOU PREFER? Most alive today have never lived under a Republic, although that is what their birthright is.

RAM,

No contest, in my mind. I favor the republic over the democracy. Unfortunately, our socialist government keeps making people more and more dependent on government to run their lives.

Gasp! Now we've gone from Democracy to Socialism!!!

But Norm, who is the Government? Is it not supposed to be we? Is it not the unlawful acts of a renegade government that has enslaved the producers to support the leaches??

What can one do to inspire Americans to look to themselves for support and not to a corrupt money sucking government?

Learn the difference between "America" which is a land mass made up of two continents and the "United States of America" which is a more or less sovereign nation made up of 50 somewhat diverse states and several commonwealths and territories. Then study history a little. The last true democracy was Athens, which was conquered by Sparta because it's citizens were too busy playing internal politics to take the time to properly defend their city from external threats. The last true republic was Rome, which collapsed from within when it's citizens continued to demand more and more from the government and were willing to give up more and more of their freedom to get it which resulted in the rise of "Imperial Rome". In the former the citizens mistook that which was good for them individually for that which was good for the survival of their nation. In the latter, they didn't seem to realize that by giving the government more and more power in order to comply with their demands they were losing their individual freedom. It seems that both cases apply in this country now. If you don't like that then work to correct it. You won't fix it by complaining about it in a reletively obscure internet forum. You are a part of the government of the United States of America. Act like it. Do you know, or know of someone who is, or is thinking about running for public office that you support? If you do then encourage them to run and if they do then support them with time and money when they do run. Take part in the electoral process. Candidates who support your views can't win without your support. After the election stay in comunication with the offfice holder. Tell them what you think they're doing right and what you think they're doing wrong. Make sure that they know that the only reason they're in office is because of your support and the support of others like you. If an office holder doesn't know that you helped him attain his office and that you support or oppose what he does while he holds it, he doesn't care about you and couldn't care less about what is important to you. If you don't actively support candidates that support your views then by default you're supporting candidates that don't. It's your government and you're a part of it. If you don't like what it's doing then work to change it's direction.

Skid;

What?! Are you re-writing geography now? And American history? and The Constituton? and U.S. Code? Where did you get this definition from????



America is a "land mass of two continents" ??? Where did you go to school? There are seven (7) continents, Africa, Asia, Austrailia, Antarctica, Europe, North America, and South America. The countries that comprise North America are, Canada, Mexico, and the [u]nited states of America. The u.s.A. is [was/supposed to be] a sovereign nation consisting of a total of 50 sovereign States and Commonwealths. And a Repulican form of government is guaranteed by it's Contitution

The [U]nited States of America (U.S.A.) is a bankrupt municipal corporation. Geographicly it is our nations "seat of government", better known as the District of Columbia. When the United States Constitution was adopted on September 15, 1787, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, included language authorizing the establishment of a "federal district". This district was not to exceed 10 miles square, under the exclusive legislative authority of Congress. On July 16, 1790, Congress authorized President George Washington to choose a permanent site for the capital city and, on December 1, 1800, the capital was moved from Philadelphia to an area along the Potomac River.

So, to review the hi-lites, States and Commonwealths make up Countrys, Countrys make up Continents.

Agreed?

Then America is a Country not a "land mass" or Continent as you contend.

The u.s.A. is a Nation (the National united States)with a "Republican" form of government guarenteed by it's constituion.

The U.S.A is a municipal corporation, (the Federal United States) and a "Democracy", (note clause above "under the exclusive legislative authority of Congress")

As you can see the word art employed here is quite cunning, and I assure you, quite by design. For before the ink was dry on the declaration of independence, forces were already at work to re-enslave this nation.

I'm going to provide you links to the Constitution, and U.S. Code in case you or anyone else would like to look his stuff up for themselves.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

http://www.questia.com/Index.jsp?CRID=u.s._constitution&OFFID=se2

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/




What should we discuss next? Oceans and Seas??? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

You're really trying to stretch the facts to fit your views here aren't you Ram? Were not North America and South America connected by Panama (formerly part of Columbia until we encourged the separation so we could dig our ditch) until we dug a ditch which now separates them by a few feet? Were not both continents named after an obscure Italian mapmaker? Was not the North and South designation simply a convience to enable one to more accurately express which portion of the land mass one was refering to? Are not the continents of Europe and Asia parts of the same land mass? Are citizens of Mexico and Canada any less Americans than citizens of France, Germany or Italy Europeans; citizens of China and Japan Asians and citizens of Chad and the Congo Africans? While it has become popular to refer to ourselves as Americans we are more properly citizens of the United States. The words United and States are the pertinent ones in the name of our country. America is just a discriptor to give foreigners some idea of where on the globe our country is located. And bye the bye, if I had rewritten something it would be geography. I don't think which minerals these land masses are made up of is germain to the discussion. As for the rest, it appears to be bluster, pap and misinformed misinterpretation. Next you'll be trying to lecture me on the Articles of Confederation. Or perhaps you'll move on to the Bill of Rights which, while it doesn't enumerate them, protects our right to be poor, our right to go hungry and our right to remain ignorant. Should you wish to discuss the Oceans and Seas I hope you can do it in a more convincing and substantive manner.

Erratum: The original emphasis was placed on United rather than an equal emphasis on United and States to signify States which had been joined in a Union. (My apologies for mentioning Union to those who live in States once prevented by force of arms from seceding from said Union.)

Au Contraire' is not the reverse more accurate?

The Continents were refered to as the America's [note plural] long before the canal was there.
I think Amerigo Vespucci was a bit more than a "map maker" [it is interesting to note that in your arguement to prove "one land mass/one continent" you used the term "both continents", I'm sure you didn't intend to shoot yourself in the foot <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />]
And your point is <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
Yet seperate continents. Again, your point is? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
Yes they would be. For you used an ambiguous term, and mixed terminology. While both would be inhabitants of NORTH America, they would not be AMERICAN citizens. [see U.S. code for definitions, handy link provide in prior post]
BZZZZZZ WRONG! This is where the swidle takes place, there were no U.S. Citizens prior to the 14th amendment. Have you never heard the phrase "the 13th amendment freed the slaves, and the 14th enslaved the free" ? If not, too bad. If so, have you ever thought about it? What the 14th did legally, through an adhesion contract system of commercial law, was strip you of your status of free born native American, [presuming you were born here] and made you a U.S. Citizen how did this happen? You, or your parents , (birth certificate, SSI #) did it for you. "Voluntarily". By accepting the "entitlements" of being a U.S. Citizen, (SSI) [There is a way, and it is in the Code to re-establish yourself as a free born American sovereign [see Expatriation] but I really feel that your head is too far in the sand [and that's not entirely your fault - thank you very much "public education" - What was that Hitler quote? "Give me the mind of a child till he's 6...." but I digress] to even fathom the concept right now.]
How convienient. Says who? Rand MacNally??
????? [your really caught up on the "land mass" thing huh?]I don't know what more I can do for you. I provided citations and links to verify points. You provided nothing but rhetoric and personal opinion with a sarcastic slant. Que sara sara.
Again, could you provide a cite here? Or is this just your opinion?

Let me guess: you're a Republican, right?

I recognize it because I used to believe this sort of thing too back when I was a Republican.

More recently, though, it's become clear to me that politicians of every party will tell you what they think you want to hear when they're campaigning and then, once elected, will completely ignore you until the next campaign.

Here's another interesting bit of anecdotal wisdom, gleaned from hard experience: The most efficient way to make a politician say what you want to hear is to make him lose, not to make him win. If you make him win he'll immediately discard you; if you make him lose he'll keep trying to figure out what he can say to make you vote for him next time.

(This is not to imply that making a politician say what you want to hear will have any effect on his actions if he is elected: politicians as a class are scum, and they will always do whatever they perceive to be in their own short-term best interest. If you want a politician to support your agenda, voting and letter writing is useless: you have to corrupt him into supporting it.)

(I'm also not advocating democracy over republic or vice versa. Politicians are politicians whatever form of government they inhabit.)

No, I'm a bit more pragmatic than that. I support those, and only those who support me. Don't much care who's party they belong to. For the most part you can't trust the Republicans. Just about the time you think they've grown a pair of balls and are willing to stand up for what is right, they cave. On the other hand, for the most part you can trust the Democrats. For the most part you can absolutely trust them to do what is the worst possible thing for the country and then take the most insane notion to the next higher lever. I have to agree with you to a large degree about incumbent office holders. When you can make them lose they tend to have a real epiphany. Once it's too late for them to do anything for you then they seem to see your side of the argument. The problem with this is that in order to make them lose you have to make someone else win. My wife is from Chicago. While I abhor the polices it produces, I admire their political process. For the most part Chicago politicians are openly for sale. In order to gain their support you have to be the highest bidder. The good part is that once they're bought they stay bought. You don't have to keep going though the process of buying a new one each time there's an election, you just have to keep up the payments.

Ok Ram, I concede. The world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth and if you venture too far from land, there be monsters there. Now will you kindly get your teeth out of my pants cuff? You're impeding my progress in support of the Great Satan's attempt to enslave us all.

Skid;

You seem like a nice guy, I expected better from you.

I don't know what else I can do for you my friend. I presented a position supported with cites and links for you to check the facts.

You provided nothing but your will, of what you THINK you know.

So who is REALLY the one taking "the world is flat" attitude here?

But if you feel better and your ego is satiated with you sarcastic lil' retort, thats the important thing.

Who cares about this FREEDOM stuff anyways?

Guess I forgot the smilely face huh? I gave up trying to have reasonable discussions with closed minded people years ago. If you're interested enough in the discussion do your own research. Don't just trot out the same old tired arguments that people like the Montana Freemen et al have been trying to use for years and post a few links to some web sites beneath them to try to prove your points. I'm very familiar with the references that you posted, and many others that you didn't. As far as your argument goes they don't prove diddley unless you try to pick and choose a few parts out of context like you did to try to prove your points. Next you'll be telling me we live under Martial Law because the flag in the local court room has a gold fringe. I'm not gonna change your mind and you're not gonna change mine. I just feel a little sorry for you because it must be pretty rough living such a persecuted life. I guess what I really don't understand is that if you really believe what you're saying and you feel as strongly about it as you say you do why aren't you doing more about it. Then again, I don't live near you so I really don't know what you do out side of what I see in the forums. As far as ego goes, I'd say you need to look in the mirror. You seem to be the one who needs to prove you're right. I realized several posts ago that you're not willing to look at both sides of the discussion. So be it. I've got better things to do than try to convince you that things aren't as bad as you're making them out to be. I've always thought I was a "the glass is half empty" kind of guy but I see now that compared to the way you seem to feel about our country I'll have to rethink that 'cause compared to you my glass is half full. And contrary to your parting shot, I do care quite a bit about freedom. I care enough about it to keep working to try to get what back some of what we've lost, even if it's just a little at a time. We may not be what we used to be but we're still the best thing going on the face of the earth. You show me a country where a citizen has as much freedom as we do. We stopped being subjects well over two hundred years ago, although you still seem to consider yourself one. If you want to crawl back into your bunker and watch the rest of the country go to hell in a hand basket so be it. Have a nice trip and thanks for all the fish. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

PS: When did you notice you typed geology when you really meant geography? I see it's been changed. Good for you.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

It would appear, based on your <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> reference document, that we have been citizens of the United States for a little longer than you stated above.

Article XIV.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Kindly point out and explain to me the language that you consider enslaving. Apart from being somewhat vindictive toward those who were considered "in rebellion" about all this does is make the states subject to the terms of the first 10 amendments (prior to this those rights were only protected from infringment by the federal government, not state governments) and clears up who is a whole and complete citizen, which was left a little fuzzy by the original document due to the arguments over slavery at the time the original was adopted. If you don't agree that "Americans" were United States Citizens prior to this refer to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 above.

Having pointed out a couple of flaws in your Constitutional argument, which makes the rest suspect whether you agree or not, we shall now proceed to geography.

Continents are not made up of states, commonwealths and countries. They are made up of dirt, preferably above sea level as that makes it more comfortable to live on and easier to breath. There are 4 major land masses on the planet that we inhabit which for convience said inhabitants have more or less agreed to refer to as the seven generally recognized continents. The Americas, North and South are generally recognized as what we have agreed to call the continents located on the land mass named after Amerigo Vespucci. These two continents were connected to make one land mass, although somewhat tenuously, by the Isthmus of Panama until we decided to separate them, for reasons of finance I agree, by digging a ditch. Regardless of the ditch, I for one am still comfortable refering to them as the Americas and for the most part thinking of them as one large chunk of dirt. We now move on to the second major land mass upon which the continents of Europe, Asia and Africa are situated. I doubt that any will argue that Europe and Asia sit on the same chunk of dirt and for those of you who think it strange to include Africa I remind you that until the French severed Africa from Asia there was a physical connection. That pretty much accounts for 5 of the 7 continents. I don't think there's much argument about Australia and Antarctica being separate continents although a good argument can be made that they are island and not continents in the proper sense. In any event, why is it proper to refer to someone from 5 of the 7 (although I don't know that there are any native human residents of Antarctia) commonly recognized continents as being European, Asian, African, Australian and, if there are any, Antarcticans and not to refer to someone from North or South America as American. They may not be American in the sense you choose to interpert it, but they are in the greater, or lesser as you see it, sense Americans.

Moving on to countries, states, commonwealths et al. Tribes formed towns. Towns evolved into cities. Cities evolved into states. About that time we learned how to write and make maps. Maps were important because each tribe, town, city and state claimed a sphere of geographical influence. If you did not draw a map which represented what you claimed for your sphere of influence how would your neighbor know where you drew the line? And there it is. Countries are made up of lines on a map. Neighbors often argue over whether or not the lines are in the right place. They get angry. They hit each other. They kill each other. The lines move. The boundaries change. The countries get larger, smaller and sometimes disappear altogether. The continents don't care. They're still there. They haven't moved. The only thing that affects them are nature's violent cataclysms and the semi superhuman feats of engineering that man loves to show off with. So there you have it. States, countries etc. don't make up continents, they are simply on them and the lines which delineate them are only as strong as the countries which claim the territory within them and are able to enforce them as boundaries. I could go on but I feel that we have digressed considerably from the original topic. I feel that I have countered your points, at least to my satisfaction, for the most part. Feel better now Ram? Is this more like what you expected? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />