Do Democrats REALLY believe in democracy ?

[ironglow]

  I haven't heard anything about the president, vice president or attorney general.. calling this guy on the carpet !
  Remember; this is the guy who called our marines "cold blooded killerts"...

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywgUCdefSW8

[Dee]

Thread title: Do Democrats REALLY believe in democracy?

Response: About as much as the Republicans do.

[bearmgc]

My dad believed himself to be a true blooded Democrat. He was unfit for duty during the war, because he had a perforated eardrum he said. So he didn't serve. He became a blue collar worker at the Int Harvester Company. He believed the union would save him from any"blackie" interlopers, as he called people of color. He was extremely prejudiced against anyone of color, truly hateful. Yet when the company was downsizing, he refused to learn any other jobs but his own. They asked him to sweep floors for the same rate of pay and he refused, and went crying to the union. Union guy said "sweep the floors", and you'll keep your benefits and pension. So he did, and cursed the union- what I then called, "biting the hand that feeds ya." His hours were cut but he kept his pension. Finally he was laid off. During the time he was laid off, he started his own landscaping and painting business, and began making money, hand over fist, all the while cursing the old company, that laid him off, and the union.

He never paid a dime in taxes in his landscaping/painting business, because he was paid in cash. He took government aid in the form of food subsidies, because he was "laid off." He landed several informal contracts with large realty companies, and was becoming rich by the day's standards. He paid workers in cash, several guys of color, because they would work cheap. He often cursed the owners of the realty companies, because they were Jews, but ingratiated himself, in their presence. He had more wealth in his retirement than all the co-workers at the Harvester plant, that kept their jobs. But he continued to curse that company till the day he died. Yeah, he became "all inclusive" in his work attitudes because it financially benefitted him to do so. As a Democrat, I'd say, yeah, he was democratic, when it was in his best interest. What I saw in his life, as he was a"Democrat" by his definition, is an attitude of entitlement, refusing to pay his share of taxes, and his denigrating the company ticket, while becoming rich by paying minority folks less than the average worker. It was one big hypocracy. Is that what a Democrat is?

[Cabin4]

No

[nw_hunter]

Thread title: Do Democrats REALLY believe in democracy?

Response: About as much as the Republicans do.

You beat me to the punch

[JBlk]

Any political party that doesn't suport the Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not believe in Democracy.

[Dee]

Well then JBlk with that said, the lessor of two evils voters that are backing the Republican candidates are screwed, because their last presidential candidate was a socialist and had the record to prove it. They voted for him anyway. Evidently they don't believe in democracy either. Of course I personally believe in a REPUBLIC. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule.

[ironglow]

My dad believed himself to be a true blooded Democrat. He was unfit for duty during the war, because he had a perforated eardrum he said. So he didn't serve. He became a blue collar worker at the Int Harvester Company. He believed the union would save him from any"blackie" interlopers, as he called people of color. He was extremely prejudiced against anyone of color, truly hateful. Yet when the company was downsizing, he refused to learn any other jobs but his own. They asked him to sweep floors for the same rate of pay and he refused, and went crying to the union. Union guy said "sweep the floors", and you'll keep your benefits and pension. So he did, and cursed the union- what I then called, "biting the hand that feeds ya." His hours were cut but he kept his pension. Finally he was laid off. During the time he was laid off, he started his own landscaping and painting business, and began making money, hand over fist, all the while cursing the old company, that laid him off, and the union.

He never paid a dime in taxes in his landscaping/painting business, because he was paid in cash. He took government aid in the form of food subsidies, because he was "laid off." He landed several informal contracts with large realty companies, and was becoming rich by the day's standards. He paid workers in cash, several guys of color, because they would work cheap. He often cursed the owners of the realty companies, because they were Jews, but ingratiated himself, in their presence. He had more wealth in his retirement than all the co-workers at the Harvester plant, that kept their jobs. But he continued to curse that company till the day he died. Yeah, he became "all inclusive" in his work attitudes because it financially benefitted him to do so. As a Democrat, I'd say, yeah, he was democratic, when it was in his best interest. What I saw in his life, as he was a"Democrat" by his definition, is an attitude of entitlement, refusing to pay his share of taxes, and his denigrating the company ticket, while becoming rich by paying minority folks less than the average worker. It was one big hypocracy. Is that what a Democrat is?

  Bearmgc;

  I have known several people who were dyed-in-the-wool union members for most of their working lives..real cheerleaders for the union..any union ! then they went on to retire or changed direction and each started their own business with several employees. Not one of them sought out the union to organize THEIR shop !! In fact at least one, hearing his employees even mention union..told them he would close his shop first...

[Echo4Lima]

According to the definition of DEMOCRACY they do, so does China!

Loudest pro union mouth in a union shop would be FIRED without the unions protection.

Unions are great arent they?  Worst guy makes the same as the best guy.

[Cabin4]

Any political party that doesn't suport the Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not believe in Democracy.

Then they are likly usurpers of our constitution, performing illegal actions and commiting crimes against the American people.

Sound familiar?

[ms]

Thread title: Do Democrats REALLY believe in democracy?

Response: About as much as the Republicans do.

+1

[Graybeard]

I believe an accurate definition of democracy would be subjagation of the few by the many. The US was not established as a democracy. Our Constitution is supposed to prevent the many from running roughshod over the few via the representative form of government we have with three branches each supposed to be a check and balance against the other two.

Were it not for greedy and imperfect humans our country could and perhaps would still be run as smoothly as it did in the days of our founders. Sadly when folks find they can vote in people who will give them handouts without having to work for them and those elected find they can ignore those who elected them and do the bidding of those rich enough to pay to get them elected the whole system falls apart. In case you might wonder what happens when it falls apart I say to you, "just look around you, it's happening rat now".

[Redtail1949]

Dee and Gb:

very observant men...

[Cabin4]

Dee and Gb:

very observant men...

Actually their description is not really all that observant. They just have their eye's open without blinders and they filter out the mass news media manipulation process. The problem is so enormous and significant in this country, its beyond being “observant” anymore, it’s simply about not allowing yourself to fall into the crowd of the “manipulated”.

This is no way a negative commentary on GB & Dee but hopefully an eye opener for some readers here.

[Dee]

No offense taken Cabin, but the manipulated are the folks such as yourself that vote the lessor of two evils. You and the others that vote for these "lessor ofs", have slowly been moved into that position each election cycle, where you believe you are better off trading off A FEW MORE of our freedoms by voting for that lessor, than for the more liberal. Thereby you either "give in a lot" if the more liberal wins, or you give in "a little less" of your freedoms if the less liberal wins. Either way it's a lose-lose way of voting, and either way your voting our freedoms away.
GB or I may or may not be very observant as you have said we are not given our descriptions, but I would venture that the voters whom vote away freedoms out of fear such as yourself are as blind as a bat. A voter whom is voting out of fear of another is UNDER CONTROL.
I will not surrender ANY of my freedoms WILLINGLY. But then I don't have to. You guys do it for me.

Benjamin Franklin and the other founding fathers understood this mentality very well, and warned of it. Unfortunately you guys have ignored Franklin and the others. For all the "REAL" risks they took, and all their sacrifices for freedom, they would be very disappointed.

[Cabin4]

Dee,
What your describing is my voting strategy and your opinion of the outcome of said voting strategy. Call it manipulation if you like but I am not the news media nor am I in a position to manipulate the masses like they and the politicians do. The subject here was about being observant. All I'm suggesting is that to understand what’s going on in this country, you better remove the political party blinders and the news media filters. How each of us react once we ensure the removal these manipulation devices is a matter of personal voting choice.

We can debate all day long the outcome of my voting strategy, but it has nothing to do with ensuring your informed of what’s really going on in this country and how the politicians and news media are screwing over the American people six ways from Sunday. Further to this point, if people really understood what was really going on, you would not have to worry about my voting strategy. We would have real constitutional choices at the ballot box because the American people would know the truth. The truth is something they are being hood-winked out of today.

[nw_hunter]

I believe an accurate definition of democracy would be subjagation of the few by the many. The US was not established as a democracy. Our Constitution is supposed to prevent the many from running roughshod over the few via the representative form of government we have with three branches each supposed to be a check and balance against the other two.

Were it not for greedy and imperfect humans our country could and perhaps would still be run as smoothly as it did in the days of our founders. Sadly when folks find they can vote in people who will give them handouts without having to work for them and those elected find they can ignore those who elected them and do the bidding of those rich enough to pay to get them elected the whole system falls apart. In case you might wonder what happens when it falls apart I say to you, "just look around you, it's happening rat now".

Graybeard is right on!



Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant. The very antithesis of the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.

A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

[torpedoman]

I believe an accurate definition of democracy would be subjagation of the few by the many. The US was not established as a democracy. Our Constitution is supposed to prevent the many from running roughshod over the few via the representative form of government we have with three branches each supposed to be a check and balance against the other two.

Were it not for greedy and imperfect humans our country could and perhaps would still be run as smoothly as it did in the days of our founders. Sadly when folks find they can vote in people who will give them handouts without having to work for them and those elected find they can ignore those who elected them and do the bidding of those rich enough to pay to get them elected the whole system falls apart. In case you might wonder what happens when it falls apart I say to you, "just look around you, it's happening rat now".

BINGO we have a winner. the majority (whiners) have learned they can demand and get benefits paid for by the minority (workers) Now with all the lay-off's and the benefits being extended every time they get close to expiring a lot of the workers are asking themselves "why did i go to work all that time when I'm better off now not working" all I really want to know is "what are we doing in this hand basket and were are we going?

[Dee]

Fact of the matter is Cabin despite yours and mosts voting habits there were two pro Constitution and Bill of Rights candidates on the last presidential ballot, besides the Democratic and Republican candidates and you guys ignored them, and still didn't get what you wanted. Next presidential election you guys will do the same thing. Ya'll keep saying they don't have enough support, but it's because you won't support'em. Your hung up on the lessor of and can't get off it.
The Republicans and Democrats take turns running things, and sit behind doors "making deals together" and making fun of you guys, because your all so gullible. You won't change because you can't change. Your giving our freedoms away, over and over, and trying to justify it, and there is no justifying it.
Me being informed of what's going on you say? Hell, look at their voting records while they've been in office. Their as clear as a church bell. There's no mystery here. It's a game of chicken, and their beatin ya'll every time.
I vote straight Constitution and Bill of Rights EVERY TIME. Ya'll don't. You back down and compromise. The news media can only screw people that LET THEMSELVES BE SCREWED. The info is there, they just don't look, and blame it on the media, JUST LIKE YOUR DOING.
WE WOULD HAVE "REAL CONSTITUIONAL CHOICES" AT THE BALLOT BOX IF YOU GUYS WOULD QUIT BACKING DOWN.
You say you know the truth, and you vote just like the rest of them. What's that all about?

[Dee]

Collectively torpedoman, that hand basket is head for hell, because no one has the will to get out of it. Next election let's here it for the Republicans, and they will reverse NOTHING that the Democrats have done. They never do. They just ADD TO IT. But their nicer about it.

[Cabin4]

You say you know the truth, and you vote just like the rest of them. What's that all about?

Dee,
This is the point when an internet forum falls far short of doing this discussion real justice. I keep typing and erasing. Maybe I'm just out of steam right now. Been a long day and I just poured myself a Canadian Club and 7up (my favorite cocktail). I just ain't goingin here now.....Maybe I'll circle back later and explain in more detail how/why I vote. Its not cut & dry.

[nw_hunter]

Fact of the matter is Cabin despite yours and mosts voting habits there were two pro Constitution and Bill of Rights candidates on the last presidential ballot, besides the Democratic and Republican candidates and you guys ignored them, and still didn't get what you wanted. Next presidential election you guys will do the same thing. Ya'll keep saying they don't have enough support, but it's because you won't support'em. Your hung up on the lessor of and can't get off it.
The Republicans and Democrats take turns running things, and sit behind doors "making deals together" and making fun of you guys, because your all so gullible. You won't change because you can't change. Your giving our freedoms away, over and over, and trying to justify it, and there is no justifying it.
Me being informed of what's going on you say? Hell, look at their voting records while they've been in office. Their as clear as a church bell. There's no mystery here. It's a game of chicken, and their beatin ya'll every time.
I vote straight Constitution and Bill of Rights EVERY TIME. Ya'll don't. You back down and compromise. The news media can only screw people that LET THEMSELVES BE SCREWED. The info is there, they just don't look, and blame it on the media, JUST LIKE YOUR DOING.
WE WOULD HAVE "REAL CONSTITUIONAL CHOICES" AT THE BALLOT BOX IF YOU GUYS WOULD QUIT BACKING DOWN.
You say you know the truth, and you vote just like the rest of them. What's that all about?

It's a hard cycle to break Dee! I did it for years. It finally got through my thick head after the first GW presidency.

I vowed to never again vote for the lesser of two evil's.
After voting for one of, if not the ONLY honest man in DC. (In the primary's) Ron Paul. I then voted for Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party).

From now on, I will either vote for a strict Constitutionalists, or none of the above.

[slim rem 7]

 i liked the post that appeared here not long ago .. it told of the difference between a republic and
a democracy..made sense to me..slim

[Dee]

I don't think the cycle will ever be broken nw_hunter. They have voted this lessor for so long, they can't see anything else. They will continue until there is nothing left to compromise away, and try and justify it all the way.
Chuck Baldwin the candidate for the Constitutional Party would have been a good pick, but this last cycle I voted Libertarian all the way. I did not for see the Constitutional Party growing 30% like it did this last election.
In this last presidential election the lessor of's went for a Socialist candidate in McCain, and go a Marxist in Obama. So it was a lose-lose vote either way.
Right now there are NINE STATE CANDIDATES IN VERMONT, that want to secede from the Union. Think of that. VERMONT! They see it, and the voters don't seem to. They keep voting same ole, same ole.

[Guy Pike]

Vermont is a very interesting state. They voted overwhelmingly for Howard Dean even though he had abandoned his Presidential campaign and then bemoaned the outcome of the election. They run the gamut from bark eating white men with dreadlocks to real life mountain men and concealed carry requires no permit! They have sales and income tax as well! Makes my head spin. Guy

[Graybeard]

The only way to break the two party cycle or system we now have in place where both in effect are the same just one is slower to take our rights than the other as both work for the same super rich cabal is to begin locally.

You are NOT going to elect anyone at the national level other than a D or an R and that's a fact of life. Not locally anyone who runs has at least that "snowball's chance" of winning and if they are backed by enough voters and funded by those voters who share similar views they can win. If you are waiting for that magic person whose views on ALL issues mirror yours then you best get your butt out there and try to get elected cuz there ain't no one else gonna share your views 100%. Even locally and even in picking outside the two party system you're still gonna hafta pick the better choice who most closely matches your views and accept that they aren't gonna be you and are not gonna have all views the same as you.

If enough folks who want real change from the current mess we're end will get off their duffs and start by getting folks GOOD FOLKS folks who believe in the US Constitution and in working to earn what you get elected at the local county and city level then they will soon be ready to move up to take state level offices and then once you've got a good local government in place and good folks at the state level you can move them forward to the national level as Congressmen and Senators.

Make a real effort at doing that and show the duds in DC it's a for real movement and it's coming to their office soon and you'll find out that there are a lot of pretty decent folks already there who just need a push to come out of the closet and get in line. As a for instance our two Senators Shelby and Sessions aren't bad. They aren't great but they aren't bad. They vote the way I would on at least 75% to 80% of issues perhaps more. Hell I realize no one but me is gonna vote 100% the way I would and to find someone other than me who votes the way I'd like 90% of the time might also require it to be me. Thing is the way I want them to vote might not be the way the majority of folks in the state want them to vote.

We're just gonna hafta get by at the national level until we fix things at the local and state level and yeah almost all over the country it's broken at local and state level and has been for a few generations. That's why it's broke at the national level it first got broke at the local level and to fix it in DC we've first gonna fix it at the local level.

The problem is folks like us folks who really want to see the US Constitution restored to it's proper place in this country are not organized and quite honestly I think we're in the minority as well. Only be getting organized locally and being vocal and by funding those folks who's views best mirror ours and getting them elected locally are we ever going to start to change what's happening in DC.

I think that's the fundamental difference in the way Dee and I see this situation. He wants to stop voting for any D or R rat now and vote for someone from some other party. That's one plan but I don't see it reaching the common goal we share. Some times that man with an R and rarely even a D following his name might be an OK guy he just needs to be shown that the folks back home are serious about him changing the way he votes to get more in line with the Constitution not those super rich cabal guys who keep him in campaign funds and keep getting him elected. Once he understands it's really the voters back home responsible for sending him to DC an they are the ones who are gonna see he doesn't go back if he doesn't get on board the USS Constitution then I think a lot of them will be just fine in spite of that R or D after their name.

For those that aren't we're still not gonna remove them by voting against them for someone who doesn't have that proverbial snowball's chance of winning. Dee thinks I believe that voting for them tho might show them we mean business and will make him feel better inside cuz he voted his conscience. I can't fault that logic I just don't think it's the winning strategy for the long haul and folks if we're not in it for the long haul then we're not in it period.

I think the first thing that must happen is folks must open their eyes and realize that the folks who respresent us in politics do not REALLY represent us. They REALLY represent a super rich cabal of folks from around the world who really are calling all the shots. The politicians are playing sly games regardless of that R or D after they name to make us think they really care about us and are doing what's best for us. They do that only to the extent required to get enough votes to be returned to office on election day. Mostly it's the millions from the cabal that assures they are reelected and they know that.

First we must understand there really is a move afoot to undermine the US Constitution and replace it with a one world government a new world order in which geographical boundaries whether called states or countries or whatever have no real meaning. This cabal of folks want to end national loyalties and replace governments of countries with one government over the entire world run by their hand picked servants. Yes folks GW was one and so is obama and both work for the same cabal.

Are the muzlims bad? Yup they really are. Are they our enemies? Yup they really are. BUT folks ya really need to grasp one simple concept. They are being manipulated same as we are for the goals of the cabal. The cabal are using them and us to fight each other to further their goals. We're all just pawns on the chessboard of the cabal. Their hand picked servants are the ones who are the knights and bishops and rooks on the chessboard while the cabal are the kings and queens. If you play chess surely you can understand what I'm saying.

Enough for now but this is an idea we need to keep on coming back to until we clearly understand that the folks running our government really hate us and do not have our interests at heart. The cabal wants 85% or more of the human population on earth GONE. They plan to make that happen by keeping us and the muzlims fighting each other as a distraction while they poison that 85% of us with drugs they are feeding us and by introducing one after the other man made viruses and plagues to kill us and to sterilize the population to reduce reproduction.

Do you REALLY believe aids was not man made designed to reduce the human population? If so you are naive. Same with this new swine flu it's man made and while it hasn't proven as virilent as planned it still is being used to inject as many as possible with harmful chemicals that will further their goals It is also setting us up for that next step they will implement when they really do get a strain that is more virulent to force everyone to take the shot. That shot will be the undoing of mankind as we know it today.

Believe or disbelive it's your choice but this is what it's all really about not that damn D or R after the name of those politicians.

[magooch]

Seems to me that we keep having this same argument, over and over--at least the part about how we vote.  What it comes down to is that we can vote for who we might like to see win and feel good about our vote, or we can vote for who we realistically think might have a snowball's chance and feel kind of queasy about it.  Yeah I know, if everyone would vote for who you might believe is the real deal, why maybe he, or she would actually have a chance.  The problem with that is that the average voter doesn't look beyond the headlines and noise.  And the average voter is vastly superior in numbers to any group such as might contribute on this forum.  In short, nothing is going to change for the good, unless by some stroke of luck a candidate comes along who grabs the media's attention...oh wait, I think that's what happened this time around and you can see what that got us.

No worries though, things always have to get worse before they get better.  And in my book, it don't get much worse than this.

[Graybeard]

Locally it has been my observation that whoever has the most signs along the local highways and/or gets their name on TV the most often wins. It seems to matter little which party they are in or what they believe or stand for or any record they might have. If their name is in the face of the voters the most they get elected.

That's a sad commentary on local voters but it seems the way it works.

[gwhilikerz]

I don't understand the mentality that says you feel better if you vote for the winner. Same for feeling bad if you voted for someone that barely had a "snowball's" chance and they lost. I have never been able to see the "vote for the lesser of two evils" logic either. I do think you should vote for the person that you feel will do the best job according to how you see that job. That usually means the person who sees things the same as you. Frankly, I can't make myself vote for anyone who is "a little better than the other guy". If I can't support a candidate I won't vote for them. If that means that the "more evil" guy wins because I voted for someone who didn't have a chance, so be it. My conscious is clear.

[ironglow]

  This past week the people of Massachusetts had an opportunity..
      
   They could have refused to vote for the Republican (Scott Brown)..and let the Kennedys fill that seat ...AGAIN

    ....Or thy could have voted for "the lesser", and deny the Kennedys their wishes..

  Thank goodness, most of the Massachusetts voters could read the import of the situation, voted for "the lesser" thereby stopping the "Govt takeover of all medicine" bill in it's tracks. They also put a torpedo in "Cap & Trade, Union card checks(end of secret ballots)...and probably helped to put the fork in several liberal politician's careers.

   SOME LESSER !!!

      After the Battle of Britain, Winston Churchill reminded the British that Hitler claimed that.... Like a chicken; he was going to "wring England's neck"...

   Churchill chomped his big cigar and laughingly said.... "some chicken...HAH !...some neck"!

    Today, Massachusetts voters can laughingly say...."SOME LESSER" !!!