We only shoot city slicker cars after football season is over, and there's nothing on T.V.

White people called us "niggers" then "negros" then "coloreds", then "African-Americans" and "blacks". Not our fault you all can't make up your minds.

WEB, you'll love this site. check it out.
Be sure to read at least some of the emails.

www.blackpeopleloveus.com

it is hysterical.

__________________
Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars. ... I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask no one to live for me, nor do I live for others. I covet no mans soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

Ayn Rand, Anthem.

I don't know were you guys get this idea that democracy is some kind of mob rule institution, as if no one in world has the right to vote for the issues that will ultimately rule their lives.

In a free society the people rule themselves. In a constitutional democracy specifically, people rule themselves by means of voting, that voting process being governed by constitutional princlpes. No mob rule involved, and tyranny avoided by a simple 51% majority opinion.

Here's an interesting quote from the Declaration of Independence:

...Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the governed...

Deriving just powers from the governed doesn't sound like mob rule to me.

Now at this point I've quoted the declaration of Independence, and someone is going to come onto this thread and assume that by doing that, I've labeled the U.S. a democracy, and then recite those legendary words: "The United States is not a democracy, it's a republic." So I'm just going to head off this inevitable argument by addressing it now.

To be specific, our nation is actually a Democratic Republic, but adherents to this line of thought always seem to conveniently forget the first part of that title - the democratic part indicating that the people are to have some role in determining the destiny of the government which is to rule their lives on a daily basis. This concept of self-rule being one of the basic principles of liberty on which the nation was founded.

Article 1, section 2 of the Constitution describes the House of representatives as:

"composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states"

The Founding Fathers placing enough importance on the democratic rights of the people to position that statement in the second paragraph of the nation's founding document, (the first paragraph having been allotted to defining what the Congress is and what it does).

So it while it may be true that we are not technically a democracy, anyone who tries to tell you that the United States was not founded on democratic prinicples is simply not familiar with American history.

I think the "mob rule" thing came about from people seeing that a lot of people who vote don't really know what in the hell they are voting for, like thousands of way right wing christians voting republican because all they know is that the republicans will vote anti-gay (That may or may not make sense to you, but I've actually heard someone say it) and that is all they need to know. Or, thousands of welfare recipients voting for democrats because all they know is that democrats will give them more money and tax the "evil rich" to do so, and that is all they need to know. I personally think that we should have a test for people to take to qualify to vote.*
I will agree that everyone has the right to vote, though I am assured that you will not find this right in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. But people also have the civic responsibility to know what the hell they are voting for.

*I would hope that no one in this forum would insinuate that I am trying to discriminate against minorities, I only bring it up because I have heard it before on this subject. So if that is what you are thinking just ask yourself, am I the bigger ass hole for wanting to "discriminate" against people who are cancelling out our educated vote, or are you the ass hole for thinking that minorities do not have enough educated members to make a rational vote?


These ass backwards "mobs" can and do influence our politics. Why else would democrats want illegals to enter our country and vote? I don't think the founding fathers really wanted us to be able to change our constitution just because the majority voted for it. Would liberals like it if the majority of citizens voted for there to be no separation of church and state? Would gun owners like it if the majority voted to take away our right to bear arms? Sadly, many people seem to think that this is how it works.

__________________
Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars. ... I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask no one to live for me, nor do I live for others. I covet no mans soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

Ayn Rand, Anthem.

Right. When you have the power of voting, you also have the obligation to use that power wisely. With liberty comes responsiblity.

They didn't. That's why they required a two thirds vote in Congress followed by approval of two thirds of the states to amend the Constitution. I think they did this because the knew that the fundamental structure of the nation had to be preserved by making it difficult to alter. If it were easily changed then we would have no protection of basic rights, and would indeed have a condition of mob rule.

You really don't know why democracy is mob rule? Think of it this way, a family of 6, and everyone get's a say. So you got mom, and dad, and 4 little ones. Looks like the 4 little ones will get to rule to roost, and mom and dad will just have to go along.


And no, we are not a Democratic Republic, we are a Federal Republic.

The fear of mob rule is actually older than the nation itself. Many moderates didn't get on board with independence until it became necessary to obtain the aid of the French in the impending war because they were afraid that the government that would be established afterwards would be comprised of mob rule.

I am an occasional visitor as I am too busy for much of this. Hope that is okay.
1. Freedomfighter wrote: I think they did this because they knew that the fundamental structure of the nation had to be preserved by making it difficult to alter. If it were easily changed then we would have no protection of basic rights, and would indeed have a condition of mob rule.
I assumed the reason for the two thirds rule to change the US constitution was for the need for democracy to have a ‘clear majority’ on certain decisions. The Clear Majority principle was used by Mrs Margaret Thatcher in the UK over the Scottish Independence question. She stated that votes for or against Scottish Independence should not be a matter for simple majority decision, as they are held periodically over the centuries and sometimes fairly regularly. There could be 50 votes against and just one successful vote for independence and the UK would end as a nation. Because the decision to become independent could not be easily reversed; was arguably irreversible; and people were voting on the futures of future generations; she argued that a Simple Majority was not acceptable. She said it should be at least 51% and some people felt it should be higher. This is the Brit version of the clear majority principle. It struck me at the time that the US constitution regarding a need for a two thirds majority would be a good precedent to quote. The issue is resolved at the moment through devolution, not independence. So the founding fathers had mob rule in mind with the 66% rule too?
2. I admired the US as a federal republic and a democratic republic. It is not both? Oops. Better tell the UK modern studies teachers.
3. Sorry to keep mentioning the UK. I will try to catch up on USA politics. I do believe there are such strong parallels between UK and USA. It is easier to use examples I am familiar with, but recently there has been a big debate here in the low turnout rates at national elections. People seem to be less concerned now because of the popular argument that British politics is less controversial and so less interesting. Hence lower turn out. It is the result of British politicians getting along better and less conflict like that of the 1970s. Lower turn out is naturally high only in controversial eras.
The two party system is a natural consequence of our systems and is not necessarily bad, is one argument. The argument for proportional representation another.
4. My invitation to join this site stated that intelligent people were wanted, but I came here anyway! Thank you for your kind welcome to the forum. Hope you don't eat your words!!
5. F&Bender wrote : am I the bigger ass hole for wanting to "discriminate" against people who are cancelling out our educated vote, or are you the ass hole for thinking that minorities do not have enough educated members to make a rational vote? A good question, and difficult to say without sounding superior. I would put it this way: how do we empower people popularly considered to be admirable and of exceptional intelligence and foresight? And if the less well informed are less empowered, from what do they get the confidence to supply their political support?
5a. Many valuable opinions are owned by people who lose all the intellectual arguments and turn out to be right. Just because we ‘win’ an argument, or have a better education, it does not necessarily follow that we make better political decisions.
5b. Also it touched on a point close to my heart: how can we improve the decision making in our democracies?
5c. Every system can be said to be composed of three elements: dictatorship, oligarchy and democracy. The US Constitution is based on there also being divisions between Judiciary, Legislature and Executive. It is this clarity of thought, sound traditions and natural balance, that give western democracies their popular and moral support. It is the real advantage over non-western style government.
Consider the mistakes made though, from the decision by the British Government to declare war on Germany in 1914, to the Iraq invasion of March 2003. Arguably, they were not the wrong decisions based on the information at the time and the political stances of the persons taking them. Also, how do we know they were wrong, even with hindsight? In the former example, the assumptions are that Germany would have quickly defeated France and Russia and withdrawn with a better peace than those obtained in the 1870s, or 1918. Then no WW2 and a fraction of the loss of life and dislocation of WW1. The Iraq example assumes one can see the future and knows what would have happened had Saddam been left in power. Perhaps Iraq is not yet a clear mistake? But was it a good decision? Were sound decisions possible, or only good guesses?
The point is that if our politicians are as intelligent, honourable, and representative as possible, could our system be better? (Thanks to those still reading!)

All I'm saying is that we were given what we need to run our country. We could blame our current situation(s) on voters, whether or not they know what they are voting on, but it all comes down to people with money/power who want more money/power. Why do we have elected officials who give a rats ass about gay marriage, one way or they other? They should be too busy with real issues to even talk about this kind of thing. Let them do what they want and don't worry about it, at least with gays you know they won't be spitting out a ton of children for welfare money. And the Mark Foley thing, boot his ass and get on with it. People are deciding their votes on these issues. WTF? It is kind of feeling like a lot of people are getting tired of all the partisan bs, which makes me feel like something might be done, but our politicians have us all hating eachother so much, www.huffingtonpost.com (I'm sure there are other examples), that we if we really did have to come together and as citizens we couldn't do it.
I'm just ready to be able to worry about something else.

__________________
Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars. ... I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask no one to live for me, nor do I live for others. I covet no mans soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

Ayn Rand, Anthem.

The sad part is Foley booted himself out and they (both sides) still can't get past it. I swear D.C. is like an episode of Jerry Springer.