This topic contains 28 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  Deathbal 8 years, 12 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #6659

    Viking62
    Participant

    Aside from media hype (usually owned by special interest groups via shares & hidden entities). It may be time for some common sense on our part as Americans. Do some historical study/Googling for yourself. Actually check out someones background to verify truth for yourself;over what you are fed from a tv,newspapers,etc.


    Big government-Socialism-Democracy-Republic


    Very soon it will be time for us to vote for a new set of persons to lead our great country. You may be able to find similarities in “what we are being promised” from the current presidential candidates in the following articles. I am an American & want my children to enjoy the basic freedoms & prosperity that I/We have enjoyed. In the end:We the people must unite together as one voice. Vote your conscience 😉
    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
    Law Encyclopedia: **Republic**
    This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.

    That form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. A political unit or “state,” independent of its form of government.

    The word republic, derived from the Latin res publica, or “public thing,” refers to a form of government where the citizens conduct their affairs for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of a ruler. Historically republics have not always been democratic in character, however. For example, the ancient Republic of Venice was ruled by an aristocratic elite.

    In the U.S. historical tradition, the belief in republicanism shaped the U.S. Revolution and Constitution. Before the revolution, leaders developed many political theories to justify independence from Great Britain. Thomas Paine, in his book Common Sense (1775), called for a representative government for the colonies and for a written constitution. Paine rejected the legitimacy of the monarchy to have a part in government. This attack on the king was echoed the following year in the Declaration of Independence, where Thomas Jefferson proposed that colonists reject the monarchy and become republican citizens.

    Framers of the U.S. Constitution intended to create a republican government. Article IV, Section 4, states “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government … .” Though the language was vague, the authors of the Constitution clearly intended to prevent the rise to power of either a monarchy or a hereditary aristocracy. Article I, Section 9, states, “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States,” and most state constitutions have similar provisions.

    The guarantee of republican government was designed to provide a national remedy for domestic insurrection threatening the state governments and to prevent the rise of a monarchy, about which there was some talk at the time.

    James Madison, the author of many of the essays included in The Federalist Papers (1787-88), put forward a sophisticated concept of republican government. He explained in Number 10 that a republic must be contrasted with a democracy. In the eighteenth century the term “democracy” meant what is now called a pure or direct democracy, wherein legislation is made by a primary assembly of citizens, as existed in several rural Swiss cantons and in New England towns. In a pure democracy, Madison argued, there is no check on the majority to protect the weaker party or individuals and therefore such democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention,” where rights of personal security and property are always in jeopardy.

    By a republic, Madison meant a system in which representatives are chosen by the citizens to exercise the powers of government. In Number 39 of The Federalist Papers, he returned to this theme, saying that a republic “is a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people; and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.” Generally, such leaders as Madison and John Adams believed that republicanism rests on the foundation of a balanced constitution, involving a separation of powers and checks and balances.

    The republican form of government has remained a constant in U.S. politics. State constitutions follow the federal constitution in dividing powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Likewise, states have adopted the various checks and balances that exist between the three branches, including the executive veto power and judicial review.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has stayed out of controversies that involve whether the government of a state is republican in character. For example, in Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118, 32 S. Ct. 224, 56 L. Ed. 377 (1912), the Court declined to rule whether state legislation by initiative and referendum (legislation approved directly by the people through the ballot) was inconsistent with republicanism. The Court refused to rule because it considered this issue a political question outside its jurisdiction. It is now well established that it is the province of Congress and the president, not the courts, to decide whether the government of a state is republican in character.
    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    What is Socialism?

    Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.

    But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People ‘owning’ certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership.

    In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.

    Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organise the production of goods and services.

    Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of “from each according to ability, to each according to needs” would apply.

    So how would we decide what human needs are? This question takes us back to the concept of democracy, for the choices of society will reflect their needs. These needs will, of course, vary among different cultures and with individual preferences—but the democratic system could easily be designed to provide for this variety.

    We cannot, of course, predict the exact form that would be taken by this future global democracy. The democratic system will itself be the outcome of future democratic decisions. We can however say that it is likely that decisions will need to be taken at a number of different levels—from local to global. This would help to streamline the democratic participation of every individual towards the issues that concern them.

    In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis. Producing for needs means that people would engage in work that has a direct usefulness. The satisfaction that this would provide, along with the increased opportunity to shape working patterns and conditions, would bring about new attitudes to work.

    #53818

    Viking62
    Participant

    More food for thought: We all have our own utopia (ideal world) in our own minds…….Speaking for myself, Mine is becoming more confusing by the day 😕

    Iraq wants us out. ➡ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html

    U.S. Makes Firmer Commitment to Pullout Date in Draft of Iraq Accord ➡

    #53819

    BOY
    Participant

    @viking62 wrote:

    More food for thought: We all have our own utopia (ideal world) in our own minds…….Speaking for myself, Mine is becoming more confusing by the day 😕

    Iraq wants us out. ➡ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html

    U.S. Makes Firmer Commitment to Pullout Date in Draft of Iraq Accord ➡
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/washington/18military.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast&oref=slogin

    1. Sadr is a goon.
    2. The NY Times is not an objective journalistic organization.
    3. When you are easily swayed by a few marchers, you put yourself at the whim of mobs.

    #53820

    BOY
    Participant

    What is Socialism?

    Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.

    I don’t know where you got this crap, but it stinks. Pure bull. Ownership?

    It sounds so wonderful… I could almost vote to “own” that other guys house over there.

    so who controls who owns what? Obviously I can’t own something if I can’t controle it. THis is pure marxist hogwash. so hunky dory until the police come and take your car away because you don’t “own” it any more, you have to “share” it.

    #53821

    Viking62
    Participant

    Just throwing some stuff out there–Heck Boy…… I don’t believe much that I see anywhere anymore (media wise). Just did some copy & pastes…… Are not my personal views whatsoever. Just food for thought, is all, my friend.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/fronts/HOME?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME

    #53822

    Irishbandit
    Participant

    We need to use more shields… wait sorry for the spam :^o :^o

    #53823

    Deathbal
    Participant

    @boy wrote:

    THis is pure marxist hogwash.

    I quoted this part only for a reason. And the topic of this post could not have been more accurate. We are at a crossroads.

    No matter how bad Bush is. No matter how bad people think Bush is. And no matter what Bush did or continues to do, it will never get me to vote for a Marxist, which I believe Obama to be. All you have to do is listen to him. The only thing he hasn’t said is….

    “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”

    But i’m waiting for him to slip up. Not that he won’t get 50% of the vote anyway.

    #53824

    Rommel
    Participant

    Yes, those Marxists are a strange lot. Although Harpo was the one with the majority of the talent he wasn’t the star. Basically all Groucho had going for him were his bushy mustache and eyebrows and his big cigar. Yet even after being dead for many years, he sitll has a great many fans.

    John Lennon has a following too. I think they’re called Lennonists.

    #53825

    Viking62
    Participant

    Not many people know of this….. Has had a direct influence on what has been going on all over the world since 2002.
    Perform some in depth studies here and see the web that the spiders weave. I for one, do not believe in coincidences.


    Pasted: Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.

    Link–> http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm
    ……………………
    More food for thought: Mission Statement-Social Integration Branch of the U.N.

    Link to above–> http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/sib/index.html

    I am not trying to start arguments….Just pointing out things that others may not have the time to research for themselves. I am an Old school American after all. “I am not” a racist/ant-fem./biggot, & I do believe in equal opportunity for all (All around the world)–but, I do want us to keep/get back the rights that our forefathers & current fellow human beings have fought/are fighting for.

    I am Viking62. & I approve this message 😐

    #53826

    BigBear
    Participant

    @deathbal wrote:

    And no matter what Bush did or continues to do, it will never get me to vote for a Marxist, which I believe Obama to be.

    If you don’t really know what Marxism is then that is hilarious. If you do it’s kinda petty and sad.

    #53827

    Deathbal
    Participant

    @bigbear wrote:

    If you don’t really know what Marxism is then that is hilarious. If you do it’s kinda petty and sad.

    First you have to know Obama. Obama is where he is because of charisma and nothing else. He is not qualified for anything.

    Secondly, if you saw his tax plan, it is the biggest socialist program this country has ever seen. It gives tax rebate checks to those that pay NO income tax. That is a hand out, not a tax rebate. I may be going overboard by calling him a Marxist, but not by much when it comes to his economic paradise.

    When he says 95% of the people will get a tax cut, he does not mean 95% of tax payers, he litterally means 95% of people. News flash, 30% of our population do not pay income tax after rebates. Obama is giving them more money on top of that. That money comes from other people’s taxes. I don’t know how other countries do things so I can only speak for the USA. But in the USa you work for what you have, you do not steal money from others, nor do you elect someone to do it for you. You are not entitled to anything beyond your constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness.

    #53828

    Deathbal
    Participant

    @viking62 wrote:

    Not many people know of this….. Has had a direct influence on what has been going on all over the world since 2002.
    Perform some in depth studies here and see the web that the spiders weave. I for one, do not believe in coincidences.


    Pasted: Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.

    Link–> http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm
    ……………………
    More food for thought: Mission Statement-Social Integration Branch of the U.N.

    Link to above–> http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/sib/index.html

    I am not trying to start arguments….Just pointing out things that others may not have the time to research for themselves. I am an Old school American after all. “I am not” a racist/ant-fem./biggot, & I do believe in equal opportunity for all (All around the world)–but, I do want us to keep/get back the rights that our forefathers & current fellow human beings have fought/are fighting for.

    I am Viking62. & I approve this message 😐

    I only started to read the link. But from what little i read, I didn’t like.

    #53829

    bazzz
    Participant

    DB where do you get your information, to me it sounds like an extremely conservative ideology based philosophy you got there, one that i encounter more and more now that americans seem to be polarised more than ever with the elections approaching.

    As with any extreme talking points, they are based on too simple reasoning for me to see any value in them and only stand up to scrutiny due to the propaganda that talks to the peoples deepest fears.Scared people are easily controlled and there is no need for sound reasoning, the fear inhibits nuanced thoughts.

    Everyone is free to believe whatever they want, but please inform yourself about opposing viewpoints beyond the propagated talkingpoints.

    #53830

    Deathbal
    Participant

    @bazzz wrote:

    DB where do you get your information, to me it sounds like an extremely conservative ideology based philosophy you got there, one that i encounter more and more now that americans seem to be polarised more than ever with the elections approaching.

    What do you consider an extreme conservative? I’m not very religious, i’m pro union and pro choice. Doesn’t sound very conservative to me.

    When it comes to taxes i’m a bit different. There are many people in the US that pay little or no federal taxes because they make very little. What taxes they do pay, they get back at the end of the year. Now if you give them a tax rebate, or tax credit on top of that, what would you call it? I know what I call it, and it starts with a B and ends with a T.

    Is it too much to ask our country to nominate 2 qualified people to run for the Whitehouse?

    #53831

    Rommel
    Participant

    Except for those that refused the first economic stimulus check, it seems doubtful that anyone else will refuse the larger one, now being planned.

    Joe the Plumber and Dumb and Dumber would most likely forsake the futures of their children for $ 300 but that would not be sufficient to keep the sales figures of Walmart propped up through the Christmas season. Not only that, it is an insult to those that shop exclusively at Saks Fith Avenue.

    Perhaps we can use a two tiered stimulus package this time. One that more accurately reflects our current tax structure. The wealthy could get a 20 percent instant rebate for all single item purchases over $ 10,000 if purchased between the first of November and the 24th of December with no limit on the price of the item or on the number of the items purchased.

    Those earning less than $ 250,000 per year could be issued a Walmart debit card that has a $ 600.00 line of credit for each family member. To a family of five this would be a debit card with a $ 3,000 limit.

    The cost of these programs is irrelevent to those that are wealthy enough to avoid paying their fair share of the cost or to those like Dumb and Dumber that are too stupid to see who will actually be paying the bills.

    In closing, I encourge all of you to educate yourselves about the tax structure of the country where you live. In the United States of America, a person that earns a living by sitting on a Yacht, sipping wine while their money works for them, pays less of a percentage in taxes than someone forced to earn their living working for the person that owns the yacht.

    Think about it,

    Rommel

    P.S. Cindy McCain paid an approximate 25 percent tax on her DECLARED income of over $ 6,000,000 in 2006. Having refused to provide the schedules used to calculate her declared income, it is impossible to discern how much she was able to shield by utilizing the tax loop holes and shelters that her husband helped institute. I suspect that the millions claimed by Teresa Heinz Kerry, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, after using the tax shelters and loop holes that their husbands helped to institute, were taxed at or about the same rate.

    The reason the flat tax of 10 percent is opposed by the wealthy is because they don’t pay 10 percent now. Tax breaks for the wealthy allow them to exempt a large portion of their income from taxation and shift the burden to those less fortunate, like you.

    To hell with your kids and the house payment! Buy as many lottery tickets as you can while you can still afford them! If you hit a big one, perhaps they will let you join the club. If you wait much longer, you may find that you can’t afford a $ 2.00 scratch off.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.