I'm with Congress

[Lumpy]

Franklin never said or wrote any of that. Richard Jackson wrote that in his book. However, the phrase is partly based on Franklin's proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power", which he wrote in Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738.

[Lumpy]

Franklin did however say this in his speech to the Constitutional Convention in 1787:

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, � if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."

[dhaus]

Bush wants immunity for the telcoms so they won't have to testify in court as to exactly what the bushies had them do.  If this bill was so all fired important for american lives, bush could have 1) agreed to an extension so Congress could find out exactly why the telcoms needed immunity or 2) signed the bill into law without the telcom immunity.  By threatening to veto either one, Bush has put the telcom's interests over americans.  Oh, the telcoms fear of suits ends if they acted pursuant to a lawful request by the Bushies.  Oops, what are they afraid of again?  By the way, when the FBI didn't pay up for the telcoms info gathering, they stopped doing it.  We didn't hear how dangerous THAT was to American lives did we?

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by dhaus
Bush wants immunity for the telcoms so they won't have to testify in court as to exactly what the bushies had them do.  If this bill was so all fired important for american lives, bush could have 1) agreed to an extension so Congress could find out exactly why the telcoms needed immunity or 2) signed the bill into law without the telcom immunity.  By threatening to veto either one, Bush has put the telcom's interests over americans.  Oh, the telcoms fear of suits ends if they acted pursuant to a lawful request by the Bushies.  Oops, what are they afraid of again?  By the way, when the FBI didn't pay up for the telcoms info gathering, they stopped doing it.  We didn't hear how dangerous THAT was to American lives did we?

I'd agree with the first part of your statement but this congress has shown time and time again that they care less about national security and more with trying to impress fringe voters in frying Bush himself.  

Frankly I wouldn't trust them either with national secrets.

[midnight Target]

I don't know why people are so willing to give up America to save America.

We celebrate the greatest generation because they were willing to die for freedom.... now we are willing to give up freedom so we don't die.

sissies.

[Shamus]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
I'd agree with the first part of your statement but this congress has shown time and time again that they care less about national security and more with trying to impress fringe voters in frying Bush himself.  

Frankly I wouldn't trust them either with national secrets.

Then how about leaving the final say up to what could be construed as Bush's courts?

shamus

[Rich46yo]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Roman republic turned into a dictatorship under Julius Caeser

Wiemar Republic became the Third Reich.


Just a couple that come to mind w/o any research

                   The Roman Republic a Democracy??  Yeah right.

                   I already mentioned The Wiemar Republic in another thread. First off when it was established Germany had not been defeated in battle so the old Power structures were still in place. That of Monarchy, Industry, and Army, and of course later "communism".  Secondly by the Allies placing such crushing economic demands of reparations on Germany the fledgling Democracy was setup for failure from the git-go.

                But yeah, I guess TWR was the one example. But Rome??

                And the reason those are the only two you can recall is because those are the only two that can be named. Actually theres only one. To compare the Roman Empire to modern Democracy is laughable.

               However I can name dozens of Fascist and Totalitarian states that have embraced Democracy. So nice try. These themes like, "This is how Democracy fails, its to the sound of applause", might sound good and look good but it has happened close to "zero" times in the actual world. To think the worlds premier Democracy would come crashing down is so far fetched that the saying of which is right up there with the fear mongers on the side you say your against.

             But do keep researching.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by midnight Target
I don't know why people are so willing to give up America to save America.

We celebrate the greatest generation because they were willing to die for freedom.... now we are willing to give up freedom so we don't die.

sissies.

 

[Rich46yo]

See Rules #4, #5

[DREDIOCK]

"Historical republics, however, have never conformed to a theoretical model, and in the 20th century the term republic is freely used by dictatorships, one-party states"

"Some scholars regard the ancient confederation of Hebrew tribes that endured in Palestine from the 15th century bc until a monarchy was established about 1020 bc as an embryonic republic"

"For nearly 500 years Rome itself was a republic in which virtually all free males were eventually franchised."

"A new chapter in the history of republicanism began with the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the subsequent transformation of the Russian Empire into the USSR. The development of the Soviet Union into a one-party totalitarian state demonstrated once more that republic and democracy are not synonymous, a fact that became even more obvious after World War II, when all the republics of Eastern Europe were fashioned in a similar mold as one-party �people's republics� under the tutelage of the Soviet Union."

"Of the dozens of new republics that have come into being since World War II, most have, in fact, displayed a definite trend away from democratic ideals and instead assumed the nature of oligarchies, single-party states, or military dictatorships. "


http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761554383/Republic_(government).html

[Rich46yo]

See Rule #5

[DREDIOCK]

See Rules #4, #5

[DREDIOCK]

See Rule #5

[Skuzzy]

If you cannot post without making some type of derogatory reference to another member of the community, I suggest you stop posting.

I am getting really very tired of warning people about this.

[USRanger]

See Rule #2