Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on December 30, 2003, 04:16:29 PM
-
Alexander Hamilton:
"a clear sacrifice of great positive advantages, without any counterbalancing good; administering no relief to our real disease, which is democracy, the poison of which, by a subdivision, will only be more concentrated in each part, and consequently the more virulent."
-- Letter to Theodore Sedgwick,July 10, 1804
"It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."
-- Speech on June 21,1788
Elbridge Gerry (Declaration, Constitution, governor, vice president):
The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want [do not lack] virtue; but are the dupes of pretended patriots.
-- Madison's Convention Notes, May 31st
John Adams:
"Democracy will envy all, endeavour to pull down all, and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand, it will be revengeful, bloody and cruel."
-- Letter to Jefferson, July 16, 1814
"Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
-- Letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814
John Quincy Adams:
"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.
-- Speech April 30, 1839
Fisher Ames (Author of the House Language for the First Amendment):
"A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way."
-- Speech on Biennial Elections, delivered January, 1788.
The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.
-- "The Dangers of American Liberty," February 1805.
"Liberty has never lasted long in a democracy, nor has it ever ended in anything better than despotism."
"..democracy that pollutes the morals of the people before it swallows up their freedoms."
James Madison:
"...Government capable of protecting the rights of property against the spirit of Democracy"
-- Letter to Jared Sparks, April 8, 1831.
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
Thomas Jefferson:
"The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature, for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed, it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say, that that form of government is the best, which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government?"
-- Letter to John Adams, October 28, 1813
[Some "Jeffersonian Democracy" -- miko]
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
John Randolph:
"I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality."
[No wonder there is no indication in the original Constitution that either the electoral college, senators or representatives should be democratically elected. -- miko]
-
It's a good thing that the USA is a republic...
-
Jefferson -
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
Madison
A pure democracy is a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person.
-
I agree Miko.
Let this be the first new restriction on voting rights in the bold new USA:
Ukranian immigrants must be prevented from voting in all cases without exception - punishable by death...
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It's a good thing that the USA is a republic...
Yup.
Tried to explain this to my 20 year old son not long ago when he was taking a government class. Apparently his instructor threw it open to class debate as to whether or not the time was right for America to become a "pure" democracy. I don't think the instructor ever did extol the virtues of a government by law protecting individual rights.
-
So let me get this straight...America wants Iraq to be a democratic country.
But Iraq was a Republic....
DOH!
Republic Schmublic (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/index-l.html)
-
Originally posted by Curval
So let me get this straight...America wants Iraq to be a democratic country.
But Iraq was a Republic....
DOH!
Republic Schmublic (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/index-l.html)
Iraq was a dictatorship.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Iraq was a dictatorship.
A self fullfilling autocracy whereby the ruling classes...
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Iraq was a dictatorship.
Offically it was a Republic.
Now stop repressing me.
-
midnight Target:
Jefferson - the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
Meaning that there are political rights that cannot be limited even if the majority wanted to vote for such a restriction. Quick, can you name any such right that is not subject to the majority vote or a whim of a politician representing a majority?
GRUNHERZ: Ukranian immigrants must be prevented from voting in all cases without exception - punishable by death...
Err.. Many Ukrainan immigrands are as much brainwashed socialists as some Yugoslavian immigrants.
As for me personally, what makes you think I would want to endorce any socialist faction by my vote?
AKIron: Apparently his instructor threw it open to class debate as to whether or not the time was right for America to become a "pure" democracy.
There is no clear definition on what a republic is - and never was, even for the Founding Fathers.
They certainly did not mean that a republic differs from democracy just because the people vote through intermediaries who are supposed to implement their will verbatim - like they are supposedely doing now in US.
Every founding father had his own concept of a republic. Most of those concepts did not include more than a fraction of the population having any voting rights. Certainly not America of their times.
Countries ruled by oligarchies or hereditary aristocracies were considered republics by them.
The only theoretical definition of a republic I could derive from their writings and other philosophers was that of a state where everyone was equal before the law and power was vested in people and only delegated to the government. Which did not necessarily mean the public had any say who was in the government.
So the government just administered the law on people's behalf but not originated it or stood above it. That government could have been elected or oligarchy or even hereditary monarchy or a mix of the above for all they cared.
So the major difference between a rule-of-law republic and a tyranical democracy is not that a person would exercise his political power over other people directly or through some elected oficials, but that a person did not have any political power over others at all. All were entitled to the protection of the laws but not to the use of laws as a political tool. Nobody could confiscate someone else's property, election or no.
miko
-
Miko, what are you, a freakin' Nazgul?
-
Looks around for an Elvish Sword.....or a woman.
-
Originally posted by Ping
Looks around for an Elvish Sword.....or a woman.
Strange women lyin' in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
My definitions which I share with many others are:
pure democracy is an order where power to govern lies directly in the hands of the people rather than being exercised through their representatives.
Some small towns in New England come close to this with the town meeting way of deciding issues.
A republic is a modified democracy were the people elect representatives to make our decisions on issues, and if we don't like 'em we fire 'em and hire somebody else.
-
OK Miko.
Next new rule is Ukranian immigrants dont have right to own land, only landowners can vote.
-
Supreme executive power is derived from a mandate from the masses...not some farcical aquatic ceremony.
-
Ping grabs the Elvish sword and dares to smite the evil Nagul masquerading as Miko.
Ping once again looks around for a woman, leering at the lusty lass bounding into view, Bosums bouncing jauntily to and fro.
Ah..tis good.. and now only an Ale I lack.
-
Quick, can you name any such right that is not subject to the majority vote or a whim of a politician representing a majority?
The founding fathers made it diffcult enough to change or amend the constitution so that "whims" or simple majorities cannot prevail.
-
Originally posted by Ping
Ping grabs the Elvish sword and dares to smite the evil Nagul masquerading as Miko.
Ping once again looks around for a woman, leering at the lusty lass bounding into view, Bosums bouncing jauntily to and fro.
Ah..tis good.. and now only an Ale I lack.
See the violence inherent in the system!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The founding fathers made it diffcult enough to change or amend the constitution so that "whims" or simple majorities cannot prevail.
So where'd my right to own an "assault rifle" go? How about my right to have a beer with my 18 year old son before he goes off to fight the war he was conscripted into? Or my right to smoke marijuana in the privacy of my own home?
To the whims of simple majorities.
-
Perhaps I have this wrong....
At one time not all could vote. It was feared by the framers of our constitution that many would do as the romans did and sell their votes for money or some such. The Circus's and bread kinda thing.
So my understanding is they originally intended that voters would be people with some substance.
Seems they only wanted those pulling the wagon to decide where that wagon went. They did not want anyone that only rode in the wagon to have a say.
Then along comes L.B.J. and his one man one vote and now all can vote. We are still, IMHO, suffering from his great society thing.
B. Franklin wrote a rather scathing letter to the brits RE: welfare.
In America there used to be a "POOR HOUSE" in every town. Anyone that found themselves without to such a degree that they could not eat could go to the poor house and would be givin work (to pay for), food, clothing, and shelter, etc. They would also get training if needed and in time a job.
In the older movies you could sometimes hear the wife screaming at the husband that he was going to get them into the "POOR HOUSE".
I also recall some older films with references like "you can't do that! Those people are armed and won't put up with it!"
Old movies... who would have thunk it :)
-
Ping glares at the All Seeing Eye of Sandman, he can't help but think that this is but an attempt to warp his mind with EeeeVil counsel.
Ping Smacks Sandman with the Flat of his blade.
-
ending womens suffarage would help but we must also take away the right to vote of non property owners. what does some sissy in a filthy new york appartment know about the outside. I don't want him deciding if I need a gun or not.
lazs
-
Good thing they knew this and set up a Representative Republic instead.
whew that was a close one
-
Kieran: Miko, what are you, a freakin' Nazgul?
Err.. Culture gap. I know hat "Nazgul" is a word in Tolkien noves bu that's about it.
midnight Target: The founding fathers made it diffcult enough to change or amend the constitution so that "whims" or simple majorities cannot prevail.
You mean a majority vote would have to be formally enacted through a few-year process? That's hardly an obstacle.
True, the majority may be too inert to often embark on the process that would constitutionally expand the majority's legislative powers. But by the same token the majority just unconstitutionally expands it's legislative powers.
And it's not a whim at all - it's the natural and permanent desire of majorities to "envy all, endeavour to pull down all, and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand, it will be revengeful, bloody and cruel"
wrag: It was feared by the framers of our constitution that many would do as the romans did and sell their votes for money or some such.
It has nothing to do with people selling votes - which is just a superficial result - but with the inherent properties of different categories of people.
Roughly, there are people who are interested in the capital appreciation of the country - it's increasing streangth, productivity and welfare - "net worth". The "natural elite" in Jefferson's terms.
And there is a majority of the people who are interested in current cosumption even at the cost of wasting the country's "capital".
Once the balance of power shifts from the first group to the second one, the country/society slows down and eventually reverses it rise.
So my understanding is they originally intended that voters would be people with some substance.
Exactly - people with wealth that they could pass to their heirs were interested in the country becoming more productive in the future. And what did their wealth consist of? Land and capital that was used to produce goods for everybody - mostly not rich.
Such people would reduce their current consumption in order to add to the capital - invest in new productive facilities, land improvement, etc. They would be interested in strong laws protecting property rights, personal freedom, trade, etc. They took a long view - which is why those people got rich in the first place.
A majority mad does not own capital - even though he is a direct beneficiary of the capital owned by others. The threat that waste of capital will decrease future productivity is too remote to him compared to the instant gratification of current consumption.
Civilisation is nothing but degree of time preference in people and those with lower time preference (longer time horizons) tend to become wealthy through saving and investment.
The general level of time preference of a society - it's civilisation - is determined by the people who wield control. Once it shifs from civilising to de-civilising group, civilisation stops growing and starts declining.
JBA: Good thing they knew this and set up a Representative Republic instead.
Wrong. They set up a non-representative Republic - unless you call the government directly representing only 3% of the wealthiest landowners "representative".
And it was doing great - generally increasing in wealth, morals, liberties.
Untill it was gradually converted into Representative Democracy.
miko
-
What a shock, another negative thread started by Miko.
Nothing good to say about the USA of course, the country he chooses to live in.
dago
-
Miko doesnt live in the USA, he lives in a textbook....
-
Dago: What a shock, another negative thread started by Miko.
Nothing good to say about the USA of course, the country he chooses to live in.
I though this thread was about democracy and the nature of government - the evil afflicting most of the nations on this planet and spreading fast.
As for USA - how is it negative to bring out that it was the country who's founders developed a system that resisted an onslaught of democracy for almost a century?
But I guess you would have given a boot to the Founding Fathers themselves if you could - together with George Washington, who's views on democracy did not differ from those above.
GRUNHERZ: Miko doesnt live in the USA, he lives in a textbook.
Several texts/books - among them The Declaration, The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, the private letters, the primary sources they referred to as justification of their views, etc.
miko
-
As for USA - how is it negative to bring out that it was the country who's founders developed a system that resisted an onslaught of democracy for almost a century?
Gee, I missed where you said anything positive about the Founding Fathers, I noticed you only posted their negative comments about democracy. You didnt bother mentioning the USA is a Republic, just posted negative quotes.
Your full of it. Your life must really be pathetic to only want to discuss negatives.
dago
-
Your full of it. Your life must really be pathetic to only want to discuss negatives.
To work with a negative that has the crisp darks and highlight you want, but is just shy of giving enough tonality, expose it with the high contrast filter for one third the total time, and the low contrast for two thirds. You can use lower numbered filters, too, like a number 1 and a number 3 for example.
-
Dago: Gee, I missed where you said anything positive about the Founding Fathers,
Posting someone's quote as an example of wisdom is the highest form of compliment possible. If you do not understand that simple fact and need every single thing chewed out for you, it's not my fault.
I noticed you only posted their negative comments about democracy.
Which is a recent invention that has nothing to do with and totally opposes the principles this state was founded on.
You didnt bother mentioning the USA is a Republic
Why bother? It is often labeled as a "republic" but it is not - and has not been for a long time. The main feature of a Republic is the Rule of Law. We have a representative democracy which is the rule of persons or groups of persons, not the Rule of Law in the least.
Your full of it. ...only want to discuss negatives.
That's normal rational human action. A human acts to change his current situation to one he/she perceives as better one. So any rational human action is an attempt to diminish negative and increase positive. So is the point of my posts here.
Your life must really be pathetic...
Your mind process must be totally... strange to believe what you've just said. Why do you think I would care to share my enjoyment of life with you? Not only why would I bother typing that when I could type something else, that would totally contradict my posted philosophy here and you are just not smart enough to realise that.
Here is how it works - you and your ilk are democrats. The very people that Founding Fathers despised. The democracy is driven by envy and jelousy.
The only thing I could say to make you hate me worse than you do now is stop attacking values dear to you and start exposing my successes. What would be the point of that?
miko
-
I noticed you only posted their negative comments about democracy.
Which is a recent invention that has nothing to do with and totally opposes the principles this state was founded on.
I dont think 490BC is "recent". In Athens in 490BC the Greeks installed the first Democratic government. Not sure how old something has to be for you to consider it "old". This state was founded as a democratic Republic. Not a pure democracy.
You didnt bother mentioning the USA is a Republic
Why bother? It is often labeled as a "republic" but it is not - and has not been for a long time.
Actually, it is a Republic, as much as you would like to pretend otherwise. Since a Republic government is one where you have a political system in which the citizens elect people to represent them, I think the USA is a good example of a Republic. But, feel free to spread your BS ideas to the contrary, it still is a free country.
only want to discuss negatives. That's normal rational human action.
It is not the ONLY human action, and a scroll of this board will find threads started that are humorous, are informative, and seeking answers. Yours are exclusively negative, and always trying to cast negative shadows upon my country (notice I don't say "our country". I feel its a shame some of the little lambs who also frequent this board are too afraid to speak up.
Why do you think I would care to share my enjoyment of life with you?
Most people who have joy in thier lives wish to share the joy, they enjoy talking about the things that give them pleasure, it is certainly more uplifting to write about or read about positive things than always dwelling on the negatives. Since your posts are always in the negative, its not a leap to assume you are a miserable person without joy. You can try now to post of all the wonderful things about your life, but it would be too late, your story has already unfolded. If you must be prompted to discuss good things, you are unfortunate.
BTW, I dont hate you, I just tire of you. I celebrate that in our country, even the miserable who have fled terrible places and still fail to find joy here are at least able to enjoy the freedoms that do exist here. Nobody has knocked at your door because of your comments, and I doubt you lay awake in bed worrrying that someone will. Why dont you celebrate that, start a thread about that once?
dago
-
Dago: Most people who have joy in thier lives wish to share the joy
I am not sure about that. Many people are content to experience joy without boasting about it. Many do not need external confirmation to validate their feelings. There are extraverts and introverts and people in between.
Anyway, the question was not whether I should "share my enjoyment of life" but "share my enjoyment of life with you". I see no pressing reason to.
Actually, it is a Republic, as much as you would like to pretend otherwise. Since a Republic government is one where you have a political system in which the citizens elect people to represent them
You can play with words all you want. I've heard it all living in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The problem is not whether democracy is direct or representative, that's just a minor technicality.
Whether you directly vote for higher taxes or for a representative who votes for higher taxes - there is not an iota of difference. As long as you can vote to steal other people's property or believe that stealing people's property should be a subject to majority vote - direct or otherwise, it does not matter what you label yourself.
at least able to enjoy the freedoms that do exist here
Despite people like you trying to change that.
Nobody has knocked at your door
No, not on mine. They knocked on plenty of other doors and took away or killed people who did not threaten or harm anyone.
because of your comments, and I doubt you lay awake in bed worrrying that someone will.
They do not worry much about what I say - their brainwashing propaganda machine is too good for my words to have much effect.
As long as I do not resist fleecing, they do not care what I say.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
You can play with words all you want. I've heard it all living in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.... it does not matter what you label yourself.
miko
I believe you came awfully close to contradicting yourself in the same breath.
It does not matter what you label yourself, but it does matter what you are. The USSR was not a representative democracy, as choice for the electorate was limited by a monopolist party.
The USA is a representative democracy as choice is not limited. (at least not by government mandate)
The USA is a representative democracy and therefore a republic, hence the name of the song, 'The Battle Hymn of the Republic'
A republic is a limited repersentative democracy based on the rule of law, and hence a constitution.
-
Be careful Holden, you risk Mikos favorite response if you make sense:
"you do not know anything about democracy"
or
"you do not know anything about Republic".
He uses that dodge often.
dago
-
Holden McGroin: The USA is a representative democracy and therefore a republic, hence the name of the song, 'The Battle Hymn of the Republic'
If you wish to call it that - sure.
But when USA was founded as a republic, it was in no way representative and probably not a democracy, so indirect or representative democracy cannot be a definition of a republic.
Italian mercnaht republics were not democracies. Hong Kong is not a democracy but is a republic. Republic is quite a nebulous term.
A republic is a limited repersentative democracy based on the rule of law, and hence a constitution.
That's a much better definition. And the main points here is "limited" and "rule of law". Add "the powers of government are exercised on behalf of the people" and you are set.
As long as the government is limited, there is Rule of Law and liberty and republic. Does not even have to be representative or democracy - those are just details of how the government is formed.
A limited government operating under the Rule of Law only administers/enforces the law - but not creates it. Government is under the law, not above the law.
That is cleary not the case in most western and other democratic countries. We are representative democracies but there is no limited government, no rule of law.
The democracy makes it more likely for the government to grow than, say, monarchy or oligarchy, because the people are much likely to resist the expansion of powers when there is theoretical equal opportunity to enter teh government.
The government creates new laws insessantly and is charged to impose Constutution on itself - which is silly. There is much confusion now between Law and legislation but for the FF the distinction was quite clear.
The Constitution long ceased to be a legal document limiting the government and its only significance now is to provide soundbites and moral rallying points for public opinion to be used in democratic political campaigns.
The clauses that are not prominent in public opinion or do not enjoy wide support are ignored - as it a clause of the Constitution was supposed to be currently popular in order to be effective.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
The Constitution long ceased to be a legal document limiting the government and its only significance now is to provide soundbites and moral rallying points for public opinion to be used in democratic political campaigns.
miko
Ever heard of the organization which is the bane of many conservatives?
There exists something called the American Civil Liberties Union. It is an organization which uses constitutional principles, most notably the Bill of Rights, to argue (and win) against the tendency of a government to stray from the rule of law, embodied in the constitution.
They have argued sucessfully a myriad of constitutional issues, especially in limiting speech, search an seisure issues, Miranda warnings, the right to peacably assemble, (read Skokie, Ill) etc.
The Constitution is alive and well and is performing its main function of limiting the government's power.
-
err well was until the "patriot" act.
with a conservative court we are on our way to fascism.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
err well was until the "patriot" act.
with a conservative court we are on our way to fascism.
Love the BBS!
One guy is convinced we are becoming like the leftist communist soviet union.
And another is certain of our impending doom as a right wing facist nazi police state...
I think America will be just fine...
:lol
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
err well was until the "patriot" act.
with a conservative court we are on our way to fascism.
Thank God for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
(pun intended)
-
Republic is quite a nebulous term.
Yet miko knows what is and what is not a republic...
Its......... Nebulous Man
Faster than a Ripsnort reply!
Able to define words in a single sentence!
More powerful than Lindon Larouche on steriods!
-
Hmmm
I think Miko is trying to say that what we started with is no longer what we have.
As to NAZI or communist BOTH are forms of socialism. One is to the left the other to the right.
Both had secret police etc...
I find the meaning of much of what the founders wanted has been destroyed with such actions as the Patriot Act, and the underhanded way they got the Patriot Act II passed.
Sure maybe it won't be abused. I'm not betting on that with the recent happenings in some area's of our country. It has already been abused.
Much of the rule of law has been side stepped and the ACLU is even worried.
Certain Treaties have been made on the sly and we are now begining to see the results.
-
I think Miko is trying to say that what we started with is no longer what we have.
Amazing thought that. The nation has gone from a few thousand to what, maybe 275 million people, from 13 colonies to 50 states?
Of course what we started out with isn't what we have now. It would be rather amazing if it was the same, and it would be a very unfortunate thing.
Our nation has been eloving, as all nations do, our being a young nation in relative terms, we were bound to grow and change, with that change being dramatic at times. Yet, our nation still holds as much as possible to the basic tenets, concepts and given rights of the Constitution as possible, at least as defined by the Supreme Court.
What has become very clear in these discussions is that Miko has decided he, and only he, is the authority of definition, he can scoff at the definitions given to words, terms and concepts, in conflict and defiance with the best and brightest in the world. Show him an accepted definition, he will say its wrong. If you make a point, he will tell you that you don't know anything about the issue.
His arrogance and attempts to obfuscate have been reason to render his opinions mute.
dago
-
The role of the Nazgul in Tolkien literature is to suck the hope out of man. By their very presence men begin to quail. By the sounds of their voices men's blood freezes.
-
Democracy is three wolves and one sheep voteing on what to have for lunch.
-
I think some of us need to experience more things...
Like fear, will they come to my house tonight, have I said too much? not enough? Will they take me away?
Ever have some one shooting at you with the intention of killing you? Ever shoot back?
Fear....
Has anyone reading this thread ever had to deal with really strong fear or Terror?
I confess that getting a really strong fear "treatment" changes one for the rest of their life.
Some things become far more important then they were and some things become far less important then they were.
I can see Miko's point. I find myself tending to agree with portions of what he says.
Yes Miko may have strong opinions. Perhaps that is because of where he used to live. And perhaps because of what he used to see.
I've seen people looking at most everyone with stark fear in their eyes. A very large number of people and many of those had no way to defend themselves. Villages and towns. Fear lots of fear and under the fear anger that verged on rage and allot of resentment was present as well.
I don't want that here in my country.
"None who have always been free can understand the terrible
fascinating power of the hope of freedom to those who are not
free."
Pearl S. Buck (1892-1973)
American novelist
"The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free
to do then in what we are free not to do." Eric Hoffer
American philosopher.
"I think that the sacredness of human life is a purely
municipal ideal of no validity outside the jurisdiction. I
believe that force, mitigated as far as may be by good
manners, is the ultimate ratio, and between two groups of men
that want to make inconsistent kinds of world I see no remedy
except force . . . It seems to me that every society rests on
the death of men."
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935)
American jurist
"Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance
from the problem."
John Galsworthy (1867-1933)
English novelist, dramatist
-
the point is hes wrong, this country is not now a republic.
if it once was or should be is really pointless.
now if the checks and balances of power are being removed.
and secret courts give out secret search warrents without any notification to the investigated and then make it a felony to even report the warrent has been served?
our ancestors are spinnin in their graves like tops.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
the point is hes wrong, this country is not now a republic.
if it once was or should be is really pointless.
now if the checks and balances of power are being removed.
and secret courts give out secret search warrents without any notification to the investigated and then make it a felony to even report the warrent has been served?
our ancestors are spinnin in their graves like tops.
For more reasons than those. We are rapidly becoming a socialist state. Tax dollars for votes.
-
If you want to get right down to it, either end of the political spectrum will eventually migrate to the middle.