Castro

[Smart]

Dead or Alive? Havana says his condition is 'stable'... Pardon me for getting into semantics but; with the possible exception of Jesus Christ, I would characterize death as the condition of ultimate stability.

I still think he's alive though. Raul would/will make a BIG deal over the change of power and Castro's elevation revolutionary God.

[the.crooked]

i just saw an article on the US statement about this.


just a sec

edit- here it is:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/08/01/national/w104557D93.DTL&type=politics


U.S. Ready to Aid Transition in Cuba
By GEORGE GEDDA, Associated Press Writer


With Cuban President Fidel Castro ailing, the State Department raised the possibility Tuesday of a democratic transition on the island and said the United States is prepared to support such a step.


Castro, who underwent surgery for an intestinal problem, surrendered power temporarily to his brother, Raul, No. 2 in the chain of command.


Spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States has no doubt that the Cuban people are weary of communist rule after 47 years and are eager to choose their leaders rather than having them imposed on the country.


"We believe that the Cuban people aspire and thirst for democracy and that given the choice they would choose a democratic government," he said.


The White House said it is monitoring the health crisis of the Cuban leader.


"In the event that Cuba does start to make a transition to a democracy, the United States and the American people will do everything that we can to stand by the Cuban people in their aspirations for democracy," McCormack said.


Three weeks before the official announcement in Havana of Castro's deteriorating health, a U.S. presidential commission called for an $80 million program to bolster non-governmental groups in Cuba for the purpose of hastening an end to the country's communist system.


The report also proposed "assistance in preparing the Cuban military forces to adjust to an appropriate role in a democracy." It provided no details on this point.


Cuba's National Information Agency called the report a "new plan of aggression" that violated the island's national sovereignty.


"We can't speculate on Castro's health, but we continue to work for the day of Cuba's freedom," White House spokesman Peter Watkins said Tuesday. .


The official announcement in Havana said Castro, who will be 80 in two weeks, underwent intestinal surgery.


On Monday, before Castro's illness was announced, President Bush was in Miami and spoke of the island's future.


"If Fidel Castro were to move on because of natural causes, we've got a plan in place to help the people of Cuba understand there's a better way than the system in which they've been living under," he told WAQI-AM Radio Mambi, a Spanish-language radio station. "No one knows when Fidel Castro will move on. In my judgment, that's the work of the Almighty."


At the time the 95-page commission report was released, Bush said, "We are actively working for change in Cuba, not simply waiting for change."


The United States and Cuba have been unbending adversaries since Castro entered into an alliance with the Soviet Union and converted his country into a Marxist-Leninist state in the early 1960s.


Hostilities reached a peak during that period, marked by the failed Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban missile crisis.


There have been no high-level political contacts between the two countries since 1982. The collapse of European communism almost two decades ago was a severe blow to Castro, both politically and economically.


Lately, his fortunes have improved somewhat with the emergence of left-of-center and leftist government in Latin America, most notably in Venezuela, where President Hugo Chavez has used his oil wealth to back policies long espoused by Castro.


For years, successive administrations have tailored their Cuba policies with an eye toward winning support from the vote-rich Cuban-American community in South Florida, which is predominantly anti-Castro. The U.S. trade embargo has been the centerpiece of American policy toward Cuba for more than 40 years.


Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., a member of the House International Relations Committee who has long opposed Castro, said even a temporary relinquishment of power by Castro is "a great day for the Cuban people and for their brothers and sisters in exile."


"Fidel Castro has only brought ruin and misery to Cuba, so if he is incapacitated, even for a short period of time, it is a marvelous moment for the millions of Cubans who live under his iron-fisted rule and oppressive state machinery," she said. "I hope this is the beginning of the end for his despised regime."


Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., who like Ros-Lehtinen was born in Cuba, joined with her in saying they expect U.S. action for now will be limited to transmitting radio messages of hope to the Cuban people and preventing an influx of illegal immigrants from the island.


Martinez said he is confident the Navy and Coast Guard have the necessary resources to prevent refugees from trying to flood U.S. borders.


He also said he would not support lifting the U.S. embargo on Cuba until reform was under way. Instead, the United States should lend its ear to political dissidents and pressure outside forces, such as Venezuela, to limit support of the communist regime, the senator said.

[spectr]

I am pretty sure fidel is still alive in whatever state he might be in. personally i think he has been a evil robot clone for at least the last ten years. I think this was just a normal upgrade to his operating system

[the.crooked]

Naw I think homeboy is just a grizzled motherfucker. He should be posted all over that thread. In fact I think I'm gonna do that.

[The Man with the Answers]

as bad as Fidel is, I dread what Cuba will lok like once economic and social inequality and neo-colonialism is re-introduced back into Cuba, as well as casinos, American tourists and drug production...

[HydrogenPeroxide]

for sure, if cuba goes democratic fast like in the former soviet union, that place will be so corrupt it will be stupid. but it won't, fidel's brother will probably crack down right away to check any renewed hope dissidents have.

[Iron_Lung]

Three weeks before the official announcement in Havana of Castro's deteriorating health, a U.S. presidential commission called for an $80 million program to bolster non-governmental groups in Cuba for the purpose of hastening an end to the country's communist system.


The report also proposed "assistance in preparing the Cuban military forces to adjust to an appropriate role in a democracy." It provided no details on this point.


Cuba's National Information Agency called the report a "new plan of aggression" that violated the island's national sovereignty.


and


On Monday, before Castro's illness was announced, President Bush was in Miami and spoke of the island's future.


"If Fidel Castro were to move on because of natural causes, we've got a plan in place to help the people of Cuba understand there's a better way than the system in which they've been living under," he told WAQI-AM Radio Mambi, a Spanish-language radio station. "No one knows when Fidel Castro will move on. In my judgment, that's the work of the Almighty."


At the time the 95-page commission report was released, Bush said, "We are actively working for change in Cuba, not simply waiting for change."


the parts that worry me the most, what with our tradition of building democracies around the world and whatnot.

[angelofdeath]

now is the time for fighters in cuba to free thier people.

[Qawee]

Yeah, you gotta hate guaranteed health care, and higher education

:rolleyes:

[angelofdeath]

yup. i oppose all state sponsored tyranny. how in the hell can support communists?

[CALIgula]

i think fidel is fine too....he is just old....

but seriously though...dude is like a cat....hes got hella more than 9 lives though....

i read somewhere the CIA tried assassinating him like 28 different times!

[the.crooked]

i think fidel is fine too....he is just old....

but seriously though...dude is like a cat....hes got hella more than 9 lives though....

i read somewhere the CIA tried assassinating him like 28 different times!



exactly why he's a grizzled motherfucker.

[spectr]

i think fidel is fine too....he is just old....

but seriously though...dude is like a cat....hes got hella more than 9 lives though....

i read somewhere the CIA tried assassinating him like 28 different times!

yeah man the c.i.a. sucks at killing people though, they tried to kill bob marley at one point and failed.

[Hashassian]

fidel will out live us all....probally.

[stagnant water]

how in the hell can support communists?

Communism looks so good on paper ... its almost too bad it cant work in the real world.

Two things ingrained in the human condition that kill it from ever being able to work, Greed and Insecurity.

With that said its a pipe dream of a balanced world.

In the real world its a horrible thing that oppresses the masses and rewards poor leaders. Wait isnt that what the neo-con are trying to do in our democratic country ???

hhhmmmm ....

[angelofdeath]

"In the real world its a horrible thing that oppresses the masses and rewards poor leaders. Wait isnt that what the neo-con are trying to do in our democratic country ??? "

yeah that is already what the neo cons and socialists have already done.

[prison coleslaw]

i wish i lived in a democratic country.

[spectr]

i wish i lived in a democratic country.
I would like to thank you for one of the following then, i don't know what country your in but i am sure you have provided one.
beautiful women who are willing to do anything to come to america
cheap child labor, how many fingers do you have?
illegal drugs
cheap electronic products
cheap cars
internet porn
yet another country to mock on a constant basis
or something of that nature.
if i failed to list what your country provides us please call our goverment mention something about weapons of mass destruction, lots of oil and you kicking it with osama. don't worry we will be there shortly to exploit you and your fellow countrymen

[prison coleslaw]

there are no democratic countries

[spectr]

no america is democratic, i vote but i am not rich and white so my vote doesn't count.

[stagnant water]

no america is democratic, i vote but i am not rich and white so my vote doesn't count.

Hey I'm white but not rich and my vote still dosent count ... what does race have to do with it unless you want to make it part of the problem?

[angelofdeath]

america isnt a democracy. its a constitutional republic.

[the.crooked]

AOD is right. Representative Republic with democratic structure. Pure democracies rarely if ever exist.

[angelofdeath]

and pure democracy is mob rule, is anti individual rights, and are 'violent in thier deaths.'

[ASER1NE]

Alot of fuss over nothing

[--->]

Yeah, you gotta hate guaranteed health care, and higher education

:rolleyes:


yup. i oppose all state sponsored tyranny.


Are you retarded?

[--->]

america isnt a democracy. its a constitutional republic.


and pure democracy is mob rule, is anti individual rights, and are 'violent in thier deaths.'

Yeah, you're deffinately retarded.:haha:


.

[Dawood]

I could care less whether it is a democracy or a constitutional republic. It's all going down the toilet in this country anyway, I'm getting out, man, I'm serious, This is no place for my family and I anymore. I'm moving to a countryside waaaaaaaay across the water somewhere where I can focus on important things and put the demons and
politrickians way out of my mind. I want to kick it on a persian rug eating biryani chicken and baba ganouj, drinking chai and talking about the mysteries of the soul with simple people who know nothing about America and could care less.
Indonesian silat mixed with brazilian Ju Jitsu and an african wife who knows how to make penut butter curry, yup.

[angelofdeath]

Yeah, you're deffinately retarded.:haha:


.

you just have absolutely no understanding of anything. if we were a democracy... we would have mob rule. to not understand the difference between a pure democracy and a republic, YOU my friend are the retarded one. constitutional republic: america. democracy: 51 people voting for the death of the other 49. there is no protection of individual rights. the founders of this country despised pure democracy. with our system of decentralized, representative self government, we have the will of the people, but individual rights protected.

'democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on whats for dinner. liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.' ben franklin.

[fermentor666]

no america is democratic, i vote but i am not rich and white so my vote doesn't count.



You could be white and rich and your vote still won't count if 51% of the population votes for the other guy.

[Smart]

You could be white and rich and your vote still won't count if 51% of the population votes for the other guy.

Hmph, I guess you never heard of the Electrical College!

[angelofdeath]

nigga said electrical!

the electoral college system is a system to protect the masses from the dangers of democracy.

[angelofdeath]

"

Yeah, you gotta hate guaranteed health care, and higher education









Quote:





Originally Posted by angelofdeath


yup. i oppose all state sponsored tyranny.








Are you retarded?"


let me see... i can live in america and be somewhat free or i can live in cuba, and have 'free healthcare and education' from indotrinated State ran schools, no property rights, no wealth, no free speech, a State ran press, live in a total police state, and risk being thrown into one of the over 300 prisons for 'crimes against the government' by merely existing.
yeah. im retarded

[russell jones]

nigga said electrical!

the electoral college system is a system to protect the masses from the dangers of democracy.


The electoral college in its present state, with the winner taking all the votes in a particular state, is to protect the Democrats and Republicans from third parties. Winner take all policies were passed in the states after the Civil War when all kinds of political parties were vying for power. Eliminate the electoral college and we could have real choices instead of bullshit centrist candidates.

[angelofdeath]

not really. we would have more democracy. apportioned voting protects everyone. if you are fearful of a third party not getting elected, one must educate the population. one must push for limited government. one must decentralize the federal government. national elections were never intended to matter this much. going with more democracy is a sure recipe for disaster as well as never losing our civil liberty. check it:


"The intense media focus on the divide between “red” and “blue” states in the wake of the presidential election has raised new questions regarding our federal voting system. One U.S. Senator has promised to introduce legislation to abolish the Electoral College, claiming it is an anachronism that serves no good purpose in modern politics. Her stated goal is “simply to allow the popular will of the American people to be expressed every four years when we elect our president.” Many Americans agree, arguing that the man receiving the most votes should win; anything else would be unfair. In other words, they believe the American political system should operate as a direct democracy.



The problem, of course, is that our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic, as any grammar school child knew just a few decades ago. Remember the Pledge of Allegiance: “and to the Republic for which it stands”? The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. On the contrary, Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government” (emphasis added).



The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis. Yet we have become obsessed with democracy, as though any government action would be permissible if a majority of voters simply approved of it. Democracy has become a sacred cow, a deity which no one dares question. Democracy, we are told, is always good. But the founders created a constitutionally limited republic precisely to protect fundamental liberties from the whims of the masses, to guard against the excesses of democracy. The Electoral College likewise was created in the Constitution to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The President was to be elected by the states rather than the citizenry as a whole, with votes apportioned to states according to their representation in Congress. The will of the people was to be tempered by the wisdom of the Electoral College.



By contrast, election of the President by pure popular vote totals would damage statehood. Populated areas on both coasts would have increasing influence on national elections, to the detriment of less populated southern and western states. A candidate receiving a large percentage of the popular vote in California and New York could win a national election with very little support in dozens of other states! A popular vote system simply would intensify the populist pandering which already dominates national campaigns.



Not surprisingly, calls to abolish the Electoral College system are heard most loudly among left elites concentrated largely on the two coasts. Liberals favor a very strong centralized federal government, and have contempt for the concept of states' rights (a contempt now shared, unfortunately, by the Republican Party). They believe in federalizing virtually every area of law, leaving states powerless to challenge directives sent down from Washington. The Electoral College system threatens liberals because it allows states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Citizens in southern and western states in particular tend to value individual liberty, property rights, gun rights, and religious freedom, values which are abhorrent to the collectivist elites. The collectivists care about centralized power, not democracy. Their efforts to discredit the Electoral College system are an attempt to limit the voting power of pro-liberty states."

[--->]

"
'free healthcare and education' from indotrinated State ran schools, no property rights, no wealth, no free speech, a State ran press, live in a total police state, and risk being thrown into one of the over 300 prisons for 'crimes against the government' by merely existing.
yeah. im retarded


This sounds exactly like America. I'm sure we have well over 300 prisons though and probably far more laws to lock niggas up with.

[--->]

...Oh, and minus the free healthcare too.

[angelofdeath]

Yeah, you're deffinately retarded.:haha:


.


quit talking about yourself. damn.

[fermentor666]

Hmph, I guess you never heard of the Electrical College!




You knew what I meant, goddamnit!

[MY ROTTING LIVER]

re·pub·lic
n.


<LI type=a>A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
A nation that has such a political order.


<LI type=a>A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
A nation that has such a political order.
often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.de·moc·ra·cy
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

[MY ROTTING LIVER]

http://pweb.jps.net/~gangale/opsa/ps2/Electoral_College_Math_101.htm


An interesting read which says everything there is to say pretty much about our elective process - we're fucked, but the smaller states aren't ever going to agree to actual fair elections.

After almost every presidential election, and particularly after close ones, someone proposes doing away with the Electoral College. This political medicine show is probably as old as the American republic itself. There have been about 700 unsuccessful attempts to abolish the Electoral College. None of these are ever serious proposals, because there is no chance of them being enacted, and the charlatans know this from the start.

So, why do politicians bother? Because it's always a crowd-pleaser, particularly in populous states such as California. The credulous yahoos in the audience applaud, since they have only a hazy idea of how their government works. This time around it's Sen. Dianne Feinstein's turn to trot out the old snake oil.

Let's look at the political science behind her miracle elixir.

To begin with, abolishing the Electoral College requires amending the Constitution, which is a two-step process. The first step has two options, but the one most often used is for each house of Congress to pass the proposed amendment by a two-thirds majority. The second step is for three-fourths of the state legislatures to ratify the proposed amendment.

Now, let's do the math. There are 538 electors in the Electoral College: one for each Congressional district (435), two for each Senate seat (100) and three for the District of Columbia. The 2000 Census counted 281 million people in the 50 states and D.C. Dividing the population by the number of electors results in an average of 523,000 people per elector.

But here's the problem. California - the most populous state- has 33.9 million people and 55 electors (53 Congressional districts plus two Senate seats). That's 616,000 Californians per elector.

Wyoming - the least populous state - has 494,000 people and three electors (one Congressional district plus two Senate seats). That's only 165,000 Wyomingites per elector. In other words, one voter in Wyoming has nearly four times the political power of one Californian.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that the Creator made us equal, but a few years later the Constitution re-created us unequal. Californians, in particular, are distinctly inferior. But this nation wasn't founded on the principle of one person, one vote; it was founded as a union of sovereign states.

And here is why, as long as the Constitution exists, the Electoral College will never be abolished.

Remember that, nationwide, the average number of people per elector is 523,000. In the 17 most populous states - including California - that number is higher, so these states are disadvantaged. The other 33 states, however, have a sweet deal, so why would they give it up? They wouldn't. That means that there are only 34 votes in the Senate for a constitutional amendment and 66 votes against. Senator Feinstein will need two-thirds of the Senate - 67 votes - for her amendment. How does she propose to convince 33 of her colleagues to change their votes and cut their own political throats?

But let's say that oratory wins the day, and the Senate passes Feinstein's plan. And let's stipulate that the House of Representatives also passes the amendment. Now, the second hurdle must be vaulted: three-fourths of the state legislatures. That's 38 states. But only 17 states are disadvantaged by the present system, and the other 33 like it. Do you imagine that 21 state legislatures would vote away their constituents' political advantage?

Senator Feinstein, I don't like the Electoral College either, but we're stuck with it, and you know it. This isn't rocket science, just political science. You have as much chance of changing the law of gravity and making everything fall upward.

[Smart]

http://www.duffgardens.net/media/images/abewall.gif

Lousy Demmycrats!

[angelofdeath]

re·pub·lic
n.


<LI type=a>A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
A nation that has such a political order.


<LI type=a>A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
A nation that has such a political order.
often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.de·moc·ra·cy
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

exactly. america is a republc.

[angelofdeath]

from the federalist 10

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such 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. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.

It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

PUBLIUS.

[angelofdeath]

"no good government but what is republican... the very definition of a republic is 'an empire of laws, and not of men." John Adams

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." John Adams

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
Samuel Adams

"O]ur sages in the great [constitutional] convention... intended our government should be a republic which differs more widely from a democracy than a democracy from a despotism. The rigours of a despotism often... oppress only a few, but it is the very essence and nature of a democracy, for a faction claiming to oppress a minority, and that minority the chief owners of the property and truest lovers of their country."
Fisher Ames

"The government of the absolute majority is but the government of the strongest interests; and when not effectively checked, is the most tyrannical and oppressive that can be devised. [To read the Constitution is to realize that] no free system was ever farther removed from the principle that the absolute majority, without check or limitation, ought to govern."
John C Calhoun

"Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail."
John C Calhoun

"Democracy is the most vile form of government... 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. "
James Madison

"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. "
Thomas Jefferson

""Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

you decide.

[yumone]

so angelofdeath how is the american republic model different to a democracy if its just democratically elected representatives of states democratically cooperating on a federal level? im actually really interested to see whether it is different and how.

[Smart]

Excuse me everyone... I need to talk to AoD for a sec so I'm gonna have to interrupt the raging democracy vs. republic argument. Just for now; we are what we are.

So, AoD, listen, shut up.

Seriously.

You've posted a big ton of words in this thread, ALL of which we've heard from you before, 15 of which are yours (and those 15 AREN'T the good ones) and absolutely NONE of are the words 'Castro' 'Fidel' or 'Cuba'. I'm fed up with it. It was a huge pain in the ass when you hijacked the Abortion thread with this same argumentand now...

I find myself wondering, which do you like better close-up magic, stage magic/illusion or mentalism/mind reading?

[angelofdeath]

geez dude, i know you hate me and all, but cmon.
i merely said cuba needs to free thier people while thier 'leader' is sick. then some people started talking about how great it is in cuba to have 'free healthcare' and 'free education.' then they started talking about democracy, and that america is a democracy. i said it is a republic. so i believe it unfair to pin the whole 'thread hijack' on me.

[Smart]

I don't hate you, I don't even think about you except to say that you are pretty much responsible for imposing off-topic long winded reports about why 'we' don't understand how the government works and if we would only join 'your team' America would be better off but dig it...

You never answered my question about magic. Whatever.
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/a/a2/400px-TheScapegoat-WilliamHolmanHunt.jpg

[yumone]

so angelofdeath how is the american republic model different to a democracy if its just democratically elected representatives of states democratically cooperating on a federal level? im actually really interested to see whether it is different and how.

reply please

[angelofdeath]

i would have earlier, but i didnt want to make some people mad or get accused of saying the same thing over and over...lol... but
the american republic as laid out by the constitution is drastically different than a democracy because it has essential checks that are intended to preserve everyone's liberty. if we had a simple democracy, we wouldnt have different states, we wouldnt have different branches of government. it would essentially be a bunch of people who go to DC and vote on things. there would be no written constitution.
we lost a big part of the old republic with the direct election of senators amendment. before the 17th amendment we essentially had representatives from the state going to washington to represent the state. now we have the opposite, we have representatives from DC coming to the states. before the 17th amendment senators could only be elected by the state legislatures. this put an essential check on the dangers of pure democracy. because now a senator from new york can take bribes and money from californians. they are no longer loyal to the state that elected them. instead of questioning why the senators taxes from the state are going to pay for a post road in california, it is simply viewed as all the money in one till.
we had checks on the tyranny of the majority... you basically elected local representatives. you had house reps popularily elected in the state to go to the federal government, then you also had appointed senators by the legislatures. in a pure democracy everything is 51% takes all. in extreme cases, it is 51% takes away the rights of the 49%. if we lived a pure democracy (which is more the way we are headed than not) we loose vital checks on the will of the masses. with our system, the will of the masses is acknowledged, but everything has checks. the states, check the feds, the feds check the states, different branches check each other........
if your really interested in learning more differences and what the founding generation thought... pick up a copy of the federalist or federalist papers.... you can get them for like 5 bucks at a barnes and noble or borders.

"the known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and the ignorant believe to be liberty." fisher ames

"democracy will soon denegrate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few."
john adams.

[yumone]

cheers

[russell jones]

not really. we would have more democracy. apportioned voting protects everyone. if you are fearful of a third party not getting elected, one must educate the population. one must push for limited government. one must decentralize the federal government. national elections were never intended to matter this much. going with more democracy is a sure recipe for disaster as well as never losing our civil liberty. check it:


"The intense media focus on the divide between “red” and “blue” states in the wake of the presidential election has raised new questions regarding our federal voting system. One U.S. Senator has promised to introduce legislation to abolish the Electoral College, claiming it is an anachronism that serves no good purpose in modern politics. Her stated goal is “simply to allow the popular will of the American people to be expressed every four years when we elect our president.” Many Americans agree, arguing that the man receiving the most votes should win; anything else would be unfair. In other words, they believe the American political system should operate as a direct democracy.



The problem, of course, is that our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic, as any grammar school child knew just a few decades ago. Remember the Pledge of Allegiance: “and to the Republic for which it stands”? The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. On the contrary, Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government” (emphasis added).



The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis. Yet we have become obsessed with democracy, as though any government action would be permissible if a majority of voters simply approved of it. Democracy has become a sacred cow, a deity which no one dares question. Democracy, we are told, is always good. But the founders created a constitutionally limited republic precisely to protect fundamental liberties from the whims of the masses, to guard against the excesses of democracy. The Electoral College likewise was created in the Constitution to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The President was to be elected by the states rather than the citizenry as a whole, with votes apportioned to states according to their representation in Congress. The will of the people was to be tempered by the wisdom of the Electoral College.



By contrast, election of the President by pure popular vote totals would damage statehood. Populated areas on both coasts would have increasing influence on national elections, to the detriment of less populated southern and western states. A candidate receiving a large percentage of the popular vote in California and New York could win a national election with very little support in dozens of other states! A popular vote system simply would intensify the populist pandering which already dominates national campaigns.



Not surprisingly, calls to abolish the Electoral College system are heard most loudly among left elites concentrated largely on the two coasts. Liberals favor a very strong centralized federal government, and have contempt for the concept of states' rights (a contempt now shared, unfortunately, by the Republican Party). They believe in federalizing virtually every area of law, leaving states powerless to challenge directives sent down from Washington. The Electoral College system threatens liberals because it allows states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Citizens in southern and western states in particular tend to value individual liberty, property rights, gun rights, and religious freedom, values which are abhorrent to the collectivist elites. The collectivists care about centralized power, not democracy. Their efforts to discredit the Electoral College system are an attempt to limit the voting power of pro-liberty states."


It is pretty easy to make the argument that the electoral college itself is elitist. You are very fond of mentioning what the founding fathers intended, and it is quite obvious that the electoral college was created because they had no faith in the will of the citizens. That sounds like the definition of elitism to me.

I think you missed my point as well. People with your kind of views, and correct me if I am wrong by characterizing them as libertarian, have no voice in our government. The closest thing in the recent past was William Buckley. Part of the reason is because, as you say, national elections have become more important than they had been in the past. If you want to make a step towards representation of all views, you do not need to eliminate the electoral college, but we must have apportioned votes. This is because national elections determine the amount of money that parties can get, which in turn affects local elections. In our world, it is difficult to educate anyone without the money to get the word out.

As for your last paragraph about Liberals, I think you may be swallowing a little too much Fox news propaganda. Not all so called leftists believe in gun control and a strong central government, only the ones that are actually fascists. Those people are the same as the Neo-cons. My political philosophy towards the federal government can be summed up by William Burroughs, "Help when needed, otherwise keep your shit out of my business."

[angelofdeath]

bill buckley is hardly libertarian. the quote i posted is from ron paul. the only true libertarian/conservative in congress.

[angelofdeath]

Ps. the 'republican' (not the party) aspects check the will of the masses, the way the 'democracy' checks the republican nature of america.there is nothing 'elite
about it. the electoral college is a check on tyranny.

[russell jones]

bill buckley is hardly libertarian. the quote i posted is from ron paul. the only true libertarian/conservative in congress.


That's why I said "the closest thing" to a libertarian. Excuse my ignorance of Mr. Paul.

[russell jones]

Ps. the 'republican' (not the party) aspects check the will of the masses, the way the 'democracy' checks the republican nature of america.there is nothing 'elite
about it. the electoral college is a check on tyranny.



Implicit in this statement is that the masses are uneducated, ignorant and vindictive force that must be controlled. Still sounds like elitism.

[angelofdeath]

no, its the same principle as checking the congress with the courts, etc.
the masses can easily vote away the minorities rights. the republic checks this to preserve liberty. the govt can easily take away the rights of citizens, in which the masses have weapons, guaranteed through the constitution, to use in case they need to remove the government and create a new one. democracy has no checks. with our republican form of government liberty is preserved.

[russell jones]

the govt can easily take away the rights of citizens, in which the masses have weapons, guaranteed through the constitution, to use in case they need to remove the government and create a new one.


Maybe we should use those weapons against the government right now, except they're not in control so it wouldn't do much anyways. What do you think the founding fathers would have to say about multi-national corporations, multimillion dollar campaigns and unelected international organizations like the WTO?

[angelofdeath]

i doubt many would be very worried about 'multi national' corporations, because people in different countries trading, is just a by product of the free trade jefferson supported. however, jefferson thought agriculture was the only way to earn a living, and to trade in europe for manufactured goods.
as far as the WTO, im most sure they would of revolted against all the international trade organizations, world government bodies and any other organization that forces us to rewrite our laws and sacrifice sovereignty.

[Smart]

that said.