Kelly J
Regular Member
imported post
OT
OT
OTWell the only fly in the ointment is that this has never been a democracy. It is a representative republic. That is a distinction with a difference. So technically we do not fit the model. But I agree with the basic direction predicted by the formula.
Regards
The rule? Not to participate in this web log of personal maunderings posted in 'News & Political Alerts'. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.To keep this 'news' OT; Paul shot himself in the foot, at least, with his comments on 9/11 and Islam-ism. I make that his third strike.
The first strike was not repudiating the drug plank of Libertarianism and the second was 'running' as a Repugnicrat.
The GOP has fooled me twice. The GOP fooled me once with Bush-41 when I was ignorant, shame on them. The GOP fooled me twice with Bush-43 while I was looking, shame on me. I won't be fooled again.
I will vote for a (paleo)conservative or I will work to start the revolution.
[font=Verdana,Arial,Helv](snip) The rule? Not to participate in this web log of personal maunderings posted in 'News & Political Alerts'. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.
[/font]
OTOf course, no population over about 20 can existas a direct democracy - it becomes an unruly mob. A republic is merely a representative democracy - this "distinction" gets made often, and it's rather fine hairsplitting to my thinking.
-ljp
OTA republic may or may not be so constituted as to have such restrictions on its power - it depends on the particular form. I was using the term generically. It's still a form of democracy, just abstracted a level so that representatives do the back-room dealing instead of the unwashed masses themselves. ;-/
-ljp
One of my favorite quotes: "Our country is at an awkward stage, too late to work within the system, and too early to shoot the bastards". Claire Wolf, from "101 Things to Do Until the Revolution." Right now, I'm too tired to come up with anything intelligent of my own to say, so that will have to suffice as my take on things.
I have never understood this 200 year thing. Rome lasted for almost 2000 years as what we refer to as the Byzantine Empire.
ilbob wrote:I have never understood this 200 year thing. Rome lasted for almost 2000 years as what we refer to as the Byzantine Empire.
Ia'm not a history major,but....
If Ia'm correct,for the majority of it's exictance the Roman Empire was ruled from the Throne up until the death of Caligula. After his death, Rome was ruled by the Senate. I belive that was roughly 200 years prior to the " fall of the Roman Empior"
If Ia'm way off on this,,, Just keep it to yourself. There's no need for public humiliation here if my spelling hasn't already done that ! :lol::?:lol: