The Repo Man

[Blaine]

Exactly...

[AJMD429]

I hate the campaigns urging everyone to vote though; if they aren't motivated on their own, they won't be informed, and if not informed, they just vote based on sound-bytes, genitalia, or skin color.

(....of course that's the way progressive liberal democrats vote anyway.... )

[Blaine]

I hate the campaigns urging everyone to vote though; if they aren't motivated on their own, they won't be informed, and if not informed, they just vote based on sound-bytes, genitalia, or skin color.

(....of course that's the way progressive liberal democrats vote anyway.... )

I'm not sure it's ever been much different....

[Griff]

Oh... to be absolute monarch...

[Old Ironsights]

How can he repossess what we never had and our Constitution was designed to prevent?

The Founders feared the Tyranny of the Majority as much or more than the Despotism of Monarchy. At least one can have a good king. But when "the majority rules", the 50%-1 better watch out...

[Blaine]

How can he repossess what we never had and our Constitution was designed to prevent?

The Founders feared the Tyranny of the Majority as much or more than the Despotism of Monarchy. At least one can have a good king. But when "the majority rules", the 50%-1 better watch out...

[Old Ironsights]

How can he repossess what we never had and our Constitution was designed to prevent?

The Founders feared the Tyranny of the Majority as much or more than the Despotism of Monarchy. At least one can have a good king. But when "the majority rules", the 50%-1 better watch out...

And yet... Truth.

And the Truth often sucks, doesn't it?

[1894cfan]

You can have your Northwest Ordinance and Constitution, I'll stay with the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation!

[Blaine]

You can have your Northwest Ordinance and Constitution, I'll stay with the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation!

Northwest?

[Blaine]

And yet... Truth.

Nope...Not one iota...

[Old Ironsights]

And yet... Truth.

Nope...Not one iota...

OK. Please explain how I am wrong. The Founders were quite clear on how and WHY the US was to be a Representative Republic and NOT a "Democracy".

If you have other information, please let all of us know.

[AJMD429]

OI is right......we are a Constitutional Republic, and most definitely were NOT supposed to be a "democracy"....seemingly a minor semantic quibble, but actually a matter of significance.

Anyway, whatever you want to call it, it is being frittered away by out-of-touch baby boomers, spoiled millenials, and stupid, selfish college-age kids.

There are many in each generation who are good citizens and stewards of our republic, but I fear not enough.

[Old Ironsights]

QUOTATION: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

ATTRIBUTION: The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.

McHenry’s notes were first published in The American Historical Review, vol. 11, 1906, and the anecdote on p. 618 reads: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” When McHenry’s notes were included in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand, vol. 3, appendix A, p. 85 (1911, reprinted 1934), a footnote stated that the date this anecdote was written is uncertain.

Republic vs. Democracy
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/Ameri ... emrep.html

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see. ...

[1894cfan]

You can have your Northwest Ordinance and Constitution, I'll stay with the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation!

Northwest?

Check out the U.S. Codes, there's FOUR organic founding documents, the Northwest Ordinance is the third.
Actually, the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation deal with the United States of America, the Northwest Ordinance and Constitution deal with the United States. There IS a difference between the two. Have fun finding out what that difference is.

[1894cfan]

And yet... Truth.

Nope...Not one iota...

OK. Please explain how I am wrong. The Founders were quite clear on how and WHY the US was to be a Representative Republic and NOT a "Democracy".

If you have other information, please let all of us know.

Actually, the United States of America was SUPPOSED to be a confederation of states, but NO ONE ever looks at the Articles of Confederation, which is the second organic founding document after the Declaration of Independence! Article IV,and NOTHING ELSE, got me a USA passport!

[Blaine]

And yet, our elected representatives are elected with a 50%+1 vote....And that is constitutional, as well. Except for POTUS, (which I'll never claim to understand the delegate/electoral process ) all of your elections work exactly that way 50%+1, unless, of course, you'd like to share with all of us how you guess it works....

Almost forgot: Don't ever say, or even think "Since we have a republican majority in the house, and senate".....etc..We sure can't take advantage of a majority vote, can we??

[AJMD429]

Our republic certainly uses a democratic process for elections, and voting within legislative bodies, but the key difference is that in a Democracy there are no limits to what the legislators can approve and the executive enforce, in a Constitutional Republic there are clear restraints on the legislature in the form of a constitution, which may have an amendment process, but that process requires cumbersome steps that are far from a simple majority vote.

In our case, we even have a Bill of Rights incorporated into the Constitution, which further delineates territory the government cannot violate.

However the phrase "if you can keep it" is apt, given the legislative violation of nearly all the Bill of Rights through the three [un]Holy Wars of the last generation - the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, and the War on Terrorism. Those have given us 'gun control', as well as violated the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendments.

Unfortunately, all three 'wars' appeal to different selfish, naive, and uneducated segments of the electorate, and thus have support from segments of the public who are willing to violate the Constitution to get what they want. A classic case of 'Divide and Conquer' executed by those who favor a Socialist Police State, even though all three 'wars' go against everything our founders valued, and so many lost their lives to create.

Everyone who supports any of those 'wars' should pause to think about the fact that they are destroying the nation far more than what they think they are fighting. They may as well be using our flag for toilet paper, 'good cause' or not.

[Old Ironsights]

And yet, our elected representatives are elected with a 50%+1 vote....And that is constitutional, as well. Except for POTUS, (which I'll never claim to understand the delegate/electoral process ) all of your elections work exactly that way 50%+1, unless, of course, you'd like to share with all of us how you guess it works....

Almost forgot: Don't ever say, or even think "Since we have a republican majority in the house, and senate".....etc..We sure can't take advantage of a majority vote, can we??

Those are not examples of pure democracy, but of representative democracy, which is different.

The very reason we have a Senate of only 100 members was specifically to prevent populous states from out voting rural ones at every turn.

Even the Senators themselves were not originally elected through direct election, but were Appointees of the individual State Houses, and were sent specifically as the "Senior Statesman" from that State.

The framers of the Constitution, however, did not intend senators to be elected in this way, and included in Article I, section 3, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."

This changed, in 1913 (hmmmm lots of shenanigans in 1913 no?) with the 17th amendment, and has since led to the expected corruption of carpetbagging and pandering to out of state interests over making sure that populous states don't run roughshod over sparse states.

[Blaine]

Our republic certainly uses a democratic process for elections, and voting within legislative bodies, but the key difference is that in a Democracy there are no limits to what the legislators can approve and the executive enforce, in a Constitutional Republic there are clear restraints on the legislature in the form of a constitution, which may have an amendment process, but that process requires cumbersome steps that are far from a simple majority vote.

In our case, we even have a Bill of Rights incorporated into the Constitution, which further delineates territory the government cannot violate.

However the phrase "if you can keep it" is apt, given the legislative violation of nearly all the Bill of Rights through the three [un]Holy Wars of the last generation - the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, and the War on Terrorism. Those have given us 'gun control', as well as violated the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendments.

Unfortunately, all three 'wars' appeal to different selfish, naive, and uneducated segments of the electorate, and thus have support from segments of the public who are willing to violate the Constitution to get what they want. A classic case of 'Divide and Conquer' executed by those who favor a Socialist Police State, even though all three 'wars' go against everything our founders valued, and so many lost their lives to create.

Everyone who supports any of those 'wars' should pause to think about the fact that they are destroying the nation far more than what they think they are fighting. They may as well be using our flag for toilet paper, 'good cause' or not.

Good discussion....So, I'll put you down for supporting the Drug Cartels (along with all their mayhem, and destroyed lives, and the cost in civilian lives). Oh, and we can slate you for the next planning meeting for 911 part deux....

[Blaine]

Ok, let's put down the wet noodles we're slashing each other with.... The fact of the matter is that this was a COMIC STRIP lamenting the stupid people that won't vote, and then kvetch about the Republic.

[AJMD429]

....So, I'll put you down for supporting the Drug Cartels (along with all their mayhem, and destroyed lives, and the cost in civilian lives). Oh, and we can slate you for the next planning meeting for 911 part deux....

You can thank the Republican Party for the 'drug cartels and lost civilian lives' - alcohol is equal or worse to 'drugs' in its direct effect on health, life, and society; the only reason the violent crime comes with it is the black market distribution system that 'prohobition' created, just like prohibition of alcohol. The 'war on drugs' is nothing more than a price-support subsidy to gangs and drug dealers.

As for the 'war on terror', stopping terrorists would be a good idea, but most of the focus has been on symbolic stuff at airports, nepotism, and co outing up reasons to harass veterans, Christians, and gun owners.

You fall for the same trap most if us do ( which is why we are losing our Democracy or Republic or whatever you want to call it ); allow a problem to worsen, or create one if necessary, then create a grand government program as a 'solution'. Then demonize anyone who opposes that particular program as one who is in favor of whatever the problem is...

[Blaine]

You can thank the Republican Party for the 'drug cartels and lost civilian lives' - alcohol is equal or worse to 'drugs' in its direct effect on health, life, and society

Drunks are not involved in gang wars, human trafficking, muggings, or knocking in your front door to get a drink. This was no chicken/egg conundrum. Citizens demanded protection from these people, and authorities responded. Very much like cracking down on drunk drivers, or are you going to call that a bogus war perpetuated by nefarious Gmen to subvert the Constitution?

[1894cfan]

Ok, let's put down the wet noodles we're slashing each other with.... The fact of the matter is that this was a COMIC STRIP lamenting the stupid people that won't vote, and then kvetch about the Republic.

Hey, BlaineG,
I'm putting my wet noodle back in the spagetti pot.

[Blaine]

Ok, let's put down the wet noodles we're slashing each other with.... The fact of the matter is that this was a COMIC STRIP lamenting the stupid people that won't vote, and then kvetch about the Republic.

Hey, BlaineG,
I'm putting my wet noodle back in the spagetti pot.

Don't burn yourself.....You might need it later....

[92&94]

You can thank the Republican Party for the 'drug cartels and lost civilian lives' - alcohol is equal or worse to 'drugs' in its direct effect on health, life, and society

Drunks are not involved in gang wars, human trafficking, muggings, or knocking in your front door to get a drink. This was no chicken/egg conundrum. Citizens demanded protection from these people, and authorities responded. Very much like cracking down on drunk drivers, or are you going to call that a bogus war perpetuated by nefarious Gmen to subvert the Constitution?

Supplying the drunks did indeed involve all of this in the 1920's. You should know that.

[92&94]

Ok, let's put down the wet noodles we're slashing each other with.... The fact of the matter is that this was a COMIC STRIP lamenting the stupid people that won't vote, and then kvetch about the Republic.

I don't mind the stupid people not voting one bit. They are all welcome to stay home every time in my opinion. When the stupid show up we get the likes of Obama and Trump.

Shouldn't this all have been over in politics in the first place? Must be a political thread after all, I'm posting in it!

[Blaine]

[AJMD429]

You can thank the Republican Party for the 'drug cartels and lost civilian lives' - alcohol is equal or worse to 'drugs' in its direct effect on health, life, and society

Drunks are not involved in gang wars, human trafficking, muggings, or knocking in your front door to get a drink. This was no chicken/egg conundrum. Citizens demanded protection from these people, and authorities responded. Very much like cracking down on drunk drivers, or are you going to call that a bogus war perpetuated by nefarious Gmen to subvert the Constitution?

Supplying the drunks did indeed involve all of this in the 1920's. You should know that.

Yep. 'Prohibition' caused the crime associated with gangs distributing alcohol, and is the reason gangs shoot it out over turf. You don't see 500 liquors, Walgreens, and the local bar-and-grill doing that now, because we repealed alcohol prohibition.

The cartels and drug gangs would be our of business overnight if drug prohibition were repealed. Users and addicts would still exist, just like they still do with booze, but at least there wouldn't be all the violent crime, or the no-knock warrantless home invasions.

[hondo1892]

Gangs didn't disappear when alcohol was made legal and they won't disappear when drugs are made legal. Why? Because as long as we have a government there will be things that are prohibited. The gangs don't care if its drugs, alcohol or lollipops they are pedaling. They are about power and money and nothing else. There were gangs bringing tea in this country back in the day. So we will have gangs till the end of time. They could be controlled more if local governments could have militias like they used to have for protection, and they were allowed to take out the trash. But making drugs legal will not make them disappear.

[Blaine]

The cartels and drug gangs would be our of business overnight if drug prohibition were repealed

Nonsense...the cartels and local drug thugs are so ingrained, and dependant on USA profit they will never disappear. They can ALWAYS undercut the DotGov prices on dope, and do quite nicely. And, they will protect their territory with deadly effect.

[92&94]

The cartels and drug gangs would be our of business overnight if drug prohibition were repealed

Nonsense...the cartels and local drug thugs are so ingrained, and dependant on USA profit they will never disappear. They can ALWAYS undercut the DotGov prices on dope, and do quite nicely. And, they will protect their territory with deadly effect.

You're correct they would not disappear, just as the mafia did not after prohibition was repealed. The mafia was here before it and they remain here years later.

Legalize the dope and you won't see much bootlegging of it, any more than you do alcohol now. Those gangs will move into theft, kidnapping, and protection rackets, just as the mafia did after prohibition. The cartels will likely shrink in size and influence as well, just as the mafia did - that is the point of this.

[1894cfan]

You can have your Northwest Ordinance and Constitution, I'll stay with the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation!

Northwest?

Yea, Great Lakes region. That area belonged to King George III, and when he lost the war he gave that area to the govt. of the United States of America. Since there were'nt enough people in that area to create states, it had to be administered by the United States Inc., hence Northwest Territory. That's how the other king George (Washington) put down the Whiskey Rebelion. READ the Northwest Ordinance!

[FWiedner]

Gangs didn't disappear when alcohol was made legal and they won't disappear when drugs are made legal. Why? Because as long as we have a government...

You could have stopped there.

[Blaine]

You can have your Northwest Ordinance and Constitution, I'll stay with the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation!

Northwest?

Yea, Great Lakes region. That area belonged to King George III, and when he lost the war he gave that area to the govt. of the United States of America. Since there were'nt enough people in that area to create states, it had to be administered by the United States Inc., hence Northwest Territory. That's how the other king George (Washington) put down the Whiskey Rebelion. READ the Northwest Ordinance!

What, exactly, do you find that so arcane about this document? It's very doubtful that the USA could have expanded to the Pacific Ocean without this sort of guidance....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance

[AJMD429]

http://thelastgreatstand.com/2016/03/26 ... est-video/

[Blaine]

http://thelastgreatstand.com/2016/03/26 ... est-video/

That's common knowledge....