“There is no definition of democracy…”
-I’m not quite sure I understand. I don’t want to insult you for something that I didn’t understand fully, so I won’t, but if you actually mean that there is no literal definition of “democracy,” then it only stands that there is no definition of anything in political theory, and that, in fact, the political structure that I’ve created in my head where my stuffed animals are all subservient to me is a democracy.

“We do, especially at the local level.”
-Well gee, that’s fantastic, you can decide whether you’d like to have casinos in your state or not. But when was the last time you’ve taken a vote on whether you’d like a national healthcare system or not (the poll you took on foxnews.com doesn’t count)? In order to qualify as a constitutional republic, the majority of the citizens in the nation would have to directly participate in the legislative process, i.e. taking a vote.

“Representatives are citizens. We do decide laws. The furthest you could stretch this point would be that representatives are catalysts from the people to the government. Its still us making the laws.”
-Again, when was the last time you’ve taken a vote on national healthcare? Do you think that every Democrat in Massachusetts thought that they were making the laws tonight when they realized that healthcare was just blocked (or impeded, at the very least)? Clearly, every citizen doesn’t have a direct effect on the imposition and legislation of laws in Congress. Sure, 400-some do, but that excludes the other few-dozen-million. Even if you extend the argument by saying that representatives are catalysts, that’s leaving out every non-voter, independent, and over half of the voting population.

“Only in explosive circumstances…”
-i.e. Socialism

“Not magically, but through laws and executive enforcement.”
-”Magically” was a figure of speech. I meant that the country isn’t just going to change into a Socialist state. It’s infeasible. (also see below)

“Nowadays the executive runs the legislative (when it should have been the other way around)”
-First, your competence in the realm of world affairs is startling, as is your ability to take into account the subject matter discussed. Clearly, as Obama has spent the last year attempting to get the legislation of our country to pass healthcare and failed, the Executive does not run the Legislative. Second, what the hell do you mean “when it should have been the other way around.” You defend Democracy as a system of checks and balances, but then state that whatever the Legislative wants is right. That sounds pretty much like Communism, a government of the people, and only the people, doesn’t it?

“A cereal make could lobby the representatives to remove other…”
-That’s all well and good. First of all, there’s no empirical evidence of something so trivial as a cereal maker removing other cereal makers from the public sphere by lobbying. Second, even if there were one instance, don’t make a hasty generalization: why the hell would Congress care about cereal choices, absent legal infringements.

“This happens daily…”
-No, it doesn’t.

“Corporatism…”
-Apparently. That still doesn’t support the idea that we’d have restricted cereal choices. Especially since if this were the case, GM would be the only car allowed in America at this point.

“Almost everyone you listed there does not share our economy and environment.”
-I’m pretty sure that they do. Despite their social standing, they’re still affected by things like cataclysmic effects of global warming, and the decreased popularity they draw by wrecking the economy. There are links, and, though indirect, they are still links.

“It’s not hard for me, I can tell who is concerned and who isn’t.”
-Really? Enlighten me. Which politician wouldn’t care if we all died?

“No, it’s actually decreasing currently, and that’s because there have been no solar flares.”
-If you’d read any scientific data in the past couple decades, you’d see differently. Even the raw, unedited data still shows upward trends, and catastrophic implications. Solar flares have never been proven to have a direct, lasting effect on the global climate.

“That’s actually one of the biggest intellectual and economic frauds ever conceived.”
-Great, I’m glad that you concede that the policies enacted by Bush enforced a one-industry economy, and that that’s bad. It still saved the economy from utterly crashing.

“Correct, but it does move away from capitalism…”
-How? If you’re still allowed to pick your healthcare provider, and other people who can’t finally get a chance, what tenet of Capitalism does that infringe?

“PDD’s don’t supersede the constitution.”
-Great, so this either means that Obama can’t enforce unjust, Socialist policies (assuming that he’d create them), or that they, in fact, do.

“I was referring to structure of a company being controlled.”
-Yes, a very few corrupt leaders were taken out of power in order to save the economy. This either means that its good because supporting the one-industry economy is good, or because we’re letting the free market do its thing unimpeded by greed.

“TARP funds”
-Retroaction? No specific example.

“Laws that are written which are illegal under a more powerful law… the constitution supersedes that law.”
-You still haven’t proven that TARP funds are unconstitutional. Either they’re unconstitutional, and Socialism should have already happened under Bush, or one infringement of Constitutionality doesn’t matter.

“Companies being forced to comply…”
-You’re still not understanding: “Free Market” does not mean “do whatever the hell you want.” There’s a distinction that you’re failing to make between Anarchy and Capitalism.

“Like a reporter going to a crime scene…”
-Again, what a police chief is saying is no tangible fact. And I’d be really impressed if the police found the dead body of Capitalism.

“Basic information… not big articles…”
-FOX News.

“I wasn’t referring to this article…”
-I made that title up for the sake of example.

“You are starting off on the wrong base of understanding and arguing with a terrible attitude.”
-See your above comments: It’s the facts that count. I don’t care if people skip over my article, they can choose what they’d like to believe. I’d rather be an ass and be honest about it than pretending to care about changing other people (because it’s impossible to change their minds once set).

“I’m going to go, prolly won’t be back…”
-Sorry to see you go. I enjoyed this.

“This country along with other are moving away from freedom and towards a centralized global corporate state…”
-And Google’s taking over the world.

No, really: [http://googleworlddomination.com/]

“definition of the word “democracy,” or even heard of it?”
-There is no definition of democracy in political theory, whatever you are looking to is their interpretation of it.

“citizens are not only participatory in electing legislative representatives, but also in the legislative process themselves.”
-We do, especially at the local level.

“Without actually deciding the laws for ourselves, something our elected representatives do,”
- Representatives are citizens. We do decide laws. The furthest you could stretch this point would be that representatives are catalysts from the people to the government. Its still us making the laws.

“Sure, the government might exercise excessive control, but that’s been proven to self-correct”
- Only in explosive circumstances does this self-correct, ie rarely.

“Yes. Representatives acting as a governmental body are not going to magically change the US into a Socialist state.”
- Not magically, but through laws and executive enforcement. Nowadays the executive runs the legislative ( when it should have been the other way around. )

“There’s no justifiable reason for the representatives in our government to prohibit you from making choices. That’s my argument.”
– ? A cereal maker could lobby the representatives to remove other cereal makers from business (competition) by many methods ( laws, regulations, taxing techniques, selective enforcement. ) This happens daily actually ( even with cereal companies. ) Corporatism – we have a loottttttt of it.

“…(i.e. Congressmen, Senators, Justices, the President, etc.), and those people share our economy and environment, then yes.”
- Almost everyone you listed there does not share our economy and environment. Economies and environments change as you move along a socioeconomic line. Also, most of them do not care for their own E&E because they have enough wealth/power to be perfectly fine if indeed the economy and environment around them falls.

“That’s unfortunate. I’m not sure how hard it is to grasp that a politician might be concerned with the fact that our planet is at risk.”
- It’s not hard for me, I can tell who is concerned and who isn’t.

“I’m not sure if that was an awful attempt at wit or not. In any case, that was dumb.”
Lol I think you read too much into it, anyway –
“we’re talking about the global temperature trend, and its drastic increase caused by increasing fossil fuel emissions, upon other things.”
-No, it’s actually decreasing currently, and that’s because there have been no solar flares.

“Fantastic. You made yourself look like even more of an idiot.”
- I’ll let you bury yourself.

“It’s the fact that we saved the entire economy from collapsing by saving two huge factors of it through government policy that matters.”
- That’s actually one of the biggest intellectual and economic frauds ever conceived. I would highly suggest you not parrot that idea.

“doesn’t display an inherent trend towards a Socialist administration.”
- Correct, but it does move away from capitalism & free markets towards centralization ( some make the mistake of calling this socialism, but socialism would be much nicer than what is taking place. )

“Two words: Executive order.”
- PDD’s don’t supersede the constitution.

“..companies being internally mandated aren’t being mandated by outside laws; that’s external mandation.”
- Semantics sure, you got me, but I was referring to structure of a company being controlled.

“Second, there’s no proof of these laws being retroactive”
- mmmm yes, TARP funds

“Third, legality is defined by laws, thus it is impossible for laws to be illegal.”
- Wrong, laws that are written which are illegal under a more powerful law. A local government can write into law that they can take everyone’s firearms, but the constitution supersedes that law.

“Fourth, companies being forced to comply with laws creates a panic, inducing a fear of Socialism; it does not cause socialism”
- Lets take out the word Socialism here with something that means “away from capitalism and the free market.” So, companies being forced to comply with some laws that reach beyond the governments actual power IS the manifestation of “away from capitalism and the free market.”

“What facts?”
- Like a reporter going to a crime scene and reporting on what the police chief is saying in his speech… could be anything, I’m speaking in a general sense.

“First, that’s not true; many reporters are loyal to parties.”
- I’m talking about basic information that gets put through the news feeds, not big articles written for a newspaper or anything – merely reporters relaying facts.

“Second, “The United States is becoming a Socialist nation” is neither a fact, nor jotted down as such by an AP reporter.”

- I wasn’t referring to this article, I didn’t even read this article because I know whoever wrote it doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Just as I know you don’t really know what you are talking about. You might be able to rant against a person, but doing so with your arrogant asshole demeanor sets up any of your reasonable responses to crumble into themselves. Anyone experienced or mature is going to skip over your responses because of your immaturity. I don’t claim to write anything of merit, but I do recognize things for what they are. I also know what people smarter than me are thinking when they analyze something. You are very smart and critical about these issues in a world that seems the opposite, but you are starting off on the wrong base of understanding and arguing with a terrible attitude.

I’m going to go, prolly wont be back – but I would advise you to lighten up, and to excavate yourself from some of your entrenched ideas that are the opposite of truth. This country along with others are moving away from freedom and towards a centralized global corporate state, whether you understand it now or later ( because you will.)

You’re an idiot. Have you looked up the definition of the word “democracy,” or even heard of it? I suggest you do. Second, don’t talk about political models that you don’t fully understand. Local governments can, questionably, be called constitutional republics, as they are republics under constitutions, in which people vote on laws (issues). However, the United States federal government is unquestionably a democracy. A constitutional republic, defined basically by Plato, is distinctly different from a democracy, as in a republic, citizens are not only participatory in electing legislative representatives, but also in the legislative process themselves. Without actually deciding the laws for ourselves, something our elected representatives do, we are undoubtedly a democratic nation. Furthermore, how does that even remotely support any semblance of a point that you’re making? Neither specifically is defined as having more control over said citizens.

“What is a ‘takeover’ cam?”

To get into one’s possession by force, skill, or artifice

“Government’s [sic] rarely, if ever, outright runs and operates an institution.”

Government organizations.

“Law is control and authority.”

So?

“This means that every law governing any function of society (millions if not billions of laws) is in effect a takeover of said function.”

Not necessarily. We’re talking about governing minute things here. Sure, the government might exercise excessive control, but that’s been proven to self-correct (prohibition, etc.). The argument using is fallacious, in that you’re indicting every law that provides control over any facet of life (in essence, every law, as law is “control and authority,” as inevitably leading to loss of freedom.

“Can you clarify that statement?”

Yes. Representatives acting as a governmental body are not going to magically change the US into a Socialist state.

“Prohibition”

Fantastic. There were justifiable reasons for each of these. Give me any one, I’ll defend it. Prohibition on the scale of drug abuse is clearly different between prohibition of brands of cereal. There’s no justifiable reason for the representatives in our government to prohibit you from making choices. That’s my argument. Proving that things have been prohibited in the past means nothing.

“Any activity that is not fully controlled will be self controlled through selective enforcement.”

Really? When?

“Is the the [sic] only reason?”

Yes

“Isn’t it in a governments [sic] interests to save ITS economy and environment?”

As the government is not some autonomous actor, but is made up of people that represent more people (i.e. Congressmen, Senators, Justices, the President, etc.), and those people share our economy and environment, then yes.

“All governments are entities…”

False. What is a government?

“You make is [sic] sound if [sic] a career politician’s highest priority is to improve the grass on my lawn, and I have trouble grasping that.”

That’s unfortunate. I’m not sure how hard it is to grasp that a politician might be concerned with the fact that our planet is at risk. I’m not sure what your grass has to do with it, and I’m sure your local politician couldn’t give a crap about it. That doesn’t mean that your local politician isn’t concerned about the status of the environment as a whole.

“Sure I believe in global warming, and global cooling, (hell I think my dog even understands the seasons) but what do Hummers have to do with the ice caps on mars receding or the sun’s magnetic field?”

I’m not sure if that was an awful attempt at wit or not. In any case, that was dumb. First of all, solar magnetic fields and martian ice receding has nothing to do with global warming. Second, we’re not talking about seasons, we’re talking about the global temperature trend, and its drastic increase caused by increasing fossil fuel emissions, upon other things.

“Fill the cap for me please!?”

What?

“I’ll dare.”

Fantastic. You made yourself look like even more of an idiot.

“Fan & Fred…”

Oh, no way, I totally didn’t know that Fan and Fred had problems! Who caused the collapse (Bush) is not the issue. It’s the fact that we saved the entire economy from collapsing by saving two huge factors of it through government policy that matters. I’m not blaming anything on the republicans, and I’m not saying that the democrats had to clean up their mistake; I’m only saying that the fact that somebody did something about it is a good thing, and doesn’t display an inherent trend towards a Socialist administration.

“It means he is doing something illegal though. A court & trial is the only thing that can do that.”

Two words: Executive order.

“It isn’t a fear when private companies are being internally mandated to cooperate with retroactive illegal laws, it’s called reality.”

Let’s start with the obvious: companies being internally mandated aren’t being mandated by outside laws; that’s external mandation. Second, there’s no proof of these laws being retroactive. Third, legality is defined by laws, thus it is impossible for laws to be illegal. Fourth, companies being forced to comply with laws creates a panic, inducing a fear of Socialism; it does not cause socialism. Thus, it is a fear, not a reality, that the US is becoming a socialist nation.

“These facts are being put forward by journalists who are reporting whats [sic] going on.”

What facts?

“Most AP reporters who jot down a fact and put it on the web or in a paper do not have an agenda to push.”

First, that’s not true; many reporters are loyal to parties. Second, “The United States is becoming a Socialist nation” is neither a fact, nor jotted down as such by an AP reporter. Third, most things put on the web or in a paper are not only influenced by author bias but also unsupported by fact. Fourth, who the hell are journalists to decide if we’re changing the foundation of the political sphere, anyway?

“Ok”

See response to “I’ll dare.”

No, we live in a constitutional republic. What is a ‘takeover’ cam? I believe it has a pretty broad definition, “the act of seizing, appropriating, or arrogating authority, control, management, etc.” I hope you will agree with that so far, but the main point is the governments exercise of “control” and “arrogating authority.” Government’s rarely, if ever, outright runs and operates an institution. Law is control and authority. This means that every law governing any function of society ( millions if not billions of laws) is in effect a takeover of said function.

“Third, how is Socialism overcoming ..//.. auto-industry), but also, it is blatantly false.”

- Can you clarify that statement? I don’t understand what you are saying here.

“Even in the last scenario, they quite clearly would neither simply prohibit you from doing things for no reason, nor have the ability to anyway.”

Prohibition of alcohol, prohibiting gun ownership, prohibiting demonstrations and rallies, prohibiting same sex marriage, prohibiting air travel, prohibiting chemical use, prohibiting drug use, prohibiting human rights, prohibiting the right to a trial by jury, prohibiting property ownership, etc. The government prohibits thousands of things every day, with new prohibitions being added into law almost every new day. Next, they do have the ability in order to do every prohibition that is mandated, because they are the functioning authority ( both in structure and in physical manifestation.) Any activity that is not fully controlled will be self controlled through selective enforcement.

“The only reason that the government would stop you from buying a Hummer would be to SAVE the economy, AND the environment. Again, if you honestly don’t believe in global warming, then you have some more serious issues that spur an entirely different debate.”

Is the the only reason? Isn’t it in a governments interests to save ITS economy and environment? What grants a politician unwavering moral righteousness that deviates from a normal human behavior. All governments are entities, living and breathing, survival and sustainability come before all other activities. You make is sound if a career politician’s highest priority is to improve the grass on my lawn, and I have trouble grasping that. Sure I believe in global warming, and global cooling, ( hell I think my dog even understands the seasons ) but what do Hummers have to do with the ice caps on mars receding or the sun’s magnetic field? Fill the cap for me please!?

“…don’t you dare try to pin this on Obama or the Democrats.”

I’ll dare.
Fan&Fred (government sponsored enterprise) issue started under the Carter administration, and continued under all the rest of the administrations ( including Clinton. ) Plus, it was Larry Summers, ( one of Clinton and Obama’s masters ) who effectually immunized derivatives from being audited. There are hundreds of other instances where I can place the blame on democrats. I won’t though, because the political party they have allegiance to doesn’t really matter. The financial & monetary system are both parties fault.

“And no, deposing dishonest, manipulative, sick people from the position of CEO of a company that the entire economy depends on does not mean that Obama is staging a radical coup..”

It means he is doing something illegal though. A court & trial is the only thing that can do that.

“These ridiculous fears are put forward by idiots who broadcast from their basements with their own agenda to push, ”

It isn’t a fear when private companies are being internally mandated to cooperate with retroactive illegal laws, it’s called reality. These facts are being put forward by journalists who are reporting on whats going on. Most AP reporters who jot down a fact and put it on the web or in a paper do not have an agenda to push.

“Stop the stupidity now, please. ”
Ok

Grow up.

(um, to all the three-year-olds who are avid West Side Review members, sorry, keep playing with playdo and don’t be offended)

Anyway. Yes. I read what you posted. I referred to your claims of

“im 99% sure you haven’t read it, and the only reasearch you’ve does is most likely googling “what is good about Obama’s healthcare plan” or “democrat’s view of Obama’s healthcare plan”. Try viewing some bipartisan articles and get an actual opinion other than your parents’ instead of just looking up things that were written by far left liberals.”

I SUBSTANTIATED my claims by quoting the bill, rather than just an ad hominem attack on my opinions and knowledge. Your comment being directed TO ME really only proves the fact that you’re attacking me ad hominem, because you don’t really cite any logical reason as to why anybody else is more correct than I am except for the claim that I don’t have an original opinion because I don’t jump on the bandwagon with everyone else (oh, wait, that doesn’t make sense… oh well). I really don’t see how “im 99% sure you haven’t read it, and the only reasearch you’ve does is most likely googling “what is good about Obama’s healthcare plan” or “democrat’s view of Obama’s healthcare plan” is suggesting that I “open my mind.”

I’m not sure what your point here is. I think what you’re trying to articulate is that either I’m a loser, or a fake. Sure, I’m what today’s society would call a loser. I’m really, honestly not ashamed to admit that, because it’s really not something to be ashamed of. I do research because I actually have some desire to learn about things that aren’t forced on me, and to try to understand the world around me. I don’t educate myself to parade my knowledge around a website (which, by the way, was created, in part, by myself for the purpose of opening up an intellectual forum within which one could hold an educated conversation and argue their points), I educate myself so I’m better at the activity I dedicate myself to. Yes, I do actually have something to do with my “short miserable life,” and it’s doing what I love the most: arguing. I debate, and that debate carries itself out of the round and into my every day life. I’m genuinely interested in learning things, and I find it more appropriate to spend time increasing my knowledge of the world around me (mind you, among friends) rather than standing on a street corner aimlessly. Sure, I go to the occasional football game, and I spend a great deal of time just hanging out with my friends, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t research things that genuinely interest me, too.

Also, who the hell do you think you are to decide what being a teenager is about? Has the Man in the Sky (solid movie) enlightened you, and you alone? Because it seems to me like there are an awful lot of people praying to their gods, exploring the mind, and educating themselves to find out exactly what the hell being human IS about. Unlike you, I don’t really want to live the average life of an average human (I’m no way implying that average means mediocre; here, it’s just a broad term to describe the majority of Americans’ day-to-day lives). It might seem crazy, but I’d actually like to be homeless. Just to try it the fuck out. I’d like to go barefoot in the winter (which I actually tried for an entire year) just for the hell of it. I’ve tried out a lot of things, my friend, probably more than you. Believe it or not, I’ve actually lived for nearly 16 years. My entire life hasn’t exactly been a muddle of research. In fact, I was completely uninterested in debate until my first year in high school. Now that I’ve tried some things, and found something that I like, I find myself happier than I was before. And I’m not so insecure that I need to post attacks on the value of peoples’ lives in a forum meant for argumentation (cough, cough). Don’t so quickly make assumptions about people that you don’t even know outside of a certain forum. In particular, don’t classify people as ignorant, selfish, or argumentative, based off of an impression that you got inside a forum for ARGUING.

For now, I’ll ignore that you’ve apparently appointed yourself God and decided whose lives hold value and whose are a waste. And please, refrain from insulting a person directly on this site, or I’ll be forced to ban you. Ad Hominem fallacies are not at all in the spirit of a healthy debate.