Obama says reject those who warn of Tyranny

[Jeremiah65]

I am almost to the point of writing someone off as a dreaming maniac. I am not opposed to worthy argument...but choosing to attack the source of a very wise statement rather than the body of the quote itself...indicates...a somewhat twisted "strawman" type argument.

It does not matter...in the grand picture....where the words came from....they are wisdom and they are a warning.

We MUST be a Republic....we must live and die by the rule of law. Only by the rule of law are the rights, liberties and freedoms of the many, the few and the one protected.

I do not want to live in a world where 51% can tell 49% what to do....that IS NOT a world I think is good. I choose to believe there is a place in this world for everyone and a set of rules to allow that to be....A place for the many...a place for the few...and yes...damn it...a place for the one. When you decide it is ok to sweep the minority voice under the rug and ignore it....doom is just one election away.

I refuse to accept this...I might be a Libertarian, but I understand the value of this wonderful experiment...a Constitutional Republic...where the Gov is restrained by a document....a society where EVERYONE is equal...be whatever they may....that is the world I choose to support...that is the dream I struggle for...that is the "grand experiment" I lend my efforts to....

I hope you will as well....

The "mob rules" is an evil that you cannot even begin to comprehend....

[Clarakore]

You sir...are a *#$%head.

This is where our conversation comes to its conclusion for the time being.

Is that really what you want to discuss from that quote? The provenance?

Because you segue quickly into a rant about the gullible and feeble minded, who quel surprise, are the people who disagree with you. You're quick to shout that someone's comment is a "personal attack" but you've just called nigh EVERYONE who disagrees with you gullible and feeble minded.

Platforms and groups are attacked.

Attack progressives all you wish, that is who I identify with but will not take it personal. Assail the platforms I hold dear if you desire, I believe that is fair.

But there will be no direct or personal attacks coming from my direction towards yours. If the reverse holds true, that would be your decision, and your conversational style.

There are language and dialogue standards we all have, however high or low, and just as others stick to theirs the same holds true here.

We can be peers if you please, consider me an equal, or you can view me as beneath you if you want, it will not change who I am or how I select to respect persons, but groups and platforms will continue to be my focus.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[RavenHawk]

To refresh memories...

"Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotism"

Great post. time to repost this jewel:

[Jeremiah65]

Yes ye of the feeblemind...even those of us with a solid foot in logic and reason can be riled into raving fits of insanity....go ahead...dodge the truth and by all means...please avoid logic...I don't think it likes you very much....

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Platforms and groups are attacked.

words like "gullible" and "feeble-minded" are not used with a collective noun, thus making the collective noun the topic of conversation. Which happens to be ... something that people here actually believe or at the very least consider to be worthy of discussion. Thus you're saying those people are gullible and feeble minded.

I've been on this forum for longer then I can to imagine, and I've encountered exactly not a one person who is gullible or feeble-minded. Paint lickingly insane yes. Wonderfully bizarre yes (such as one poster who genuinely believed that god was a dragon). But feeble-minded or gullible? Stuborn and intractable is more the common fair here.

Attack progressives all you wish, that is who I identify with but will not take it personal. Assail the platforms I hold dear if you desire, I believe that is fair.

I'd love to discuss your beliefs one day. As soon as you tell us what they are.

Because ATM all we have is "the right are responsible for more terrorism then the left", "that quote wasn't by Aristotle", "I've written a poem about peace" some snark about people of the other political persuasion and you telling us you're a progressive.

But there will be no direct or personal attacks coming from my direction towards yours.

Other then calling people feeble-minded because they don't agree with you, obviously.

We can be peers if you please, consider me an equal, or you can view me as beneath you if you want, it will not change who I am or how I select to respect persons, but groups and platforms will continue to be my focus.

Except it doesn't come across like that. It comes across as you snarking at the right, then someone snarking back at the left and you crying "personal attack" and when someone finally construes something you say as a personal attack you get defensive and say "I was talking about the group, not the individual" when everyone here accepts that a group is made up of individuals. Everyone, it seems except you who hides his personal attacks behind "I was talking about the group". Which is a cop out I don't accept from my students let alone someone who is an adult.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Yes ye of the feeblemind...even those of us with a solid foot in logic and reason can be riled into raving fits of insanity....go ahead...dodge the truth and by all means...please avoid logic...I don't think it likes you very much....

I hate logic, he owes me five dollars from the last time we played cribbage - I swear he cheats too whenever I say something he goes on and on about "the exact rules state this, the exact rules state that ... it doesn't say I can't ..." jammy git.

[Clarakore]

Great post. time to repost this jewel:

[media=]

[/media]

The Constitution itself does not mention the word republic.

It does guarantee each state "a Republican form of government".

We are a federal government.

Some states grant their citizens the right to referendum, which is direct democracy.

We have a demoractic republic in essence.

Others will also claim, when it comes to our economic system, that we practice capitalism and not socialism. That would also be incorrect, we are a mixed-market with features of both capitalism and socialism.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

What is a "Republican form of Government" if not a Republic?

Certainly the Founding Fathers were on the whole republicans (lower cased to differentiate from the upper cased Republicans as in members of the Republican party). They spoke out against other forms of governance. And despite me being a foreigner I've always believed that intent as well as word and deed need to be considered.

[tapirmusic]

Paint lickingly insane yes. Wonderfully bizarre yes (such as one poster who genuinely believed that god was a dragon).

I remember reading some of the Dragon-God guys stuff. I need to see if I can find it again. Definitely worth a re-read!

[Jeremiah65]

I must draw out and dismiss myself at this point. I do love an intellectual conversation and even a debate....but when one member of the inclusive decides to cast aside all rational thought and reason...there is not much you can do.

I understand that you have a wonderful idea and you just cannot understand why others do not see and embrace it.

The reason is that wisdom proves that it just does not work. You can rail and accuse and fight and spit and do all kinds of ugly things...but when the chips finally stop spinning...wisdom and experience generally prove to be correct.

The human species...and how I do love it....is comprised of idiots and morons. Most cannot think past the next mainstream media commercial...much less 10 years down the road. I understand you have a need to voice your hopes and dreams...that is fine....we all have them....but when you get older, you tend to temper those things with reality. A reality based on the world you are currently a part of. There is less than 10% that can tell you why we actually had a civil war...most will tell you it was over slavery...and that is NOT true.

I am not the enemy LBA....I am the old sage...sitting off to the side hoping to offer the wisdom I have gained over the years. NO, I am not going to stomp on you and tell you that you are wrong...I am not going to secure you in a location...label and brand you. I want you to know that in a true and free republic....your voice is just as relevant as anyone else's...and that is huge...that is important.

But dude....I like chaos just as much as anyone else...I have to struggle to not be a regular sheep....sometimes being "the black sheep"...requires effort.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Jeremiah65

[Jeremiah65]

I hate logic, he owes me five dollars from the last time we played cribbage - I swear he cheats too whenever I say something he goes on and on about "the exact rules state this, the exact rules state that ... it doesn't say I can't ..." jammy git.

That might be the funniest shiz I have read in ages....awesomeness...thanks for the bump.....

[Kowalski]

I must draw out and dismiss myself at this point. I do love an intellectual conversation and even a debate....but when one member of the inclusive decides to cast aside all rational thought and reason...there is not much you can do.

I understand that you have a wonderful idea and you just cannot understand why others do not see and embrace it.

The reason is that wisdom proves that it just does not work. You can rail and accuse and fight and spit and do all kinds of ugly things...but when the chips finally stop spinning...wisdom and experience generally prove to be correct.

The human species...and how I do love it....is comprised of idiots and morons. Most cannot think past the next mainstream media commercial...much less 10 years down the road. I understand you have a need to voice your hopes and dreams...that is fine....we all have them....but when you get older, you tend to temper those things with reality. A reality based on the world you are currently a part of. There is less than 10% that can tell you why we actually had a civil war...most will tell you it was over slavery...and that is NOT true.

I am not the enemy LBA....I am the old sage...sitting off to the side hoping to offer the wisdom I have gained over the years. NO, I am not going to stomp on you and tell you that you are wrong...I am not going to secure you in a location...label and brand you. I want you to know that in a true and free republic....your voice is just as relevant as anyone else's...and that is huge...that is important.

But dude....I like chaos just as much as anyone else...I have to struggle to not be a regular sheep....sometimes being "the black sheep"...requires effort.

:clap:

This was a great and well thought out post. Thumbs up.

[danielost]

Funny, when someone wants to hear certain things, their mind does that.

Me, not caring about Government Conspiracy crap, nor caring who the President is, although want to see a Revolution in my life time...

I do not hear anything bad, unless you leave things out, and scramble a few. He was making the point that the Government is by the people, not a seperate entity, and our youth need to remember that, and keep it going.

He is speaking at a college for christ sake. Don't any of you think at least 85% of the people there are more educated then us?.....If anyone thought this was bad, I am 100% sure they would be speaking up, as they were there first hand.

Not to mention, take 1:27 out of a speech and you leave out a lot.

edit :....4 posts above me, thank you.....You replied as I was typing.

The government is by the people, for the people and of the people only as long as it works the way it is supposed to. This president(dictator want to be). Goes around congress to much. He used the IRS last year to scare those apposed in him during the election. This year he is using them to punish states and companies who will not comply with obama care.

You want an idea of how obama care will work, here it is. I am on medicaid. I need therapy so I might be able to walk again. In order to give me the therapy the nurseing home has to get permission. Medacaid gives permission for one month. If I improve enough in their eyes they approve another month. It could take a couple of months for them to give this permission.

[Kowalski]

You want an idea of how obama care will work, here it is. I am on medicaid. I need therapy so I might be able to walk again. In order to give me the therapy the nurseing home has to get permission. Medacaid gives permission for one month. If I improve enough in their eyes they approve another month. It could take a couple of months for them to give this permission.

So sorry to hear that. I really hope everything works out better for you.

The government is by the people, for the people and of the people only as long as it works the way it is supposed to. This president(dictator want to be). Goes around congress to much. He used the IRS last year to scare those apposed in him during the election. This year he is using them to punish states and companies who will not comply with obama care.

I believe Nixon used the IRS to punish people on his "enemies list", also.

Pretty bad if your taking pages out of NIXON'S book, you know what I mean?

[RavenHawk]

The Constitution itself does not mention the word republic.

That is technically correct and a good observation but that doesn’t detract from two other items. For one, by definition, our Constitution describes what a Republic(an) government is so even though it never states what it is, we know by reading comments from the Founding Fathers in other documents that we have a Republic (form a more perfect Union). They knew they were travelling into “The Undiscovered Country”. They were creating something far above anything the world had seen. The other thing that you missed is from the clip right at the beginning. Franklin was asked what he had given us (the people) and his answer was “a Republic”. He also indicated how hard it would be to keep it. Things worth keeping are usually difficult to hang on to.

It does guarantee each state "a Republican form of government".

That may not be “Republic” but this is probably the closest it comes to actually stating so. I don’t think the Founding Fathers felt that it was necessary to expressly state it was a Republic.

What you quote is IV.4 : “ The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.” This was setup so that say, Massachusetts wouldn’t become a theocracy and Georgia a pure democracy, etc. but all would be a Republic.

We are a federal government.

“Federal” denotes the central government separate from the state government.

Some states grant their citizens the right to referendum, which is direct democracy.

We have a demoractic republic in essence.

Others will also claim, when it comes to our economic system, that we practice capitalism and not socialism. That would also be incorrect, we are a mixed-market with features of both capitalism and socialism.

We use Democratic principles so that there would be participation by the people. But it was controlled to prevent a pure democracy from taking hold, hence the Electoral College. Presidents were not elected by the majority so that mob rule would not degenerate into the extremes of democracy. Obama and party would want to turn this into a pure democracy which is just another form of Socialism (or Oligarchy). The Founding Fathers did everything possible to prevent that.

I think that some amount of Socialism does play a helping part in a strong capitalist system. Like in all great food recipes, you usually see where it calls for a dash of salt. Socialism is the salt. Any more and it ruins the food. Today, our system has about 8 cups of salt.

[Clarakore]

double

Edited May 13, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[Clarakore]

That is technically correct and a good observation but that doesn't detract from two other items. For one, by definition, our Constitution describes what a Republic(an) government is so even though it never states what it is, we know by reading comments from the Founding Fathers in other documents that we have a Republic (form a more perfect Union). They knew they were travelling into "The Undiscovered Country". They were creating something far above anything the world had seen.

Pretty sure that Plato, Rome, and the French had a part to play in Republics.

The other thing that you missed is from the clip right at the beginning. Franklin was asked what he had given us (the people) and his answer was "a Republic". He also indicated how hard it would be to keep it. Things worth keeping are usually difficult to hang on to.

That may not be "Republic" but this is probably the closest it comes to actually stating so. I don't think the Founding Fathers felt that it was necessary to expressly state it was a Republic.

If they would have it would've definitely helped your argument.

What you quote is IV.4 : " The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence." This was setup so that say, Massachusetts wouldn't become a theocracy and Georgia a pure democracy, etc. but all would be a Republic.

Except they didn't tell us that last part specifically. They most likely understood you would be around to do so for them.

"Federal" denotes the central government separate from the state government.

We use Democratic principles so that there would be participation by the people. But it was controlled to prevent a pure democracy from taking hold, hence the Electoral College. Presidents were not elected by the majority so that mob rule would not degenerate into the extremes of democracy. Obama and party would want to turn this into a pure democracy which is just another form of Socialism (or Oligarchy). The Founding Fathers did everything possible to prevent that.

So we are still a democratic republic.

I think that some amount of Socialism does play a helping part in a strong capitalist system. Like in all great food recipes, you usually see where it calls for a dash of salt. Socialism is the salt. Any more and it ruins the food. Today, our system has about 8 cups of salt.

Socialism is the salt, heh.

In the Roman Republic they used to pay Roman soldiers in salt because it was so dang valuable and which is where we get the word salary.

While that doesn't have anything to do with whether we are a republic or democracy (we are both) it is about as interesting as your final summary.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[danielost]

Plato was a demacracy

Rome was a republic

France at the birth of the united states was a monarchy. Although they did help birth the nation. Later they went republic and the nipolia came along.d

[Capt Amerika]

I don't know about anyone else, but I have two degrees, one of which is a Masters, and a handful of graduate diplomas.

I have a Bachelors degree in Aeronautics, i dont consider myself dumber than 85% of current students.

[Capt Amerika]

I realize this is a missatributed quote, and most importantly it speaks of a true democracy which we are not yet it does seem to catch the spirit of the present quite well.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship"

One needs to look no further than the election of Obama to see the truth in that quote.

How many people were interviewed after the election talking about how Obama was going to buy them this or that.

How many of those same people are now starting to wake up to the fact that life under Obama has not improved for anyone outside of Big Corporations.

[Kowalski]

I realize this is a missatributed quote, and most importantly it speaks of a true democracy which we are not yet it does seem to catch the spirit of the present quite well.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship"

One needs to look no further than the election of Obama to see the truth in that quote.

How many people were interviewed after the election talking about how Obama was going to buy them this or that.

How many of those same people are now starting to wake up to the fact that life under Obama has not improved for anyone outside of Big Corporations.

Great quote, and very true. I found this, and thought it was a interesting read:

Published on Sunday, March 16, 2003 by CommonDreams.org

When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History

by Thom Hartmann

The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.

It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)

But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.

Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.

"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.

Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.

Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.

To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting on it.

Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested the leader in public - and there were many - quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police's batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader's public speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very competent orator.)

Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. He wanted to stir a "racial pride" among his countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as "The Homeland," a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movie "Triumph Of The Will." As hoped, people's hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was "the" homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the "true people," he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation's concern; if bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better, it's of little concern to us.

Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn't act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from the League Of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of The United Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite.

His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a "New Christianity." Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared "Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With Us - and most of them fervently believed it was true.

Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation's leader determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome "intellectuals" and "liberals." He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader.

He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments.

His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist attack, "Radio and press are at out disposal." Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation's leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public's recollection as his central security office began advertising a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so successful that the names of some of the people "denounced" were soon being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out - a favorite target of his regime and the media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate allies.

To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn't enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation's largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry flourished.

But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family.

With his number two man - a master at manipulating the media - he began a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had set afire the nation's most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference and publicly delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe - at first - denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar's Rome or Alexander's Greece.

It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of the United Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military action began, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving in to this leader's new first-strike doctrine would bring "peace for our time." Thus Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German corporations began to take over Austrian resources.

In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, "Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators."

To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the terrorists or their sponsors didn't think they'd succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will. In times of war, they said, there could be only "one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief" ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer"), and so his advocates in the media began a nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself. Those questioning him were labeled "anti-German" or "not good Germans," and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation's valiant men in uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the army came) against the "intellectuals and liberals" who were critical of his policies.

Nonetheless, once the "small war" annexation of Austria was successfully and quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of opposition were again raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn't enough to rouse the populace and totally suppress dissent. A full-out war was necessary to divert public attention from the growing rumbles within the country about disappearing dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the corporate sector but threatening the middle class's way of life.

A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of national security. It was the end of Germany's first experiment with democracy.

As we conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones worth remembering.

February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus van der Lubbe's successful firebombing of the German Parliament (Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his successful and brief action to seize Austria, in which almost no German blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed around the world, he was later Time magazine's "Man Of The Year."

Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, simply by its most famous agency's initials: the SS.

We also remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly violent warfare they named "lightning war" or blitzkrieg, which, while generating devastating civilian losses, also produced a highly desirable "shock and awe" among the nation's leadership according to the authors of the 1996 book "Shock And Awe" published by the National Defense University Press.

Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government the German democracy had become through Hitler's close alliance with the largest German corporations and his policy of using war as a tool to keep power: "fas-cism (fbsh'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity.

Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.

To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again ours.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-08.htm

[RavenHawk]

Pretty sure that Plato, Rome, and the French had a part to play in Republics.

Well, The Founding Fathers did use the history of Greece and Rome to develop the Constitution, as not what to do. The clip pointed out, when the people are not vigilant, the extremes of Democracy degenerate into an Oligarchy. They used these as a warning for the future. Of course, the Founding Fathers were not aware of Napoleon at the time but I imagine that they would have included more restrictions to government if they had witnessed his rise.

If they would have it would've definitely helped your argument.

Not really because the main difference between a Constitutional Republic and a Democracy is that the Constitution limits the power of government. By definition, that is a Republic. It may be subtle but there if a vast difference between the people under the rule of law and mob rule.

Except they didn't tell us that last part specifically. They most likely understood you would be around to do so for them.

Their attitude was what was good for the goose is good for the gander. Something what appears to escape you is found in the following. “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe.” - Thomas Jefferson. He should have emphasized “ignorant”. I don’t think that this article of the Constitution or really any article requires any unique insight other than to read and understand what the Founding Fathers indented.

So we are still a democratic republic.

No, we are not a Democracy. We are either a Republic or a Constitutional Republic. Where government is limited. "If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy." - Thomas Jefferson. A Republic does not nanny its people. In essence though, What the Founding Father’s intended is not what we have today. So it should properly be stated that we are a Democracy and are no longer still a Republic. That is sad but that doesn’t mean that the Great Experiment is over. It just means that a new challenge faces it. That to me sounds like a first course of action to correct.

While that doesn't have anything to do with whether we are a republic or democracy (we are both) it is about as interesting as your final summary.

No it doesn’t. So let’s just say that as a Republic, we utilize minimal amounts of Democracy and Socialism to benefit the Republic. It doesn’t work out the other way around or even trying to establish them as equals. Socialism and Democracy have for far too long taken center stage. A Republic is far superior to Socialism or even a Democracy.

[danielost]

I realize this is a missatributed quote, and most importantly it speaks of a true democracy which we are not yet it does seem to catch the spirit of the present quite well.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship"

One needs to look no further than the election of Obama to see the truth in that quote.

How many people were interviewed after the election talking about how Obama was going to buy them this or that.

How many of those same people are now starting to wake up to the fact that life under Obama has not improved for anyone outside of Big Corporations.

The city of detroit went one stp further and demanded gifts for electing him.

[ninjadude]

Plato was a demacracy

no plato was a person.

Rome was a republic

only before it became an empire

[danielost]

no plato was a person.

only before it became an empire

No, plato promoted democracy. The first one.

Ceaser only broke one roman law, that I know of.

Obama has broken three that I know of. I have lost count of how many times he has gone around the congress. We may have a problem when it is his time to step down.