Raees wrote: Funny the way some people try to paint this as "As Wisconsin goes, so goes the rest of the country."
It could very well go that Way, Romeny raised 17 million more dollars in May and this early victory might even get me to write a couple checks for local guys like Coors & Coffman.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
popcorn eater wrote: Did someone start a democracy???? Where? tell me about it. Wisconsin, yeah right?
Oh I forgot, we replaced the definition of republic with democracy because it plays well in the press (and msg boards).
Perhaps LJ realized how petty the party/sports team talk is and is letting you continue down that path on your own? We are allowed to learn from our mistakes...
There... now go hide.
Thanks for updating your name. I just figure you are one of the few that know the difference, so my standards are higher for you.
I am always sorta hiding. Just pop up here and there so I can get whack a moled...or missed all together.
Oh yeah, and "it" works for the elected leader and a few buddies. Perhaps we should have a democratic referendum style vote on the concept of people putting one person in place to make 10,000s of decisions for the people (aka republicanism), do you think the people would vote of their own free will, after a good marketing campaign of course, for republicanism vs. democracy (styles of governing vs. pol. parties)? This is a real discussion continuing question, not a fight pickin' comment. Given the choice, would people choose to choose more via the majority vs. choosing the choose less via accepting the majority choice of their chosen representatives as we do in some form now?
popcorn eater wrote: Did someone start a democracy???? Where? tell me about it. Wisconsin, yeah right?
Oh I forgot, we replaced the definition of republic with democracy because it plays well in the press (and msg boards).
Perhaps LJ realized how petty the party/sports team talk is and is letting you continue down that path on your own? We are allowed to learn from our mistakes...
There... now go hide.
Thanks for updating your name. I just figure you are one of the few that know the difference, so my standards are higher for you.
I am always sorta hiding. Just pop up here and there so I can get whack a moled...or missed all together.
Oh yeah, and "it" works for the elected leader and a few buddies. Perhaps we should have a democratic referendum style vote on the concept of people putting one person in place to make 10,000s of decisions for the people (aka republicanism), do you think the people would vote of their own free will, after a good marketing campaign of course, for republicanism vs. democracy (styles of governing vs. pol. parties)? This is a real discussion continuing question, not a fight pickin' comment. Given the choice, would people choose to choose more via the majority vs. choosing the choose less via accepting the majority choice of their chosen representatives as we do in some form now?
I hope you took the "hide" comment with the tongue in cheek manner I meant it?
Republicanism already covers the majority rule of democracy. But the advantage is the fact that the representative does not have to follow the majorities wishes when he/she feels that the majority has made a decision that would decisively effect the right of a minority. That kind of protection is already built into the system. With a majority rule only there is much more room for those sort of abuses.
Anyone that doesn't vote of their own free will in this system does so only because of their lack of self-education of the issues.
