>>You
>>see the problem is that
>>people in the States believe
>>that every issue should be
>>decided democratically among the people.
>>Not only is that
>>unrealistic, but dangerous. Such
>>laws that aren't established in
>>comparison to previous law will
>>cause conflict between the minority
>>and the majority.
>
>What you are describing is not
>democracy. It's bad management
>(are you surprised that a
>socialist thinks good management is
>important ?).

Considering socialism is more authoritarian than capitalism, nope.

>But there's a bigger problem with
>your statement.
>You keep on talking about 'majority'
>and 'minority' like these are
>two well outlined groups of
>people that never change.

Not true. I fully realize they do change. But in that same aspect, not all issues are as important as another. Hence, the majority of an issue like say, abortion would not have the influencial power over a majority that has direction over what to do with your tax dollars. A majority on child safety, would not have as much importance as one that is decides how the strength of national defense. Sure abortion and child safety is important, but nowhere near the measures of those two.

>What is your definition of both
>?
>Rich people = minority ?
>Poor and middleclass = majority
>?

Well duh, that's what it is. There are always going to be more poor and middle class than rich. That's the whole point of calling them that, because they have less money than a certain percentage of the others. So yes the rich will always be a minority, in whatever scoiety.

>What about rich people loosing their
>money or poor people getting
>richer ?

What about it? Their tax burdens will change along with their income shuffles. The former rich guy will be let off the hook while the formerly poor one will have to come out of the pockets.

What about
>the majority that is PRO
>guns ? They might
>be a minority when it
>comes to being PRO accessible
>health care, where does that
>leave you with your theory
>?

What about it? It simply means someone isn't brainwashed and can think logically. However it is not in their hands, it should apply to the principles of law and not the wishes of popular opinion.

>My question is : what does
>this have to do with
>the US being a republic
>? Show me how
>the US being non democratic
>and a constitution with only
>few amendments are directly correlated.

Because the people elect the representatives. That's the whole point of a republican form of government, and not just the majority political party setting up the government. Why do you think in alot of these democratic countries the political parties stay in power for 50-60 years? Because they political parties set it up where they can keep power that long. Hell in Mexico they finally ousted a political party that had control of the presidency for over 71 years. That's ridiculous.

>What makes you say this is
>impossible within a democracy ?

It's not possible within yours because you want an election in which people vote on the issues going on. There is a difference between having national and state representatives vote on the amendments and having it based on popular opinion.

>Correct. ALL PEOPLE is the
>majority, be it a rather
>overwhelming majority. I guess
>100% majority is a majority
>too ;-)

Yeah but the majority doesn't, nor ever, consist of all people. Therefore, that 100% majority is unrealistic.

>>Alright. Bush is proposing a
>>tax cut that essentially is
>>set up that for every
>>$10 dollars that the higher
>>income earners get, a dime
>>will go to the middle
>>income earners and a penny
>>to the lower income earners.
>> Gore is complaining about
>>this, saying it isn't fair.
>> However what Gore isn't
>>telling people is that's how
>>the tax bracket here is
>>set up, in which for
>>every $10 dollars the rich
>>pays, the middle class pays
>>a dime and the poor
>>a penny. Hence, they
>>should get back as much
>>as they paid. Understand
>>now?

>How about people who used to
>pay little taxes (since they
>were poor) all their life,
>have become extremely rich the
>last couple of years and
>will now get back those
>$10 when they only paid
>one penny ? And
>vice versa ? A
>poor guy who used to
>pay $10 (since he was
>rich) and now gets one
>penny ?

That will all come back to them during tax time, and will be justified.

>>The average
>>American, if they had to
>>pay taxes first before they
>>could get their full income,
>>would be working for the
>>government until sometime in mid
>>May.
>
>They don't just work for the
>government. A lot of
>taxes are being used (at
>least over here on this
>'terrible' continent Europe) for roads,
>schools, etcetera. Which means
>people benefit from that.

I don't mind that. However the big government spending programs, along with wealth redistribution is totally excessive, not to mentions punishing people for being successful. What's the use of success if government is going to take my spoils?

>PLUS companies benefit too (roads for
>transport), schools prepare kids to
>be good employees with middleclass
>values, ...

What they should be doing is teaching kids how to aim high and be ambitious. But oh well, that's just asking for too much. They got to be under the thumb of government, yanno.

>What's the problem if the majority
>= 100% ? Meaning
>that the government provides for
>all people ?

But the majority is never going to BE 100%. And what about people providing for themselves instead of government doing it? Government is not the parents of the citizenry.

>You're not THAT naive, are you
>?
>AOL-Time Warner ?
>Procter & Gamble ?
>Ford ?
>Dole ?
>Microsoft ?

So, so, so, so, and so.
The most I do as in AOL-Time Warner is watch some Turner owned channels (since I am from Atlanta). Not much Proctor and Gamble either. I don't own a car, I use public transportation (buses and trains) I buy fruit from the farmers market, and right now I am using a Macintosh to type this to you.

Sure, all these companies are huge, and they have a span of influence. However, if you allow them to take advantage of you then it's noones fault but your own. The simple fact is there are plenty of businesses big or small that you can divulge your time and effort towards. The problem is that you have to take initiative into finding out where they are, given you don't want to give your business to someone else. There are actually choices in this world.

>You don't control who you do
>business with. Sure, it
>was your 'free' choice to
>work with Windows and buy
>those Dole bananas...

It sure was. I don't have to get on a computer at all. And I don't see nothing wrong with Windows, and I'm sure not too many people do either. If Windows wasn't convient, they wouldn't use it. It wasn't like Bill Gates held everyone up at gunpoint and said "buy this dmmmit". People bought it because there wasn't anything remotely better or more compatible.

>Sure, that's why we have cigarettes
>with addictive toxics in 'm,
>that's why General Motors got
>their asses sued for making
>faulty cars, KNOWING it and
>still continuing selling 'm (real
>reason : it was cheaper
>to keep it faulty and
>to pay insurance companies now
>and then than making the
>car safer)

What do we call that? Fraud. Is fraud illegal? Yes. Case closed.

>But you plan on doing so
>with a small government with
>a $10 budget ?
>If you want to face
>billion dollar companies, you need
>to be at least as
>strong as them.

You don't think government is as strong as any business? Please. Governments are quickly becoming trillion dollar industries yearly. But that doesn't mean that all that money goes into fighting corruption neither.

>>That
>>should be decided by the
>>laws of that nation based
>>on the Constitution (although I
>>must say, you guys must
>>not be too good at
>>making constitutions).
>
>What is your Constitution based on
>? LOL. Sad
>man, no sense of history
>whatsoever.

Oh, so I guess you'll tell me, Mr. Historian?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -Voltaire

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

"Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take pride in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today, someone else tomorrow. You have no constitutional right not to be offended." - Neal Boortz

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian Conservative.