View Poll Results: Who is the party of Freedom?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • Democrats

    5 11.36%
  • Republicans

    9 20.45%
  • The Free Bacon Party

    13 29.55%
  • Rutabaga

    17 38.64%
Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 123

Thread: Who is the Party of freedom?

  1. #91
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Who is the Party of freedom?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    I believe that the founders and framers believed that the solution to the problems of a democratic republic was the Bill of Rights and never imagined it would have been challenged by our own government.
    the bill of rights are restrictions placed on government as added protection of the people recognized rights.

    the preamble to the bill of rights, tells us what they are.

  2. #92
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: Who is the Party of freedom?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    referendums and initiatives are direct democracy of the people......illegal under the constitution...article 4 section 4.....but not enforced.

    democracy as a form, is a government were the people have all direct power....they vote for the officials.

    in American government of the founders, the house is the only democratic vote...the senate and president are non democratic votes, making america government a republican form, a "mixed government"...federalist 40

    in the founders day, no such thing as a democratic republic existed.......it cannot be

    the term republic mean a roman government.....however after the french revolution [a democratic movement] the french called France a republic......however it was not but , it stuck however and today, republic means today anything other than a monarchy.....because the French threw out the monarchy.

    the people's republic of china, USSR, France a democrat socialist republic...the founders would shake their heads, and are these people stupid!
    Referendums and direct democracy are completely legal via the Tenth Amendment.

    It sounds to me like you want some form of totalitarian socialism.

  3. #93
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: Who is the Party of freedom?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    the bill of rights are restrictions placed on government as added protection of the people recognized rights.

    the preamble to the bill of rights, tells us what they are.
    You're absolutely right here, but wrong in other posts.

    However that doesn't change the fact the Bill of Rights was put in place to curb anarchy and tyranny because of a democratic republic system of government.

  4. #94
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: Who is the Party of freedom?

    although George Washington was not our first president, there was a conspiracy to make him "king" and when he found this out he was so disgusted by it he had people thrown in prison.... Washington thought it was epic tyranny and did not like it one bit.

    I forget his exact words but they were absolutely epic when he found out about the scheme and addressed it but he emphasized democracy quite a bit.

  5. #95
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Who is the Party of freedom?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Referendums and direct democracy are completely legal via the Tenth Amendment.

    It sounds to me like you want some form of totalitarian socialism.
    no, they are not because that would make the state government democratic.

    all state government are to be republican in their form, ..it is the right of the people to CHANGE their form of government, however it it is changed to any thing other then republican it cannot be part of the union and must leave.

    this from a "view of the Constitution" published in 1825 and 1829...by William Rawle taught at west point. from 1825 to 1829

    William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 295--304, 305--7 1829 (2d ed.)

    The Union is an association of the people of republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those republics. The people of each pledge themselves to preserve that form of government in all. Thus each becomes responsible to the rest, that no other form of government shall prevail in it, and all are bound to preserve it in every one.

    But the mere compact, without the power to enforce it, would be of little value. Now this power can be no where so properly lodged, as in the Union itself. Hence, the term guarantee, indicates that the United States are authorized to oppose, and if possible, prevent every state in the Union from relinquishing the republican form of government, and as auxiliary means, they are expressly authorized and required to employ their force on the application of the constituted authorities of each state, "to repress domestic violence." If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it.

    Yet it is not to be understood, that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union, whether they adopted another or retained the same form of government, or if they should, with the express intention of seceding, expunge the representative system from their code, and thereby incapacitate themselves from concurring according to the mode now prescribed, in the choice of certain public officers of the United States.

    The principle of representation, although certainly the wisest and best, is not essential to the being of a republic, but to continue a member of the Union, it must be preserved, and therefore the guarantee must be so construed. It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.

    This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood, and the doctrine heretofore presented to the reader in regard to the indefeasible nature of personal allegiance, is so far qualified in respect to allegiance to the United States. It was observed, that it was competent for a state to make a compact with its citizens, that the reciprocal obligations of protection and allegiance might cease on certain events; and it was further observed, that allegiance would necessarily cease on the dissolution of the society to which it was due.

    The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics. Governments of dissimilar forms and principles cannot long maintain a binding coalition. "Greece," says Montesquieu, "was undone as soon as the king of Macedon obtained a seat in the amphyctionic council." It is probable, however, that the disproportionate force as well as the monarchical form of the new confederate had its share of influence in the event. But whether the historical fact supports the theory or not, the principle in respect to ourselves is unquestionable.


    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...s/a4_4s13.html

    democracy is the road to socialism-- Karl Marx

    democracy is indispensable to socialism - Lenin

    you can see why i am a anti-democratic form of government guy!

  6. #96
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,183

    Re: Who is the Party of freedom?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    I don't tow the republican party line - democrats just absolutely disgust me with their totalitarian attitude..

    For example they have been attacking republicans for alleged "campaign violations" painting these republicans as evil criminals while they themselves do the same and even WORSE not to mention they're trying to steal an NBA team from an owner because he said some subjective things..... Oh and then you have the Redskins - trying to FORCE a team to change their name...

    Oh and that is what I have only read in the last 15 minutes on the Chicago Tribune.

    Democrats are CRIMINAL - not just sore losers but CRIMINALS....

    Don't confuse my libertarianism and my hate for democrats and progressives with towing a republican line..... I don't like many republicans either but I don't attack on the basis of frugal bull**** and in the name of authoritarian politics.
    So totalitarian Democrats bother you, but not totalitarian Republicans? That's the very definition of a Republican.

    Which Democrats exactly are stealing an NBA franchise, and why do you care about Donald Sterling? Maybe they should just dig up some evidence that he's gay and then you'd applaud the NBA's freedom not to associate with him.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  7. #97
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,183

    Re: Who is the Party of freedom?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jredbaron96 View Post
    The Gay Nazi Party.
    Gay Witches for Abortion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  8. #98
    Educator Amandi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Delaware
    Last Seen
    06-19-15 @ 02:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    905
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who is the Party of freedom?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    no, they are not because that would make the state government democratic.

    all state government are to be republican in their form, ..it is the right of the people to CHANGE their form of government, however it it is changed to any thing other then republican it cannot be part of the union and must leave.

    this from a "view of the Constitution" published in 1825 and 1829...by William Rawle taught at west point. from 1825 to 1829

    William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 295--304, 305--7 1829 (2d ed.)

    The Union is an association of the people of republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those republics. The people of each pledge themselves to preserve that form of government in all. Thus each becomes responsible to the rest, that no other form of government shall prevail in it, and all are bound to preserve it in every one.

    But the mere compact, without the power to enforce it, would be of little value. Now this power can be no where so properly lodged, as in the Union itself. Hence, the term guarantee, indicates that the United States are authorized to oppose, and if possible, prevent every state in the Union from relinquishing the republican form of government, and as auxiliary means, they are expressly authorized and required to employ their force on the application of the constituted authorities of each state, "to repress domestic violence." If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it.

    Yet it is not to be understood, that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union, whether they adopted another or retained the same form of government, or if they should, with the express intention of seceding, expunge the representative system from their code, and thereby incapacitate themselves from concurring according to the mode now prescribed, in the choice of certain public officers of the United States.

    The principle of representation, although certainly the wisest and best, is not essential to the being of a republic, but to continue a member of the Union, it must be preserved, and therefore the guarantee must be so construed. It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.

    This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood, and the doctrine heretofore presented to the reader in regard to the indefeasible nature of personal allegiance, is so far qualified in respect to allegiance to the United States. It was observed, that it was competent for a state to make a compact with its citizens, that the reciprocal obligations of protection and allegiance might cease on certain events; and it was further observed, that allegiance would necessarily cease on the dissolution of the society to which it was due.

    The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics. Governments of dissimilar forms and principles cannot long maintain a binding coalition. "Greece," says Montesquieu, "was undone as soon as the king of Macedon obtained a seat in the amphyctionic council." It is probable, however, that the disproportionate force as well as the monarchical form of the new confederate had its share of influence in the event. But whether the historical fact supports the theory or not, the principle in respect to ourselves is unquestionable.


    Article 4, Section 4: William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 295--304, 305--7 1829 (2d ed.)

    democracy is the road to socialism-- Karl Marx

    democracy is indispensable to socialism - Lenin

    you can see why i am a anti-democratic form of government guy!
    Where do we find a definitive definition of Republic?

    Article 4 Section 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.

    The problem with discussions like this is everything is open to enterpretation. A blog from Marquette University Law School disagrees with you about referendums being against Art 4 Sec 4.

    Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog» Blog Archive » A Republican Form of Government

    If I read it properly all the author thinks it does is prevent states from choosing monarchy.

  9. #99
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:31 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,424

    Re: Who is the Party of freedom?

    The Peace and Freedom Party, obviously. It's in their name.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  10. #100
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Who is the Party of freedom?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amandi View Post
    Where do we find a definitive definition of Republic?

    Article 4 Section 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.

    The problem with discussions like this is everything is open to enterpretation. A blog from Marquette University Law School disagrees with you about referendums being against Art 4 Sec 4.

    Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog» Blog Archive » A Republican Form of Government

    If I read it properly all the author thinks it does is prevent states from choosing monarchy.
    lets start with republic in the days of the founders, a republic meant to the founders a " mixed government", of divided power.

    Madison states in federalist 40, that the constitutional convention created a mixed government.

    The Federalist No. 40 - On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained

    New York Packet
    Friday, January 18, 1788
    [James Madison]

    To the People of the State of New York:

    THE second point to be examined is, whether the convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.

    Polybius a Greek who is considered to be the creator of mixed government is referenced by Madison in the federalist 63

    Polybius and the Founding Fathers: the separation of powers

    what is a mixed government.:

    Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, is a form of government that integrates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, some issues (often defined in a constitution) are decided by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person (also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.

    Mixed government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    in our American government, the founders did not create a system of government with the people electing the senate or the president, these are non democratic votes, while they did create a democratic vote for the house of representatives by the people.

    our system of government is a republican FORM of government, with a single democratic element,..... the house of representatives.

    a direct democracy or a representative democracy would be a democratic FORM.......and the founders hated democratic forms of government because they are very factious [full of special interest], that they chose a republican form over the democratic form in federalist 10 by Madison.

    federalist 10 - The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.

    a republican form of government divided power into two half's, giving the states power of the senate and the people, power in the house, by having divided power no single power, the states or the people can become tyrannical because of that division.

    back to the author who was G. Washington's DA for the state of PENN.,

    in every state constitution the people have the RIGHT to abolish or alter their state government, in doing this they are able to form any type of government they chose, however it they are to remain in the union, they cant relinquish there republican form, if they do, they are not allowed to be a part of the union.

    referendums, and initiatives on ballots are direct votes of the people, they are direct democracy, the founders are dead set against this because it allows for majority rule in law making, and the founders wanted to avoid that same sort of thing of the Athenians of Greece.

    with referendums when have seen things like the creation of smoking bans on individual business, with the public determining the business's policy, this is in direct conflict with property rights.

    Rawle--Yet it is not to be understood, that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union, whether they adopted another or retained the same form of government, or if they should, with the express intention of seceding, expunge the representative system from their code, and thereby incapacitate themselves from concurring according to the mode now prescribed, in the choice of certain public officers of the United States.

    RAWLE states that the people can expunge a representative form of government, and......which could create a monarchy.

    the idea of a republican form of government over a democratic form is, that legislative law making decisions be made by more then 1 single entity with power, ...why?

    because 1 person with all power will become a tyrant.

    a few people with all power will become an oligarchy

    and it you give the people, all power, they will become the "mob" and rule by majority over the 49%, taking away their liberty.

    but by dividing power, no single power has all the power to become tyrannical

    referendums and initiatives came into America under what is know as the Oregon system of the late 1800's...when America moved away from a republic to a more democratic form of government. and the 17th amendment.
    Last edited by Master PO; 06-20-14 at 04:35 PM.

Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •