Letters to the Editor: October 18, 2013

West Valley View's picture

Politicians ruining city

Editor:

I was saddened when I read the comment about the unsuccessful Oktoberfest party in Litchfield Park. Saddened but not surprised. Litchfield Park has little to be festive about. I live just outside Litchfield Park and like the community’s amenities. I especially enjoy the fitness program.

This program is in constant jeopardy because of the pro politicians who run Litchfield Park. To them this long established, gracious community is nothing but a stepping stone to political office in some place that “matters”. Their ambition shapes their approach to the town’s governance which is: starve the town, raise my & my cronies’ salaries, exile or marginalize anyone who cares about the town and then go on to the next, more prestigious political office.

Meanwhile, as Litchfield Park is being turned into Maryvale, in the name of greed, personal ambition and penny-pinching, its chief economic asset, the Wigwam Resort, loses its prestige and profitability.

Karen Eicher
Goodyear

Breast cancer affects men, too

Editor:

I have just finished reading your editorial which was published in the West Valley View on October 11. While I applaud your stance on advice to women on breast cancer, I am also very disappointed in the fact that you did not include a sentence or one word concerning male breast cancer.

Being a male breast cancer survivor for over 8 1/2 years I am very sensitive to any article regarding breast cancer. Over the past years I have been interviewed by various TV channels regarding my experience with this deadly disease. I realize that male breast cancer accounts for only 1% of those thousands of people that have been diagnosed. But at the same time we must get the word out to men that they too can become a victim of this disease.

In the future, I would hope that you give the WHOLE story about something as serious as breast cancer and alert BOTH women and men to the threat that is present. Thank you.

Wayne Lallier
Litchfield Park

We the people will remember

Editor:

Dear Congress:

What part of “We the people” don’t you seem to understand?

It’s not ‘we the congress’ who should have the upper hand!

You were elected to represent us, to promote programs that we need,

Not to set your agenda, while “we the people” bleed!

Let me give ‘you’ fair warning, when your terms up in ‘some’ November,

It’s “We the people” that will decide just “who” we will remember!

Sharon Jacobsen
Litchfield Park

Tea Party not to blame

Editor:

I am getting tired of hearing President Obama, Majority leader Reid, and the Democratic mouth pieces on MSNBC, especially Ed Schultz blame the nations problems on the Tea Party. The administration calls the Tea party hostage takers. Ed Schultz calls the Tea party traitors !

Really Ed, traitors ? Why is that because they disagree with you politically ? That makes them traitors ? Yes, Ed I suppose it your little mind it does.

The Tea party has not hijacked the Republican party. The real problem began before there ever was a Tea party. The problem is that the Progressives have hijacked the Democrat party; not the other way around. The Democratic party today in no way resembles the proud party of Harry Truman, Tip O Neill, and Jack Kennedy. Those warriors from the pages of yesteryear are surely turning over in their graves when they see what their proud party has become today, subverted by the extremist Progressive wing of the Democratic party.

Yes, JFK was a liberal. Nothing wrong with that because JFK was first and foremost a patriot, who believed in upholding the Constitution of the United States of America; not, in subverting it like some members of the present Democratic crowd in Washington DC have been trying to do over the last several years. It’s that Progressive element again, which has no use for the constraints the Constitution places upon government. When President Obama said in 2008 that he was going to “fundamentally” change the United States of America, he meant it.

So stop blaming the Tea party for what is wrong with America. They are patriots, who are fed up with seeing their country destroyed by excessive government. Our nation was founded as a Republic. Let’s keep it that way.

Roy Azzarello
Goodyear

L. Park could learn from Verrado

Editor:

It’s good to see that Verrado has had a great deal of success with its mixed use “Main Street” development.  This type of
development is still rather rare on the West Side but offers a great deal in terms of providing for a livable, walkable community.

Not only are these developments attractive to young urban professionals — as your article points out, but they also provide a great alternative for “empty-nesters” who no longer want to deal with the maintenance and upkeep of landed property, but who would welcome the opportunity to be in walking distance of such attractions as coffee shops, delis, wine shops, art film theaters, etc.

For those who have visited the Main Street development in Verrado, it is easy to see how this type of development could form an important element of the downtown of a community like Litchfield Park.

Jeff Gibbs
Litchfield Park

Noise is a wrong, not a right

Editor:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The majority of our elected officials at every level do not live up to this statement of the preamble to the constitution. Our local town or city council is the most accessible of our elected officials, but when it comes to upholding the concept of domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare, they don’t have a clue, but then neither do most of the citizens. Case in point is the proliferation of the amplified sub-woofer noise culture. Over the past twenty years, the promotion and use of low frequency noise has become an almost constant background in our neighborhoods and public spaces.

Over the past ten years or so, communities across America have started responding to this violation of the domestic tranquility by cracking down on this brazen lawlessness. Meanwhile hear in Arizona, the land of the bottom feeders, there hasn’t been any hint of a single town or community that has addressed this issue.

I have contacted my town councilman Craig Heustis and the Mayor Jackie Meck repeatedly over the past 3 years with proposals that would address this noise pollution epidemic and would generate revenue for the town, but they have refused to even bring it up for discussion.

This is an example of taxation without representation, not to mention a gross violation of the public trust. It is long overdue that Buckeye elects a town council and a Mayor that will uphold the constitutional rights of the people. Noise is a wrong not a right.

Frank Blunt
Buckeye

Rate this article: 
Average: 1 (1 vote)

Comments

This is probably the best brief you have yet submitted to the West Valley View Court of Appeals Mr. Counciller. I shall review your petition and advise you shortly whether or not I have authority to rule on your brief. If I find that I have juristiction I will require attorney Posner that you file for Habeus Corpus in this venue

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Roy:

   Even when trying to be "witty" (don't quit your day job), you demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about.

   Habeas Corpus (also known as "the Great Writ") is only relevant in the field of criminal law.  It's Latin for "deliver the body".  (Lawyers love to use Latin, it makes us sound so learned, even if the only Latin we know we learned in Law School).  It's used to challenge the imprisonment of one allegedly being held unlawfully.  In the old days it was a command to the government official having custody of the prisoner to literally deliver the body (preferably alive, of course), so the court could decide the legality of the situation.  These days, of course, it simply means the government has to come to court and show that the imprisonment is legal, or else the court will order the person released.

   Naturally, it has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about!  But you won't let a little fact like that stop you from venturing an inane opinion.

Frank Blunt's picture

Tea party and republicans ARE what is wrong with America!

Frank  What's a matter you ?  How can you say Tea party and Republicans are what is wrong with America. Didn't you read my letter? I tried to explain it to you, It's the extremist Progressives which are the proble, Do me a favor. Go back and read my letter again. You mixed up what I said. It's important that you get it right.

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Roy:

   That's what you meant to say, of course.  After all, since fact and reason have no worth for you, ideological purity is all that matters.

   For people who aren't mindlessly partisan, the damage the Republi-Cons did is so clear, their venality and criminality (in the metaphorical sense) is so obvious, that only a hyper-partisan like you can't see it.

  (According to polling, the majority of the American people can.  Although, as always, I remain skeptical about polling.)

   The plain fact is you are cheering a failed attempt at extortion!  And the President (and the Democrats) deserve praise for standing up to it.  I have no doubt that, had the tables been reversed, and the Democrats held the nation and our economy "hostage" to get what they wanted, you'd be the loudest person screaming in protest!  (The difference between us is: I'd be screaming right beside you.)

   There's only one "bright spot" I see in all this for the Republi-Cons: that it happened now, instead of a year from now.  If they're smart they won't try this stunt again.  (Note that they "kicked the can" to January, where previously they were threatening to put us through this again just in time for the holidays!)  But, I have no doubt that with people like you cheering them on, they'll probably try this again, and again, and again!  Until they've wiped out their chances in 2014 (their gerrymandered "advantages" notwithstanding.)  You should know that there are Democratic strategists salivating at the prospect.  (Though I'd caution them to be careful what they wish for.)

porr000's picture

Frank,

Many republicans are feeling the same way you are today after the vote the other day which gave Obama everything he wanted.

The National Debt today just rolled over the $17 Trillion mark, up from $10 Trillion 5 years ago.

I thinking that is truly wrong with this country, rather than a political party who hasn't been in power for 5 years.

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Mr. Orr:

   Even you aren't so "thick" as to think that's what Mr. Blunt meant.

   By the way, for what it's worth, you should know that while the debt has been increasing, the deficit has been decreasing.  If it ever turns into a surplus, then the debt (which is simply the accumulation of our annual deficits) will decrease as well.  Remind me again under which President that previously happened (for the first time in decades), and what took place under his successor?

porr000's picture

Only some of the spending gap came from factors outside the control of Congress and the White House. As the government spent heavily to boost the economy, says the AP, it took in hundreds of billions less in tax revenue than expected, because the Great Recession eroded Americans' income and spending. Therefore, only some of the reduced deficit can be attributed to an economic recovery, but not much as you claim Mr. Posner.

Democrats "constantly harp" about the Bush tax cuts, says Peter Morici at Seeking Alpha, but those rates were in place in 2007, and the deficit that year was one-tenth this year's budget shortfall of $1.6 trillion. So what has changed since then? Added "federal regulation, bureaucracy, and new Medicaid and other entitlements have pushed up federal spending by $1.1 trillion — $900 billion more than required by inflation." And down the road, says Yuval Levin at National Review, our "health-entitlement explosion" will account for "basically 100 percent" of our debt problem.

Obama's economic stimulus The 2009 stimulus package enacted by President Obama cost $800 billion. And the 2010 tax-cut compromise between Obama and Republicans, which extended jobless benefits and reduced payroll taxes, added another $400 billion to the debt. Add another $200 billion for the 2008 bailout of the financial industry, and the government's efforts to soften the blow of the Great Recession amount to one of the largest chunks of the debt build-up. The "federal budget was one good year away from balancing" after 2007, but in the years since, Obama and Democrats in Congress put that goal out of reach.

I can go on and on but don't want to earn the same reputation of being unnecessarily verbose as you have been accused of.

porr000's picture

Gordon:

You can thank the Tea Party for the reduction in the deficit.  They have been the only ones activly pushing for a reduction in spending, since you brought it up.

Clinton cut the military budget to end up with the surplus you mentioned.  His predicessor spent it when the military budget was reinstated and we went to war.  There was no suprise that happened, but that Republicans spent like drunken sailors during that time was. Tthus, the Tea Party formed to get a reign on government spending.  

Obama's trillion plus deficits each year are the highest the deficit has ever been. Actually, Obama is the only one who has ever had a deficit over 1Trillion dollars.  If it were up to him, it would be a lot more.  

I find that fiscal policy irresponsible.

 

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Mr. Orr:

   No I can't, nor do I have to.  The fact is the deficits have been going down because the economy is improving.  The attempts to "lower spending" haven't helped with that.  (Some would say they've actually been a drag on the economy.)

   Rest assured, I'm quite willing to give credit where it's due.  (For example, I credit Bush the First for some of the improvement under Clinton.  He raised taxes, which helped.  And I agree that the divided government after 1994 helped too, although the deficits began to fall during Clinton's first two years, when the Democrats controlled Congress.)

   But credit the Tea Party?  I don't think so.  There's a graph I'd love to put in here (but I don't know how), so I'll try a link instead.  (http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/include/us_deficit_nom.png)  It shows that while the deficit skyrocketed in 2009 (as did unemployment - a gift from Bush the Second), it began to come down in 2010, and has continued to do so ever since.  Now, since the Democrats controlled Congress during those first two years, I'd say they (and Obama) deserve some of the credit.  Whether the Tea Party has been a positive or negative influence on any of the further declines is (at best) an open question.  (I'd say "negative", but it's actually too soon to say.)

   By the way, it was Clinton's successor (Bush the Second) who spent the surplus on war, and tax cuts!   Funny how the Tea Party doesn't want to discuss that part of the budget equation.  You know, you can cut your spending as much as you like, but if your income declines faster you'll still run deficits.  That obvious piece of economic wisdom escapes the Tea Party.

   And since we've already done this dance about how and why the Tea Party movement got started (mainly in reaction to the TARP and its bailouts), I don't care to revisit your historical revisionism.  But I suggest you take another look at that graph I provided a link to.  Note that the highest deficit was in 2009 (again, the "gift" of Bush the Second), and that the deficit has been declining ever since.  So enough with this bit about "Obama's trillion plus deficits", especially since estimated deficits for the coming years are much lower ("merely" in the billions).  (Though I'd caution against putting too much reliance on estimates.)

   What's "irresponsible", sir, is the simplistic, partisan, and ideological "analysis" you and the Tea Party engage in.

 

porr000's picture

Your graph illustrates spending during the time just before the official start date of the Tea Party Movement (as you so elequently pointed out before with your Wikipedia link) and projects it into the future not taking into account the increased spending that is going on now to get the Obamacare trainwreck working properly.

The reduction in spending directly correlates with the Tea Party Movement. There is no denying that since the Tea Party Movement, government spending has been reduced.

You are absolutely correct, Mr. Orr.

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Judy:

   As usual, if you say someone is "absolutely correct" it's probably a sign they're completely wrong!

 

P.S. - Did you watch that video I sent you the link to?  Did you like it?

porr000's picture

Mr. Posner:

That was not very nice of you to demean Judy like that. Where do you get off treating someone in that manner? There were no facts and reason in that which you hypocritically claim you always use, That was sheer rudeness. There is no reason to treat someone in that manner. Are you completely void the civility which your beloved savior Obama preaches? I think you owe Judy an apology for your reprehensible conduct. Nobody should have to be subjected to that type of disrespect in an opinion forum. Does your insolence have no bounds? It is declarations like yours that give the Democrat party a bad reputation and it is unfair to the Dems that are nice and civil. I think you owe them an apology too. They (and Judy) have not earned the subversion to their character that you are fashioning with your offensive remarks.

porr000's picture

Furthermore, just because Debbie Wasserman-Schultz would have approved of that unpleasant attack on Judy's supportive and positive position does not mean the rest of us do. Even Axelrod doesn't talk that way. If the new Democratic way is what Hillary Clinton fist pounding on podium in front of official Senate hearings is is going to be all about, I want nothing to do with them. Pelosi's mantra, "Democrats have a better way" will loose (perhaps already has) all credibility. Some on CNN have already questioned whether they are turning into the party of fools with all these tantrums and your behavior is giving more credence to that daily.

So you've missed me, huh Gordon?     P.S. -  What video?  P.P.S. Where's the paragraph break?

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Judy:

   I always miss you.  I like a good fight, and if nothing else you provide one.

   I sent you an e-mail with a YouTube link to a "trailer" (it's actually a spoof) for Hell No - the sensible horror movie.  As I said in the e-mail, I think it's hilarious, though tastes may differ.

   (In view of the View's policy on links, I won't provide it, though that appears to have changed.  But just do a websearch on the title and you should easily find it, if you didn't get my e-mail.  I hope you enjoy it.)

   As for paragraph breaks, just hit the carriage return button and you can insert one.  (I'm having trouble adjusting to the new system too.  You can use switch to a plain text editor, but then you have to input HTML codes the old way.  For example <i></i> for italics.)

Take care.

porr000's picture

Roy,

Thank you for your letter where you mention our nation was founded as a REPUBLIC.  

Progressives keep insisting (including our self-proclaimed president) that we are a Democracy.  

Our founders weren't stupid and knew that a system where mob rule is bad for our country.  I cringe each time I hear our progressive leaders in congress incorrectly refer to our great nation as a Democracy in order to appease their left-leaning breatheren who really wish they could dispense of any opposition to their side in Congress. 

Funny thing though is that without opposition, we would be a dictatorship.  Perhaps that is what they want.

 

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Mr. Orr:

   This is another bit of sophistry "conservatives" love to indulge in.   If you bother to look in a dictionary, you'll see that Democracy is defined as "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them or by their elected agents".  A Republic is defined as "a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them."

   Thus, a republic is simply one form of a democracy - representative democracy.  There are other forms (such as direct democracy - as was practiced by ancient Athens, and is still practiced in Vermont through town hall meetings).  Indeed, we have such a form of direct democracy in this State - the petition and referendum process!  (But then again, what can you expect from a State founded by members of the Progressive Party, other than "mob rule"?)

   There's no "magic" in republics that guarantees the freedoms we enjoy.  Ancient Rome called itself a "republic", but the right to vote was so restricted that it was really more of a heriditary oligarchy.  (Gee, which party keeps trying to restrict that right here?)

   And, as I've pointed out, the German Democratic Republic certainly elected its "representatives", rather than let the people make their laws directly.  If you prefer that kind of a "republic", I believe China and North Korea still operate that way!

   If you want to be completely accurate, than call the U.S. what it is: a constitutional democracy, in the form of a republic!  (Of course, you can't make ideological "hay" out of that!)

   By the way, the first political party in this country was the Federalist Party, the second (founded by Jefferson and Madison) was known as the Democratic-Republicans.  (Though some historians, annoyingly, insist on shortening that to just "Republicans".)  The name was changed during the administration of Andrew Jackson to the Democratic Party.  The G.O.P. didn't get started until the mid-19th Century, which is why I "cringe" every time I hear modern Republicans refer to it as the "Grand Old Party", when it should really be called the "Johnny-Come-Lately" Party!

   As for someone wanting a "one-party state", that would be Roy.  He, after all, constantly tells us what a "disease" his dreaded "Progressives" are, and how we'd all be better off if they ceased to exist.  I'm pretty sure he's used the "T-word" (traitor) in connection with his opponents, as well as just about every other related epithet.  All of which makes his letter a classic example of hypocrisy!

 

P.S. - My source for those definitions is, as always, The American College Dictionary (Random House, 1967).

Gordon,  You who do not even today know the definition of the word "opinion" are going to tell us the definition of Republic and democracy. How hypocritical is that?  I will give you an object lesson which highlights the difference between those two forms of government. Democracy literally means that majority rules. In a Republic the individual is protected from the tyranny of the majority. OK My example. All your neighbors get together and vote to burn down your house. The vote is 10-1 in favor in a Democracy they burn it down to the ground because majority rule is the essence of a Democracy. In a Republic those same neighbors take the same vote, comes up the same 10-1. This time, however, when they begin to advance on your house, the police arrive and arrest them. Why because in a Republic majority does not overule the law. Simple? Not for you to understand probably. A Republic can deteroroate into a Democracy where individual rights are usurped by an all powerful government, which is exactly what has happened to this United States of America with Progressive ideology. Now you know the difference Gordon.

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Roy:

   Leaving aside, for the moment, that your little tirade is completely contrary to fact, let's look at the definition of "hypocritical", shall we?  It's derived from the word "hypocrisy", which means:

1. act of pretending to have a character or beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not possess.  2. pretense of virtue or piety; false goodness.

   Now, aside from the fact that this doesn't include being mistaken in one's beliefs or claims, it also doesn't require one be fully informed on every subject.  Thus, it is quite possible for a person to "know" the meaning of one term, while not knowing the meaning of another, without being hypocritical.

   On the other hand, expressing outrage at what another person does (in this case Ed Shultz) while engaging in the exact same kind of conduct is the very essence of hypocrisy, and therefore of being hypocritical.  That, sir, describes you perfectly.  You rail against Shultz calling his political opponents "traitors", while you'v often done the same (or just as bad).  In short, your "principle" only applies to him, not you!

   As for the definitions I provided, I guess it escaped your notice that I was quoting a dictionary!  (The same one I use here.)  I didn't "makeup" the meaning of the terms "democracy" and "republic".  Nor did I limit myself to only one definition of those terms, but invoked their alternate meaning and usage.

   Which brings us to the definition of that word you love to misuse: "opinion":

1. what is thought on any matter or subject; judgment or belief resting on grounds insufficient to produce certainty: public opinion2. a particular judgment or belief of this kind; a view or notion (held or expressed): to give an opinion on tarriffs3. a formal or professional judgment expressed: a medical opinion4. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.  5. a favorable estimate; esteem.

   You take refuge in only one use of that word (essentially the first), ignoring any other.  Tell me, Roy, do you think a medical opinion that plague may be "cured" by "bleeding" (the practice for centuries) is of equal worth and value to the opinion that antibiotics should be used instead?  To be true to your "principles" you'd have to say yes.  But I don't think even you are that crazy!

   What you keep ignoring is that I'm not denying your right to spew whatever "opinions" you wish.  I'm merely asserting that when they are unsupported by fact and reason they have little worth, and when contrary to fact and reason they are worthless!  That, sir, isn't a matter of "definition".

   And where do you get the notion that in a republic "the individual is protected from the tyranny of the majority"?  That's not in any dictionary definition I've ever seen (and I quoted one - you didn't).  Oh, it may fit in a "conservative" lexicon (which consists of "political correctness" for the "right-wing").  But that's just an application of the Humptey-Dumptey "principle" of language.  (Words mean only what you want them to mean.)

   Ancient Rome was a "republic", but it wasn't noted for its respect for the rights of individuals.  Before the Civil War, many of the Southern States considered themselves to be "republics" - but Blacks enjoyed no such "protection".  And even after that War, for 58 long years our "republic" continued to deny them such "protection", by mandating segregation!

   Indeed, it was a constitutional monarchy (Great Britain) that ended slavery years before the U.S. did, and managed to do it because of majority rule.  What protects individual rights in this country is the fact we have a written constitution, one that mandates certain areas where the majority cannot rule.  (Healthcare isn't one of them.)

   The basic principle laid down by the Declaration of Independence is majority rule!   When it speaks of governments "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" it doesn't mean unanimous consent.  If it did, it would have been a monstrous act of hypocrisy in itself.  John Adams once famously estimated that one-third of the people favored independence, one-third opposed it, and one-third didn't care.  If correct, then our fight for independence was a case of "tyranny of the minority"!

   Which brings us to your idiotic example (completely divorced from reality, as usual).  Suppose that we had no written Constitution, no Bill of Rights, no Fifth Amendment (where property rights are given constitutional protection), and the State Legislature passed a law allowing homes to be burned down if 10 of the neighbors voted to do it - you'd be in big trouble!  The only reason you are protected (even without the Constitution) is because the majority in this State voted for a Legislature which passed laws forbidding this.  In short, you are protected by majority rule!

   So, spare me your brain-dead ideology masquerading as knowledge (much less wisdom).  The history of republics shows no "magical" protection for individual rights.  In this country, that comes from having a written Constitution, and respect for the rule of law.  And how do those laws get made?  By a majority of elected representatives following the will of their constituents (though, hopefully, using their independent judgment too).  In short: majority rule!

P.S. - And to return to the context for this, the recent Republi-Con attempt at extortion, let me remind you of another fact.  That wasn't carried out by the majority of the government, but only by one-half of one branch (essentially one-sixth of the government).  And even then the numbers were far smaller, since Republi-Cons have only a bare majority in one House of Congress (and, it turns out, they weren't really united on this either).  So, this really wasn't an exercise of "individual rights", but an attempt by a minority to extort concessions from the majority!  It didn't work.

Simple, but you've already proven incapable of understanding that, just as you don't understand that supporting what the Republi-Cons tried to do is the rankest form of hypocrisy, coming from someone who claims to believe in a republic!

 

porr000's picture

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 

It doesn't say to the Democracy for which it stands.

Here you go Mr. Posner - take this apart if you dare:
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm

 

 

 

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Mr. Orr:

   Aside from the fact that the Pledge has no legal signifigance whatsoever, you will note that it also makes no mention of the Constitution!  Is that supposed to be of any importance.  Are we to assume that vital document actually doesn't exist?

   It's like the people who try to argue we should ban abortion, or gay marriage, because the Pledge says we are "under God".  (Forgetting that those words were only added to the official pledge in the 1950's, as part of anti-Communist fervor.  Their signifigance is purely political.)

   Twist and turn as you want, sir, the fact remains that a republic is simply a form of democracy.  It is representative democracy.  And if you believe (as Roy apparently does) that there's some "magic" in the word "republic", lacking in the word "democracy", that will safeguard individual rights, I suggest you review the record of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on that subject. As in any good "republic", the Soviet Union was governed by elected "representatives" of the people (not by the people directly themselves).  Of course, it wasn't noted for being either very "democratic", nor for its "respect" for individual rights and freedom!   But, technically at least, it was a republic!

P.S. - And a link to an obviously "right-wing" website proves nothing.  Especially since the "arguments" and claims it makes are clearly bogus.  I won't go further since it would simply involve repeating everything I've already written.  What I said before applies to that site's nonsense too.

porr000's picture

You never fail to amaze when you automatically object to any links google provides on any subject as "right-wing" if they do not agree with your opinion and you will not accept them.  Well, I am not going to try guessing which links are and aren't acceptable to you.  The link I provided was based on law, so I figured it would be relevant to you. Apparently you do not quite have this right-wing, left-wing thing figured out properly.  Perhaps google should label everything it pulls as right-wing or left-wing so that nobody makes a mistake of posting something relevant that you are closed minded to.  

So, knowing full well you will probably slap me again for posting a link you may consider right wing because you won't agree with it,  I am posting another link you will probably just disregard with links to the Federalist Papers I suggested above that you read. 

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

 

porr000's picture

Rome was not a Republic (officially) as it declined since Octavian declared himself king.

Also, despite the title of Republic, china/ NK are both a one party Communist State

A constitutional democracy is the government system ideal that obama prefers. It is based on popular sovereignty. That is not how our government operates.

There are so many problems with all you've written above it would take years to decipher. It is pure Debbie Wasserman-Schults type twisted logic and not based on reality, but partially correct maybe some of the time, in some cases, under certain context, and aside from the main topic. This revisionist history you proport is exactly thie type of drivle you wrote about above.

I would recommend you read the Federalist Papers.

We have a Constitutional Republic, some Democrats call it a hybrid Democratic Republic...but it is a Republic none-the-less according to the founders.

enlightenedYou know the definitions of OPINION, Democracy, and Republic just fine thank you! smiley

Thanks for writing, I've given up trying to reason with unreasonable people! lol

Keep up the good work!

Dennis

 

enlightenedYou know the definitions of OPINION, Democracy, and Republic just fine thank you! smiley

Thanks for writing, I've given up trying to reason with unreasonable people! lol

Keep up the good work!

Dennis

 

porr000's picture

Enjoying your little platitudes to Gordo.  Keep them up!

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Dennis:

   Thanks.

   By the way, you know the surest "proof" that I'm correct?  Roy disagrees!

;-)

   But don't give up, that's actually what the "right-wing" wants.  That's why they flood the internet and airwaves with so much nonsense and outright falsehood.  It's just another example of the Big Lie Technique.

   Remember, I don't write what I do in any hope of reaching Roy, Mr. Orr, Judy, or other Republi-Cons.  (As I call them, regardles of what party they belong to.  the term is actually shorthand for Republican-Conservative, which is more than a party, but an ideology.)  I write this for everyone else!  People who are rational and agree with me, but need their viewpoints reinforced.  Hopefully I give them encouragement, and maybe information they can use in the "fight".  I'm also writing for people who have their doubts, in the hope I can convince them to avoid the Republi-Con view.

   Besides, don't forget the number one reason I do this: it's fun!

Thanks Gordon,

I can handle criticism just fine, but what gets to me are the ridiculous personal attacks. My guess is that when they have nothing to say, or when they know they are wrong, they start throwing stones. That is hard for me to take. I have dear friends who are opposite of me politically, yet they continue to be dear friends because we discuss, we state FACTS, and if nothing else at the end of the day we agree to disagree. Then we sit down to dinner and talk about sports! :-)

I have come to the conclusion that it's not progresssives or tea baggers or extremists of any kind working to destroy America. Rather it is a complete lack of civility! What has happened to us Gordon? Why so much hatred? I am not like our regressive friends who would take us back to 1950's politics, but I certainly long for 1950's civility. I sincerely hope it's not gone forever.

Dennis

Gordon Posner's picture

 

Dear Dennis:

   I don't think it's happened to all of us (on any part of the political spectrum), but it seems prevalent among the extreme ideologues (again, of any part).  Much of what I criticize Roy (and others) for, I've also seen from the "other side".

   Let me give you one example.  The subject closest to my heart is religious freedom.  I often take on "conservatives" who act as if their faith (whatever it might be) is the only way, and that everyone must be made to conform to their views.  With such people (for example Ms. Maccree, or an older "antagonist" Mary Barham) I will point out that their faith hardly has a spotless track record, and therefore can't be called "perfect" by any stretch of the imagination.  In response I'll be accused of all kids of bigotry.  (Note: I'm not saying either Maccree or Barham are guilty of this.  Merely the point of view they represent is shared by people who do respond that way.)

   But, when I run up against "liberals" who go too far in the opposite direction (I often refer to them not as atheists, but as Anti-Theists), and point out how equally faulty their blanket condemnation of religion is (frequently of the Christian religion) - I'm met with the same kind of abuse!

  Of course, it's in reverse.  In the first case I'm called an anti-Christian or anti-religious bigot, in the second a religious bigot (or irrational, illogical, etc.).  It's actually reassuring to be attacked from both sides.  It indicates I'm squarely in the middle (where truth is often to be found).

   The point is that these people have to engage in personal attacks.  Since they lack facts or reason, once you puncture their ideological pretensions it's all they've got left!

   But don't think things have never been this bad.  Prepared to what came before, today's argumentative atmosphere is almost peaceful!  For example, during the years leading up to the Civil War, actual fist fights broke out in the very chambers of the House and Senate.  And although we see some politicans (unscrupulously and irresponsibly) mouthing rhetoric about "nullification" and/or "secession", I imagine none of them would take it to the extreme the Confederacy did.  They're all for talk to boost their poll numbers, but I doubt any of them have the "guts" to make good on their words.  Sometimes cowardice can be a good thing!

   When my friends decide they've had enough "politics", we usually switch the topic to movies or T.V.  I'm afraid when it comes to sports I still haven't figured out how many touchdowns there are in an inning!

;-)

Dear Gordon,

I appreciate your response, and I agree with you. It just gets to be very draining. The same old lame responses, followed by personal attacks. Facts and logic seem to have no meaning to many folks who grace these pages. (I use the word "grace" advisedly) I think Daddy Bush had it right, we need to be a kinder. gentler nation.

Dennis

fyi: if you are a Jaguars fan, there apparently are zero touchdowns in an inning!! lol