LOL. Ryan, come on. I know you're far too intelligent to believe that crap. You know very well you had to look up the specific term "constitutional republic" in order for it to come close to applying to the United States government. Look, I can do it too.
The fact is just as it explains under this link that a "constitutional republic" is actually a FORM of democracy. Otherwise, the term would stand on its own, which it does not.
The reason why it does not stand on its own is because unlike a true republic the minority is not completely protected by the will of the majority. For example: How do you like Obamacare? It's the law now. It's even Constitutional as the Supreme Court ruled, and after July 11th when the House of Representatives repeal it, but it fails to pass in the Senate it will remain law. Your right as the minority was protected though, correct? Even though it's law, you still feel as if you've been truly represented, right? Because that's how a republic works. It scrutinizes the majority, but still protects the rights of the minority. So, that's what happened with the ACA? The minority was still protected? If your answer is anything other than yes, then I'm afraid you, Big Ben, and myself reside in what we all know is a democracy, but so many like to call a republic. 'Cause it sounds better that way. What might have been intended as a republic so long ago certainly did not end up that way after the Constitution, and simply for two reasons. One, the founding fathers did not trust the will of the people. They didn't think them smart enough to handle that kind of responsibility. Second, they knew that in order for a federal government to assert its power it would have to be a strong central government. Mind you there are checks and balances, but at the end of the day, the majority has and always will have the last word. Whether you acknowledge it or not.
A quick note, I consider myself part of the Tea Party movement so terms like Teabagger are insulting. This would be like me referring to liberals as libtards. I can understand placing a label like that on an individual who is deserving of it but to blanket an entire movement with it is insulting. I'm not mad at all just being straightforward. Correction: Just noticed you used as a stereotypical reference and while I don't agree with the stereotype it wasn't a blanket reference. Let's stick to the stereotypes that are true like Tea Party Members tend to have ENORMOUS......... Intellect.
While I'm hesitant to jump on the Treason portion of this rivalry I do despise Obamacare. However, I wanted to add a source for the argument that the United States isn't a Republic.
According to Wikipedia,
"A constitutional republic is a state in which the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over all of its citizens. Because the head of the state is elected, it is a republic and not a monarchy.
In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers must be separated into distinct branches.[1]
The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes the state a republic."
"Also, a representative democracy may or may not be a constitutional republic. For example, "the United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."
Source(No problems listed on this page): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic
Also on Wikipedia,
"The United States is a federal constitutional republic, in which the President of the United States (the head of state and head of government), Congress, and judiciary share powers reserved to the national government, and the federal government shares sovereignty with the state governments."
Source(This page has citation warnings but not in the section quoted): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_States
Also, wasn't sure if you knew or not but we have a Facebook app now. It will allow you to seamlessly use JealousBrother anytime you're logged into Facebook. If you want to install make sure you're logged out of your standard JealousBrother account and then click on the FB login button on the header of the website. Then just approve the permissions and you're all set.
One important note, your email address on JealousBrother has to match the primary on your Facebook account for the merger to work correctly. So if your primary Facebook email isn't the one that has your old tanning bed salon name in it then you would want to change your JealousBrother email before installing the app.
I think these photos should cover it. ;) I really didn't mean it much beyond the gay and lesbian community from from a straight guys perspective is a bit out there(different and obviously so). Thinking about it a bit I could go much deeper but from the intention within the original comment that should cover it.
Haven't been on here in a whole but just saw your comment, Ryan. Had to see what is meant by "my personal opinion of the gay and lesbian community Isis they are a bit out there with their parades and such"? Just need clarification to see what you meant by that. Oh, and this situation with giving Reagan the finger, is obviously an individual act. A gay person does this, so all gays would show disrespect? One straight says gays shouldn't be able to marry but I would never say that means that that straight represents all straights. That's just ludicrous! I know gays and straights who would show disrespect and I know gays and straights who would not. It's that simple. Don't know why do many peoria want to lump groups of people together just because of what an individual will do.
Well, how about that? Pick a side and vote points down. Then you leave without actually offering a real opinion or valid argument? You know TNinfidel for someone who claims to be a libertarian you certainly show very similar traits to the stereotypical Teabagger. You shout how unfair everything is yet have no argument as to why you think so, blame everyone else for all of America's misfortunes, and then claim that you're somehow the enlightened one? LOL. You truly are pathetic. I really do feel sorry for you. That's not a joke. I really do.
Next time you decide to vote any of my responses down do me the favor of actually explaining why, if you can actually place together a logical explanation. Otherwise, just admit you really have no real ideas, and are simply disagreeing just to be contrary.
Oh, and if you actually do respond to this, please remember which screenname you're under. That way I know it's actually you, and not one of your other aliases. Trying to figure out which one of you I'm actually talking to is like trying to figure out which position Mitt Romney is taking on an issue today.
While I can certainly see the technological attractiveness of utilizing RFID's for this purpose I will not be lining up to get my health care identification card if it contains technology similar to that of RFID which in my opinion would be a privacy issue everyone should be concerned about.
Okay, wow, I just realized you used the word "republic" to identify the United States. Wrong! What might have been considered a Republic style form of government under the Articles of Confederation from 1781 to 1787 with an actual charter and state constitutions was completely rewritten under the United States Constitution. Where the citizens once had a more direct vote and civic responsibility was completely removed six years later. With the inception of this document the United States became more a Democracy than a Republic. The people are less involved civicly in government with an indirect form of representation where the majority always rules and the minority is just that, a minority. They have no real consideration or protection under the law. The majority rules. That is the true definition of a Democracy, not a Republic. No activist politician or judge throughout history is responsible for this occurrence. We have only our founding fathers to thank for that.
I was actually going to argue many of the incorrect assumptions you've made where this LAW is concerned, but it would just be pointless to show you the facts. You'll simply say they're not right, or my favorite, just say I got them from some liberal. You're obviously not open minded enough to hear reason. I would point you to the website CBO.gov. It's the Congressional Budget Office site that shows all of the facts about the ACA "Obamacare" costs, incentives, and actual taxes (penalty). Everything you've said was first said by Republicans about the Social Security Act in 1935, then again about the Social Security Act of 1965 that created Medicare and Medicaid. Whether you like those programs or not they continue to help millions of Americans. This country needs a universal health care system. Although I don't agree with everything it does, it is a huge step toward that goal. Therefore, I am VERY glad it passed and look forward to it being improved upon as the years pass.
P.S. The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights guaranteed the rights against unlawful searches and seizures. The loosest definition does not cover your statement. The right to be secure in our person is simply an extension of the wording, and would not include something as trivial as purchasing a product like health care coverage. That's just silly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_democracy
The fact is just as it explains under this link that a "constitutional republic" is actually a FORM of democracy. Otherwise, the term would stand on its own, which it does not.
The reason why it does not stand on its own is because unlike a true republic the minority is not completely protected by the will of the majority. For example: How do you like Obamacare? It's the law now. It's even Constitutional as the Supreme Court ruled, and after July 11th when the House of Representatives repeal it, but it fails to pass in the Senate it will remain law. Your right as the minority was protected though, correct? Even though it's law, you still feel as if you've been truly represented, right? Because that's how a republic works. It scrutinizes the majority, but still protects the rights of the minority. So, that's what happened with the ACA? The minority was still protected? If your answer is anything other than yes, then I'm afraid you, Big Ben, and myself reside in what we all know is a democracy, but so many like to call a republic. 'Cause it sounds better that way. What might have been intended as a republic so long ago certainly did not end up that way after the Constitution, and simply for two reasons. One, the founding fathers did not trust the will of the people. They didn't think them smart enough to handle that kind of responsibility. Second, they knew that in order for a federal government to assert its power it would have to be a strong central government. Mind you there are checks and balances, but at the end of the day, the majority has and always will have the last word. Whether you acknowledge it or not.
According to Wikipedia,
"A constitutional republic is a state in which the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over all of its citizens. Because the head of the state is elected, it is a republic and not a monarchy.
In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers must be separated into distinct branches.[1]
The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes the state a republic."
"Also, a representative democracy may or may not be a constitutional republic. For example, "the United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."
Source(No problems listed on this page): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic
Also on Wikipedia,
"The United States is a federal constitutional republic, in which the President of the United States (the head of state and head of government), Congress, and judiciary share powers reserved to the national government, and the federal government shares sovereignty with the state governments."
Source(This page has citation warnings but not in the section quoted): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_States
Also, wasn't sure if you knew or not but we have a Facebook app now. It will allow you to seamlessly use JealousBrother anytime you're logged into Facebook. If you want to install make sure you're logged out of your standard JealousBrother account and then click on the FB login button on the header of the website. Then just approve the permissions and you're all set.
One important note, your email address on JealousBrother has to match the primary on your Facebook account for the merger to work correctly. So if your primary Facebook email isn't the one that has your old tanning bed salon name in it then you would want to change your JealousBrother email before installing the app.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/haleyeah/5825649479/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/haleyeah/5825663457/
I think these photos should cover it. ;) I really didn't mean it much beyond the gay and lesbian community from from a straight guys perspective is a bit out there(different and obviously so). Thinking about it a bit I could go much deeper but from the intention within the original comment that should cover it.
Next time you decide to vote any of my responses down do me the favor of actually explaining why, if you can actually place together a logical explanation. Otherwise, just admit you really have no real ideas, and are simply disagreeing just to be contrary.
Oh, and if you actually do respond to this, please remember which screenname you're under. That way I know it's actually you, and not one of your other aliases. Trying to figure out which one of you I'm actually talking to is like trying to figure out which position Mitt Romney is taking on an issue today.
P.S. The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights guaranteed the rights against unlawful searches and seizures. The loosest definition does not cover your statement. The right to be secure in our person is simply an extension of the wording, and would not include something as trivial as purchasing a product like health care coverage. That's just silly.