Stormin Mormon wrote:
I read your writing, twice. As you have not asked any questions, I
won't provide any further information. I encourage you to continue
the vitriol, and personal attacks.


Count on it, faux nazi hunter.

Well, lets keep a good thought. Hope at least one person is still a reader.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Doug" wrote in message
...

Noted. Maybe I haven't read enough of your posts but what I have
read, I find your humor different but amusing. Hopefully my opinion
won't change as I read more of your posts.

Gunner Asch on Sat, 07 Apr 2012 22:51:39 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:


Exactly.

I hope the OP recognizes (somehow I doubt he will) that the current US
right-wing propaganda machine (i.e. think tanks, talk radio, fox news, etc.)
is using all of these tactics. I appreciate a good argument from an
intelligent conservative, but the above tactics are precisely what tells me
something evil is going on in the right wing.

Except you somehow forget the Main Stream Media having been proven to be
very very evil for many years.

Since 1987, to be exact. PBS: "Ethics in America". Episode "Under
Orders, Under Fire". About the ethical dilemmas in combat - both from
the perspective of the soldiers involved, and the "journalists" who
cover the war. The solders had obviously considered the issues.

When Mike Wallace was asked about covering a fictional war from
the "enemy's" side, as they are about to attack an American unit, he
responded "I'm a little bit at a loss to understand why, because
you're an American, you would not have covered that story." ... "You
don't have a higher duty. No. No. You're a reporter!"

As one participant observed ... "The military has done a vastly
better job of systematically thinking through the ethics of behavior
in a violent environment than the journalists have."

That was in 1987. Since then, boys and girls, a lot of people have
gotten even more reason to distrust the MSM, and to loath their faux
objectivity for the lie it is.
--
pyotr filipivich
Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
at a pre-school without a Democrat office holder telling them what to look for,
where, and why it is Geroge Bush's fault.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Apr 9, 4:06 am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
One of the shorcomings of text only lists such as this. The emotional
content, inflection, and level of intensity doesn't come through very
well.
I've had many moments, such as this, when I make a mistake, and then
totally
misread the reply, and make more mistakes. Thus inflaming a situation.
Please know that I meant no offense. I know what it is like to want to
offend someone, and I have not done so, yet, on this list.

It should be obvious to those who read my posts, that I have very poor
social skills. This was noted by various counsellors, teachers, school
officials, neighbors, etc. I won't go into a lot of detail, but it's been
a
concern all my life.

In any case, many of you readers are courteous, adept, graceful, and on
topic. My lack of grace has led to an uproar. The bad feelings and upset
have interfered with your day, and have not brought peace and love into
your
lives. To you, gentle readers, I am quite sorry. Please accept my
heartfelt
apology. I also ask your forgiveness in advance, as I'm sure to write
something clumsy again, and again.

To those who continue to attack, revile, curse, name call, etc. I hope
that
some day you find peace within your self, and are able to live in harmony
with others.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

Hey you're entitled to your opinions. I don't believe you've said
anything offensive. Some people can't stand the truth.


And some wouldn't set it, if it bit them on the nose
But that does happen when wearing blinders

There are some stupid, egostitical strutting, thin skinned, twerps
here.
I don't worry in the least about the crap that goes on here.


You've been looking in the mirror again


You Yanks are weird *******s.

Some are, some aren't

"Bob_Villa" wrote in message
news:23810536.852.1333962858917.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynlp3...
On Monday, April 9, 2012 1:06:23 AM UTC-5, harry wrote:


Hey you're entitled to your opinions. I don't believe you've said
anything offensive. Some people can't stand the truth.

There are some stupid, egostitical strutting, thin skinned, twerps
here.
I don't worry in the least about the crap that goes on here.

You Yanks are weird *******s.

True...compared to some of the vitriol that spews forth from your gob.
Stormy is more..."I guess I stepped-in-it this time!" person.

Now, that's rather blunt..
:-)

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:07:56 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Well, lets keep a good thought. Hope at least one person is still a reader.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Doug" wrote in message
.. .

Noted. Maybe I haven't read enough of your posts but what I have
read, I find your humor different but amusing. Hopefully my opinion
won't change as I read more of your posts.



Sounds good to me.
If I may make a suggestion, why not try to bottom post and see if you
still get the same wrath??? It might be a small extra step for you
but the results may be a lot more favorable ???? For me personally,
it doesn't bother me tho there was a time when it would have.

It's an interesting idea. Maybe for a new Years resolution?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Doug" wrote in message
...

Sounds good to me.
If I may make a suggestion, why not try to bottom post and see if you
still get the same wrath??? It might be a small extra step for you
but the results may be a lot more favorable ???? For me personally,
it doesn't bother me tho there was a time when it would have.

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 18:52:30 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

It's an interesting idea. Maybe for a new Years resolution?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.



That's a long time off but that's up to you grin !!!

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:55:41 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:07:56 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Well, lets keep a good thought. Hope at least one person is still a reader.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Doug" wrote in message
. ..

Noted. Maybe I haven't read enough of your posts but what I have
read, I find your humor different but amusing. Hopefully my opinion
won't change as I read more of your posts.



Sounds good to me.
If I may make a suggestion, why not try to bottom post and see if you
still get the same wrath??? It might be a small extra step for you
but the results may be a lot more favorable ???? For me personally,
it doesn't bother me tho there was a time when it would have.

While that might help some, I think it's more important that he give up the
Morman church. if he really needs to make friends that badly. Somehow I doubt
it.

On Apr 7, 11:44*am, harry wrote:
On Apr 7, 2:23*pm, Bob_Villa wrote:









On Friday, April 6, 2012 11:55:05 AM UTC-5, harry wrote:
On Apr 6, 12:34*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
On Apr 6, 12:44 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
I expect you to be disappointed.

Let me get this straight: You called me a nazi, even though I'm
Jewish and had a number of relatives - distant, but still relatives
- slaughtered by that group.

You call me a nazi even though I'm a dues-paying member of the
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith.

You call me a nazi even though my father was wounded fighting them
and an uncle was killed at Normandy.

You call me a nazi even though you know little about me and with no
reason based on anything I've ever posted, let alone any response
made to you personally.

Now, will I really continue to be disappointed or will you re-think
your position and step back from a flagrant slur?

We know you are Jewish.
Nazism is a political attitude not a race.
Nowadays there are plenty of Nazi Jews around, eg the present
government of Israel who are Nazi to their very core.

He is right, you seem to be a Nazi *by your previous rantings on here.

October 17th is getting closer and closer asshole.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That your birthday?

Really harry? (Is)"that your birthday?" You either spent too much time in the South (US) or you never were a Brit to begin with!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have crossed the threads. I was asking HB if it was his birthday.

Too bad...you just don't get it! It's your use of the language...

On Apr 11, 3:35*am, Bob_Villa wrote:
On Apr 7, 11:44*am, harry wrote:





On Apr 7, 2:23*pm, Bob_Villa wrote:

On Friday, April 6, 2012 11:55:05 AM UTC-5, harry wrote:
On Apr 6, 12:34*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
On Apr 6, 12:44 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
I expect you to be disappointed.

Let me get this straight: You called me a nazi, even though I'm
Jewish and had a number of relatives - distant, but still relatives
- slaughtered by that group.

You call me a nazi even though I'm a dues-paying member of the
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith.

You call me a nazi even though my father was wounded fighting them
and an uncle was killed at Normandy.

You call me a nazi even though you know little about me and with no
reason based on anything I've ever posted, let alone any response
made to you personally.

Now, will I really continue to be disappointed or will you re-think
your position and step back from a flagrant slur?

We know you are Jewish.
Nazism is a political attitude not a race.
Nowadays there are plenty of Nazi Jews around, eg the present
government of Israel who are Nazi to their very core.

He is right, you seem to be a Nazi *by your previous rantings on here.

October 17th is getting closer and closer asshole.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That your birthday?

Really harry? (Is)"that your birthday?" You either spent too much time in the South (US) or you never were a Brit to begin with!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have crossed the threads. I was asking HB if it was his birthday.

Too bad...you just don't get it! It's your use of the language

I am and speak English. Clearly you speak some other thing :-)

On Apr 11, 1:23*am, harry wrote:
On Apr 11, 3:35*am, Bob_Villa wrote:









On Apr 7, 11:44*am, harry wrote:

On Apr 7, 2:23*pm, Bob_Villa wrote:

On Friday, April 6, 2012 11:55:05 AM UTC-5, harry wrote:
On Apr 6, 12:34*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
On Apr 6, 12:44 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
I expect you to be disappointed.

Let me get this straight: You called me a nazi, even though I'm
Jewish and had a number of relatives - distant, but still relatives
- slaughtered by that group.

You call me a nazi even though I'm a dues-paying member of the
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith.

You call me a nazi even though my father was wounded fighting them
and an uncle was killed at Normandy.

You call me a nazi even though you know little about me and with no
reason based on anything I've ever posted, let alone any response
made to you personally.

Now, will I really continue to be disappointed or will you re-think
your position and step back from a flagrant slur?

We know you are Jewish.
Nazism is a political attitude not a race.
Nowadays there are plenty of Nazi Jews around, eg the present
government of Israel who are Nazi to their very core.

He is right, you seem to be a Nazi *by your previous rantings on here.

October 17th is getting closer and closer asshole.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That your birthday?

Really harry? (Is)"that your birthday?" You either spent too much time in the South (US) or you never were a Brit to begin with!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have crossed the threads. I was asking HB if it was his birthday.

Too bad...you just don't get it! It's your use of the language

I am and speak English. *Clearly you speak some other thing :-)

Clearly...you are diluted B^0

On Apr 11, 4:23*am, Bob_Villa wrote:


I am and speak English. *Clearly you speak some other thing :-)

Clearly...you are diluted B^0

....or possibly, it's deluded?

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 02:40:07 -0700 (PDT), Bob_Villa
wrote:

On Apr 11, 4:23*am, Bob_Villa wrote:


I am and speak English. *Clearly you speak some other thing :-)

Clearly...you are diluted B^0

...or possibly, it's deluded?

You had it right the first time.

"Bob_Villa" wrote in message
...
On Apr 11, 4:23 am, Bob_Villa wrote:


I am and speak English. Clearly you speak some other thing :-)

Clearly...you are diluted B^0

...or possibly, it's deluded?


I would add polluted

On Apr 12, 3:52*pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"Bob_Villa" wrote in message

...

On Apr 11, 4:23 am, Bob_Villa wrote:

I am and speak English. *Clearly you speak some other thing :-)

Clearly...you are diluted B^0

...or possibly, it's deluded?

I would add polluted

....convoluted? (Probably applies to a deeper thought process than
harry is capable of)

"Bob_Villa" wrote in message
...
On Apr 12, 3:52 pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"Bob_Villa" wrote in message

...

On Apr 11, 4:23 am, Bob_Villa wrote:

I am and speak English. Clearly you speak some other thing :-)

Clearly...you are diluted B^0

...or possibly, it's deluded?

I would add polluted

...convoluted? (Probably applies to a deeper thought process than
harry is capable of)

Good one..
Indeed, harry has yet to show much beyond the simplistic.

On 4/7/2012 7:52 AM, Red Green wrote:
wrote in
:

On Apr 7, 12:46 am, Red wrote:
wrote
innews:d53f01dd-5e55-4344-87ea-9467fb2d
:





On Apr 6, 1:11 pm, wrote:
On 4/6/2012 3:38 AM, harry wrote:

On Apr 6, 1:53 am, wrote:
On 4/5/2012 7:07 PM, Red Green wrote:

wrote in
m:

On 4/5/2012 3:22 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
wrote in mes
sag
e
...
I hope the OP recognizes (somehow I doubt he will) that the
curren
t
US right-wing propaganda machine (i.e. think tanks, talk
radio, fo
x
news, etc.) is using all of these tactics. I appreciate a
good argument from an intelligent conservative, but the
above tactics a
re
precisely what tells me something evil is going on in the
right wing.

The right does have to keep up with the left, after all.

It really bothers me that both sides claim there is no room
for compromise...

I was brought up believing politics was the ART of
compromise.

Boy did they brainwash you early. It's abo
ut
the money.
Personal gain of money. How you can waste
$10
00x of
someone elses money to get $x for yourself
.

I have a sneaking suspicion I'm a LOT older than you...- Hide
quoted t
ext -

- Show quoted text -

That's just more time to get brainwashed and less chance of
reversing the process.

Alternate possibility?

You are just another young fool who has been nowhere, done
nothing?-

I have travelled in 47 countires in the world.

I've been to the Bronx quite a number of times...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Do you need a passport to go there?


Not to enter. Just to leave alive you will need papers...the kind with
pics of presidents on them.

I want lots of the paper with a picture of a scientist on them. Well, he
was the 6th President of Pennsylvania. ^_^

TDD

Democracy? You mean some place like Israel?

I'm pleased to live in the USA which is a Constitutional Republic. Which,
sadly, is turning more and more into an oligarchy.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Red Green" wrote in message

Ergo, you don't have a real democracy. The rich, greedy,
unqualified, fameseekers get the job. They are only there to aid
their backers and the rich.
You need a real revolution.

I'm with you on that one Harry.

They'll **** away $10M of taxpayer money on a useless project/task so
they can generate 50K income for themself.

"Red Green" wrote in message
...
harry wrote in
:

Ergo, you don't have a real democracy. The rich, greedy,
unqualified, fameseekers get the job. They are only there to aid
their backers and the rich.
You need a real revolution.

I'm with you on that one Harry.


LOL
Two ignorant idiots agreeing with each other

The US was NEVER a "real democracy", you two morons
The US has ALWAYS been a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC...

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:21:52 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Red Green" wrote in message
...
harry wrote in
:

Ergo, you don't have a real democracy. The rich, greedy,
unqualified, fameseekers get the job. They are only there to aid
their backers and the rich.
You need a real revolution.

I'm with you on that one Harry.


LOL
Two ignorant idiots agreeing with each other

The US was NEVER a "real democracy", you two morons
The US has ALWAYS been a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC...


"The introduction of this new principle of REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure
of government; and, in a great measure, relieves our regret, if the
political writings of Aristotle, or of any other ancient, have been
lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us.-- Thomas
Jefferson, letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:21:52 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Red Green" wrote in message
.. .
harry wrote in
:

Ergo, you don't have a real democracy. The rich, greedy,
unqualified, fameseekers get the job. They are only there to aid
their backers and the rich.
You need a real revolution.

I'm with you on that one Harry.


LOL
Two ignorant idiots agreeing with each other

The US was NEVER a "real democracy", you two morons
The US has ALWAYS been a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC...


"The introduction of this new principle of REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure
of government; and, in a great measure, relieves our regret, if the
political writings of Aristotle, or of any other ancient, have been
lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us.-- Thomas
Jefferson, letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816

There are a great variety of "democracies" around these days. I think
Wikipedia has it right:
quote
A republic is a form of government in which the government is officially
apportioned to the control of the people and thus a "public matter" (Latin:
res publica) and where offices of state are subsequently directly or
indirectly elected or appointed.[1][2] In modern times, a common simplified
definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a
monarch.[3][4] The word republic is derived from the Latin phrase res
publica, which can be translated as "the public affair", and often used to
describe a state using this form of government.
/quote

The US is somewhat special among these because of the way the Senate is
chosen, which is not population-, but state-based. Moreover, it seems as
if here in the US, the power of the Senate is relatively greater than
equivalent institutions elsewhere. The other distinction is whether there
is a popularly chosen (in whichever direct or indirect way) President or a
monarch who inherited the titular head of state job. In a sense countries
with a president have more power vested in the head of state than most
monarchies have in their Prime Minister. Keep in mind that the Queen of
England has very little real power, and the Queen of the Netherlands
practically has to ask the PM for permission to blow her nose - everything
and anything she does as a head of state has to be approved by the PM and
his/her cabinet. The Kings of Nordic countries similarly. The US and
French President have real power, but then the German President is more
like a monarch.

Where democracy of sorts comes in is by the direct election of
representatives. Again there are many different implementations.

BTW, all the countries mentioned have a Constitution which forms the basis
of law in each respective country.

Readin an interesting book right now:
Why Nations fail: The origin of Power, Prosperity and Poverty by Acemoglu
& Robinson

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 23 Apr 2012 20:07:52 GMT, Han wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:21:52 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Red Green" wrote in message
. ..
harry wrote in
:

Ergo, you don't have a real democracy. The rich, greedy,
unqualified, fameseekers get the job. They are only there to aid
their backers and the rich.
You need a real revolution.

I'm with you on that one Harry.


LOL
Two ignorant idiots agreeing with each other

The US was NEVER a "real democracy", you two morons
The US has ALWAYS been a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC...


"The introduction of this new principle of REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure
of government; and, in a great measure, relieves our regret, if the
political writings of Aristotle, or of any other ancient, have been
lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us.-- Thomas
Jefferson, letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816

There are a great variety of "democracies" around these days. I think
Wikipedia has it right:
quote
A republic is a form of government in which the government is officially
apportioned to the control of the people and thus a "public matter" (Latin:
res publica) and where offices of state are subsequently directly or
indirectly elected or appointed.[1][2] In modern times, a common simplified
definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a
monarch.[3][4] The word republic is derived from the Latin phrase res
publica, which can be translated as "the public affair", and often used to
describe a state using this form of government.
/quote

The US is somewhat special among these because of the way the Senate is
chosen, which is not population-, but state-based. Moreover, it seems as
if here in the US, the power of the Senate is relatively greater than
equivalent institutions elsewhere. The other distinction is whether there
is a popularly chosen (in whichever direct or indirect way) President or a
monarch who inherited the titular head of state job. In a sense countries
with a president have more power vested in the head of state than most
monarchies have in their Prime Minister. Keep in mind that the Queen of
England has very little real power, and the Queen of the Netherlands
practically has to ask the PM for permission to blow her nose - everything
and anything she does as a head of state has to be approved by the PM and
his/her cabinet. The Kings of Nordic countries similarly. The US and
French President have real power, but then the German President is more
like a monarch.

Where democracy of sorts comes in is by the direct election of
representatives. Again there are many different implementations.

BTW, all the countries mentioned have a Constitution which forms the basis
of law in each respective country.

Readin an interesting book right now:
Why Nations fail: The origin of Power, Prosperity and Poverty by Acemoglu
& Robinson

Yes, that's a very good explanation -- better than most textbooks, or
maybe all textbooks. Our particular form is sometimes called a
"Madisonian republic."

We sometimes get some hardheads in here who insist that the US is not
a democracy, but rather a republic, and if I can get them to discuss
it, we usually learn they don't really understand that the two are not
opposing systems, but are descriptions of different aspects of a
system.

Madison and Hamilton, in their discussions of "republics" in the
Federalist Papers, were talking about a structure of government.
Jefferson was talking about the way we elect officials -- how we man
the republic. When Madison and Hamilton railed against "democracy,"
they were talking about direct democracies. As Jefferson pointed out
in the letter from which I quoted above, this representative democracy
was a "new principle." He wasn't completely accurate about that, but
close enough. Today, it's considered to be one of the basic types of
democracy and by far the most common.

I've heard about the book you mention; I hope I find time to read it.

--
Ed Huntress

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in news:jn43ah$nmq$1
@dont-email.me:


"Red Green" wrote in message
...
harry wrote in
:

Ergo, you don't have a real democracy. The rich, greedy,
unqualified, fameseekers get the job. They are only there to aid
their backers and the rich.
You need a real revolution.

I'm with you on that one Harry.


LOL
Two ignorant idiots agreeing with each other

Not going to yes or no for Harry. Capable of any response or lack of.

As far as me, unimportant people calling me an idiot is...unimportant.

They'll **** away $10M of taxpayer money on a useless project/task so
they can generate 50K income for themself.

....still tells me it's always about the money, namely, personal gain.
Being a politician is just a high speed lucrative vehicle.



The US was NEVER a "real democracy", you two morons
The US has ALWAYS been a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC...

"Red Green" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in news:jn43ah$nmq$1
@dont-email.me:


"Red Green" wrote in message
...
harry wrote in
:

Ergo, you don't have a real democracy. The rich, greedy,
unqualified, fameseekers get the job. They are only there to aid
their backers and the rich.
You need a real revolution.

I'm with you on that one Harry.


LOL
Two ignorant idiots agreeing with each other

Not going to yes or no for Harry. Capable of any response or lack of.

As far as me, unimportant people calling me an idiot is...unimportant.


If it was so "unimportant" then you wouldn't have bothered to respond.

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:55:47 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On 23 Apr 2012 20:07:52 GMT, Han wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
m:

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:21:52 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"Red Green" wrote in message
.. .
harry wrote in
:

Ergo, you don't have a real democracy. The rich, greedy,
unqualified, fameseekers get the job. They are only there to aid
their backers and the rich.
You need a real revolution.

I'm with you on that one Harry.


LOL
Two ignorant idiots agreeing with each other

The US was NEVER a "real democracy", you two morons
The US has ALWAYS been a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC...


"The introduction of this new principle of REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure
of government; and, in a great measure, relieves our regret, if the
political writings of Aristotle, or of any other ancient, have been
lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us.-- Thomas
Jefferson, letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816

There are a great variety of "democracies" around these days. I think
Wikipedia has it right:
quote
A republic is a form of government in which the government is officially
apportioned to the control of the people and thus a "public matter" (Latin:
res publica) and where offices of state are subsequently directly or
indirectly elected or appointed.[1][2] In modern times, a common simplified
definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a
monarch.[3][4] The word republic is derived from the Latin phrase res
publica, which can be translated as "the public affair", and often used to
describe a state using this form of government.
/quote

The US is somewhat special among these because of the way the Senate is
chosen, which is not population-, but state-based. Moreover, it seems as
if here in the US, the power of the Senate is relatively greater than
equivalent institutions elsewhere. The other distinction is whether there
is a popularly chosen (in whichever direct or indirect way) President or a
monarch who inherited the titular head of state job. In a sense countries
with a president have more power vested in the head of state than most
monarchies have in their Prime Minister. Keep in mind that the Queen of
England has very little real power, and the Queen of the Netherlands
practically has to ask the PM for permission to blow her nose - everything
and anything she does as a head of state has to be approved by the PM and
his/her cabinet. The Kings of Nordic countries similarly. The US and
French President have real power, but then the German President is more
like a monarch.

Where democracy of sorts comes in is by the direct election of
representatives. Again there are many different implementations.

BTW, all the countries mentioned have a Constitution which forms the basis
of law in each respective country.

Readin an interesting book right now:
Why Nations fail: The origin of Power, Prosperity and Poverty by Acemoglu
& Robinson

Yes, that's a very good explanation -- better than most textbooks, or
maybe all textbooks. Our particular form is sometimes called a
"Madisonian republic."

We sometimes get some hardheads in here who insist that the US is not
a democracy, but rather a republic, and if I can get them to discuss
it, we usually learn they don't really understand that the two are not
opposing systems, but are descriptions of different aspects of a
system.

It is a "constitutional republic", the difference being that it is decidedly
not a "tyranny of the majority"; there are things the government, or the
people, cannot do (without changing the Constitution).

Madison and Hamilton, in their discussions of "republics" in the
Federalist Papers, were talking about a structure of government.
Jefferson was talking about the way we elect officials -- how we man
the republic. When Madison and Hamilton railed against "democracy,"
they were talking about direct democracies. As Jefferson pointed out
in the letter from which I quoted above, this representative democracy
was a "new principle." He wasn't completely accurate about that, but
close enough. Today, it's considered to be one of the basic types of
democracy and by far the most common.

Yes, but the difference remains.

I've heard about the book you mention; I hope I find time to read it.

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"Red Green" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
news:jn43ah$nmq$1 @dont-email.me:


"Red Green" wrote in message
...
harry wrote in

m:

Ergo, you don't have a real democracy. The rich, greedy,
unqualified, fameseekers get the job. They are only there to aid
their backers and the rich.
You need a real revolution.

I'm with you on that one Harry.


LOL
Two ignorant idiots agreeing with each other

Not going to yes or no for Harry. Capable of any response or lack of.

As far as me, unimportant people calling me an idiot
is...unimportant.


If it was so "unimportant" then you wouldn't have bothered to respond.





I give up. The wit is beyond my capabilities of debate...