Obama's Perestroika

[ImBill]

2. vested in the people but exercised by their elected agents under a free electoral system. By this second definition, the United States is a democracy.

On paper, maybe. In reality, I don't think we could honestly say that the government is vested in the people or that we have a free electoral system anymore. It's difficult to say where the problem really lies. Is it apathy, ignorance, programming or a combination of all three that allows our present system of corruption to stay in place?

[Vortex]

Hmmmm I don't think that's quite right. That would be like saying that a reward is again, or once more, a ward.

A Republic is 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.

A Republican is a person who favors a republican form of government, and therefore chooses to live in a republic, such as the United States.

A Democrat is an advocate of Democracy.

Democracy is government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is either:
1. vested in the people and exercised directly by them in majority accord.
2. vested in the people but exercised by their elected agents under a free electoral system. By this second definition, the United States is a democracy.

Hi Rick, I'm not trying to argue, just clarify.

I did not say anything about it being logical or making sense.
"an" can be used as a prefix, but I find not that "an" can be used as a suffix.

Without a suffix of "an", one can't get the word republican from republic.

To get the ending of "an" onto republican one would have to start with
the word publican, that's all I was saying.

The point I was trying to make was the words are not what you think they are.

Expanding up that, we can look at the word reward and ponder some over it's meaning.

reward.
Mosaic law made no provision for imprisonment, temporarily people were "put in ward".
Also, Re "with reference to," 1707, from L. in re "in the matter of," ablative case of res "matter, thing."
re-, intensive prefix (see regard)

Ward is guardianship, to guard.
A warden: governor of a prison
justice: mid-12c., "the exercise of authority in vindication of right by assigning reward or punishment"
Since when does a court give out rewards as you and I would think of that word, reward?
Above did not say reward AND punishment, it said OR
Only in a civil suit is one side "rewarded" and the other side "punished".
That would be AND, but it said OR.

If innocent before justice is served and innocent afterwards..
have you not gained nothing?
What then is the meaning of reward in the phase
reward or punishment?

Could justice mean: punishment without jail time OR reward (jail time)
BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES, does not a prisoner receive the benefit of jail time? Man's law, jail time, is a benefit when compared to the law it replaced, as in the loss of a hand, death or restitution.

I claim not to be knowledgeable about words, I'm just exploring
and not taking at face value the meanings I've been told.

best regards
randy

[Aaron]

democrats and republicans

This is a very simple distinction of America that used
to be and the one that is now...

The original constitution said:
"The Constitution for the united states of America".
Notice FOR instead of OF.

united states of America is a Constitutional Republic
In this America, people were citizens of the states they
lived in and they were sovereign. They were:
"citizen of the several states of the union"

United States of America is a Democracy (corporation literally
called United States of America - capitalization of U and S)
In this America, people are citizens of the COLLECTIVE -
or "United States citizen" but are only
popper status RESIDENTS of the states they live in.

Citizen of one of the several states in the union (state citizen)

or

United States citizen (citizen of the collective foreign territory US of A)


There are ample court cases, etc... that clearly spell
out this distinction. Even the federal govt recognizes more
than one type of passport as there are people that have
taken steps to reassert their state sovereignty so they are
no longer a SUBJECT of the foreign corporation known as
the United States of America.

------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, the democratic and republican parties were originally
the same party the Democratic-Republican Party, which later
split up.

Democratic-Republican Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison around 1792. Supporters usually identified themselves as Republicans,[1] but sometimes as Democrats.[2] The term "Democratic Republican" was also used by contemporaries, but mostly by the party's opponents.[3] It was the dominant political party in the United States from 1800 to 1824, when it split into competing factions, one of which became the modern Democratic Party.

----------------------------------------------------

I see what you're getting at Randy, but I can't find a historical
connection between the words publican and republican.

-----------------------------------------------------

publican Facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about publican
publican

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition | 2008 ShowHideBylineNum();ShowHideBylineNum();

publican [Lat.,=state employee], in ancient Rome, man who was employed by the state government under contract. As early as c.200 BC there was a class of men in Rome accustomed to undertaking contracts involving public works and tax collecting; the tax collectors made the most profit. The publicans were usually equites , or capitalists. In the Gospels—which showed the general detestation, particularly in Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine, in which the publicans were held—the publicans mentioned were tax collectors. From the 1st cent. AD the abuses of the publicans began to be corrected, and by the end of the 2d cent. the publicans as a group had disappeared.




------------------------------------------------------

full etymology here:
Word Power: Democrat


Republican (Noun): [re-pub-li-can]

1. One who favors a republic as the best form of government.
2. A member of the Republican party of the United States. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Etymology
Before Rome was the great Empire that stretched across the majority of Europe, North Africa, and Asia Minor, Rome was a Republic. The word republican has its origins in the 6th century B.C. when Rome was established as a republic. In order to understand the word republican, we need to drop off the suffix -an and get right to the root, republic.
Republic (Noun): [re-pub-lic]

1. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
2. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president. (American Heritage Dictionary)

----------------------------------------------

I would buy that a republic or republican is literally... of or for the people
or citizens. A publican (without re) seems to also be in relation to the
public but in a different context. I think both words having public have
the same meaning (as far as the public part) but didn't come from each
other, from what I can find.

----------------------------------------------

Demos also means people or the citizens...
Word Power: Democrat
You can see the full etymology here...


Democrat (Noun): [dem-o-crat]

1. An advocate of democracy.
2. One who believes in social equality or discounts distinctions in rank. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Etymology


Shifting from the Dark Ages towards the Classical Age in Ancient Greece, the people began to organize themselves. The Greeks not only established city-states and an economy, but they also sought to establish a working government. Athenian statesmen, such as Solon, Cleisthenes, Ephialtes, and Pericles, were responsible for successfully instituting a democracy as the working government. In order to understand the etymology of the word democrat, we need to understand the etymology of the word democracy.
Democracy (Noun): [de-moc-ra-cy]

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power; majority rules. (American Heritage Dictionary)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The main difference between the democrat and republican is that democrat
is more for "social equality" they think, and majority rules.

But the one I have an issue with is MAJORITY RULES.

I have a GOD GIVEN right to do what I want, when I want, with anyone
I want and where I want as long as I do not interfere with the rights
of someone else. Having someone impose their beliefs onto me without
my consent and making it legally binding that I should obey them does
not sit well with me as it is a system of slavery pure and simple. It makes
people obedient to men as their master.

Again like I said and I'm
not saying this is argued against here in this thread yet, BUT, wherever
the most money is will get the most votes because of the ability to
campaign more effectively, get in front of more people, have more
influence, etc... It IS a system where the rich enslave the poor and
anyone that doesn't believe that needs to look around at every
DEMOCRACY in the world and tell me what's up... it is a class system
that splits people into economic groups while the ones with money
are sitting with the power. Show me one democracy in the world where
a homeless person has equal ground in a court of law against a billionaire.
And a democracy is supposed to be about social equality? LOL It is an
oxymoron in concept and is fundamentally flawed to the core.

I think it is a profound flaw in logic that a "democracy" is supposed to
be about equality, yet it is the most effective way to cause non-equality
by the inherent truth that money rules the poor. Majority rule is nothing
but a slave system.

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson



Or as Bush said - the Have's and the Have More's.... You can see
DEMOCRACY in action from this despicable display or arrogance.
YouTube - George W Bush - The Elite My Base

This can NEVER happen in a Constitutional Republic where personal
sovereignty is the true equality for the people...there is no authority of
one over the other. Everyone has equal representation regardless of
money and one man can defeat the entire government penniless. The
common laws would be so very common sense that anyone off the
street can defend him/herself in a court of law without the need of a
lawyer.

So with the topic of the thread about Obama's Perestroika, it is very
clear and has been for ages, there are two warring factions inside of
the federal govt - two heads of the same beast. They BOTH serve
one master and it has nothing to do with the American people.

[Aaron]

conservative democrats & liberal democrats

Since today's Republican's are a majority rule party, I doubt they even
know the principles our country was founded on. They certainly aren't
real republicans.

Therefore, today's parties actually are:

Republicans = Conservative Democrats

Democrats = Liberal Democrats

[Vortex]

Aaron,
Interesting the way the information conflicts.
Again, not arguing, just bringing forth information to be pondered over.

Your info (which is missing a reference link) states republican comes from

"The word republican has its origins in the 6th century B.C. when Rome was established as a republic.
In order to understand the word republican, we need to drop off the suffix -an and get right to the root, republic."

I find no such suffix "-an" at Online Etymology Dictionary
or language rule. There's -ant, -ian, see List words ending with an
Just wondering how did "-an" got here and where did it come from?

republic
1604, "state in which supreme power rests in the people," from Fr. république, from L. respublica (abl. republica), lit. res publica "public interest, the state," from res "affair, matter, thing" + publica, fem. of publicus "public" (see public). Republican (adj.) "belonging to a republic" is recorded from 1712; in noun sense of "one who favors a republic" it is recorded from 1697; and in sense of a member of a specific U.S. political party (the Anti-Federalists) from 1782, though this was not the ancestor of the modern Republican Party, which dates from 1854. Republicrat in U.S. political jargon usually meaning "moderate," is attested from 1940.

The information above basically is saying the word republican is a modern
word and did not come from Roman era.. Why is that?
I mean, why would the info above not tell use it came from the Romans?
Above also shows us words ending in "a" which allows a suffix of "-n"

We have many examples of suffix "-n": African, American, Korean
Yet, I find not a language rule or suffix for "-n" either at Online Etymology Dictionary
Why would a web site about Etymology be lacking any suffixes?

Why is not a suffix of "-n" added to China like Africa, America and Korea?
Please explain that one .. Argh

[Aaron]

res publica

Randy,

I'm not sure but that dictionary seems to have some serious flaws.
But of course every major English dictionary does as definitions have
changed by the multi-national corps that own the companies that
print them. Language is powerful and they don't want people to understand
the true meaning of their own language.

Here is what you quoted from that website:
"republic
1604, "state in which supreme power rests in the people," from Fr. république, from L. respublica (abl. republica), lit. res publica "public interest, the state," from res "affair, matter, thing" + publica, fem. of publicus "public" (see public). Republican (adj.) "belonging to a republic" is recorded from 1712; in noun sense of "one who favors a republic" it is recorded from 1697; and in sense of a member of a specific U.S. political party (the Anti-Federalists) from 1782, though this was not the ancestor of the modern Republican Party, which dates from 1854. Republicrat in U.S. political jargon usually meaning "moderate," is attested from 1940."

I personally don't agree with wikipedia but it's for easy lookup...

Res publica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Res publica - origin on republic... The Roman Republic... maybe 2000
years before 1604.

Roman Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Roman Republic was the phase of the ancient Roman civilization characterized by a republican form of government. It began with the overthrow of the Roman monarchy, c. 509 BC, and lasted over 450 years until its subversion, through a series of civil wars, into the Principate form of government and the Imperial period.

---------------

Res publica seems to be the oldest usage and was exactly what the
Roman civilization was called.

[Aaron]

it's there

"republic
1604, "state in which supreme power rests in the people," from Fr. république, from L. respublica (abl. republica), lit. res publica "public interest, the state," from res "affair, matter, thing" + publica, fem. of publicus "public" (see public). Republican (adj.) "belonging to a republic" is recorded from 1712; in noun sense of "one who favors a republic" it is recorded from 1697; and in sense of a member of a specific U.S. political party (the Anti-Federalists) from 1782, though this was not the ancestor of the modern Republican Party, which dates from 1854. Republicratin U.S. political jargon usually meaning "moderate," is attested from 1940."

Randy, it's right in there but no credit given.

[rickoff]

justice: mid-12c., "the exercise of authority in vindication of right by assigning reward or punishment"
Since when does a court give out rewards as you and I would think of that word, reward?
Above did not say reward AND punishment, it said OR
Only in a civil suit is one side "rewarded" and the other side "punished".
That would be AND, but it said OR.

If innocent before justice is served and innocent afterwards..
have you not gained nothing?
What then is the meaning of reward in the phrase,
'reward or punishment?'

A court, of course, does not actually give anything out. It can only assign a reward or a punishment. As you say, it is only in a civil case where both reward and punishment are assigned, but never to the same party. If we take the above example of a person who is wrongfully accused of - let's say murder - and kept in jail without bail pending a hearing. If that person is then declared innocent, he or she is assigned the reward of freedom by the court. They are released, not returned to jail to again be a ward.

Oops! More "re" words - "released," and "returned." This could go on forever, huh? I definitely see your point, Randy, in that words don't necessarily have a clear meaning any more, even when we take them apart. Take the word "October" for example. This originally had meaning when it was the eigth month (octo=8), but is now meaningless after being changed to the 10th month under Julius Caesar's calendar revision in 46 BC. As long as we all understand what we are talking about when we converse with each other, I guess that's really what is important, although it drives me nuts when I hear some of the expressions that kids are using nowadays. For example, the words "was like," being used in sentences where they have absolutely no meaning, such as, "I was like, blah blah blah, and Julie was like, blah blah blah." I understand what they mean to say, of course, but when they murder the English language like that it is almost painful to my ears.

Best 2 U Randy,

Rick

[rickoff]

On paper, maybe. In reality, I don't think we could honestly say that the government is vested in the people or that we have a free electoral system anymore. It's difficult to say where the problem really lies. Is it apathy, ignorance, programming or a combination of all three that allows our present system of corruption to stay in place?

It definitely seems to be a combination of all three, Bill, and we could probably add in a few more descriptors, such as gullibility, complacency, etc. In the end, the people will get what they deserve - whatever that may be, and I think we are close to finding out.

[Mad Scientist]

We have a device that could cure many of these problems, if we were willing to use it. It's called the constitution.

Of course there is a problem with it. Which is because of our education system most people are now barely aware of it, much less what it actually stands for and how it should be effecting their lives.

[Aaron]

teaching children the truth about America

Would be a great bill to pass in each state to make it mandatory
that for any child to graduate a particular grade, they have to become
proficient in understanding at least the bill of rights and knowing how to
assert them. That is what I would call some legitimate "homeland security."

[rickoff]

I'll second that, Aaron. As a youngster going to school, I remember having to memorize large portions of the Declaration of Indepence, Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and important oratories such as the Gettysburg Address. I really don't think that kids are learning any of that today, and if you take the time to ask kids a few questions about these items, or our Founding Fathers, their answers will dismay you.

[Mad Scientist]

That is what I would call some legitimate "homeland security."

This is kind of cool from the founder of the heavy metal band Iced Earth. They have awoken to what is going on, maybe this will help others to wake up also.

Sons Of Liberty
[click on little arrows for songs]

[Joit]

YouTube - Fall Of The Republic 1/14: The Presidency Of Barack H Obama

[jibbguy]

Back in the day, where in lived in Ohio, there used to be a required 1-semester class in the "Junior" year of High School called "Sociology" which had these mentioned studies in them, like the Constitution and "DoI", and contrasting Capitalism to Communism among other things related to government and politics. In mine, the teacher who was a great guy and very well liked by everyone (also a sports coach), told us the first day of class that his personal political affinity was "Socialist". I have since met folks, from other schools and years, who said the same thing about their "Sociology" teacher (that he/she said they were personally "Socialists").

I suspect it may have been a rhetorical method of getting through perceived stereotypes to open-up young minds a little... Lol, or for some reason Socialists really were infiltrating the "Sociology" teaching profession in a vast Soviet conspiracy

But that guy never gave us any "Socialist" or any other political rhetoric, and was carefully neutral as far as political Parties and issues were concerned, so i strongly suspect the former. At any rate, it did change MY mind about what a real "Socialist" is, or "looks like" (this was in the 70's when anti-Soviet propaganda was still going strong in the U.S.). And i wouldn't call such a constructive ploy a "lie" exactly (assuming he really voted Democrat or Republican): I believe that we could all be called "Socialists" by someone sufficiently far enough to the Right, lol. And i've never met a Conservative or Libertarian yet who refuses to cash his Social Security check, or take advantage of "Medicare" when they or their wife had to go to the hospital for protracted illness costing thousands. Sure, the money was "theirs"; but my point is no one in their right mind takes it to such a "point of honor" not to take advantage of what is offered.

"Libertarianism" has great ideals; but if it had been actually ever practiced in reality, we would all still be living out on farmsteads served by rutted dirt roads (...and they would be all "pay-per-use turnpikes" owned by the private land owners), no sewers, no public water works, no bridges, no dams, no railroads, no public schools or universities, and no electric grid or Internet. "Dirty Socialism" is what brings us these things

So i guess the point is everything is "Relative".