Arab democracy?

[pcarrell]

Yes, thats why I said little outside help. I didn't want to downplay the French role, as it did have impact, but it was colonists doing most of the dying.

[DJW]

I'm afraid that, as always happens, the "liberals" of Egypt are about to find out what happens when you jump into bed with the "devil." Let the Purges begin.

[Z16Monte]

Originally Posted by pcarrell

In answer to the OP.......

I could be wrong here, but I think that maybe the reason the United States version of democracy has worked (reasonable well) for 200+ years might be in the way that it was initially instituted.

The colonies banded together and fought for their own freedom with little outside help. When they won it, they had some very wise men who were able to set up a system of governing this newly won land, and one of those wise men, being an obvious great leader who was well looked upon by most, along with being a war hero (George Washington), was willing to help lead the way.

These new democracy's don't fit that pattern at all. Some were willing to fight for themselves, but there was a lot of outside help and influence. There are some wise men in those countries, to be sure, but when compared with the caliber and number of men who formed the basis of the U.S., I just don't see it. And as far as a leader goes, I don't see anything even close to a George Washington type person on the horizon.

Another thing I notice is that in general (though not totally), the feeling in the 13 colonies was that just about everything pertaining to government needed to change. In the middle east, I've gotten the impression that the people only feel the need to change certain aspects of the old form of government, but that much of it is really OK.

I could be way off base, but that's the way it seem's to me.

But as an old friend of mine always says....Opinion's are like armpits; everyone has a couple and some of them stink!

I believe the Constitutional limits on federal power over the last 200 years( excepting Mr Lincolns little dust up in the 1860s) has kept presidents from usurping power from the people. And the fact that it IS so hard to change our Constitution, has helped keep Congress from simply handing over the reins. More and more, however, it seems as though the Republicrats are willing to simply ignore what they don't want to see and our only hope is the Supreme Court, which is almost like no hope at all.JMHI

[DJW]

Originally Posted by Z16Monte;2199451...[quote

it seems as though the Republicrats are willing to simply ignore what they don't want to see and our only hope is the Supreme Court, which is almost like no hope at all.JMHI

You think the Democrat party is the protector of the Constitution? They don't even pretend to anymore, haven't for over a hundred years.

[Z16Monte]

[quote=DJW;2199516][quote=Z16Monte;2199451...

You think the Democrat party is the protector of the Constitution? They don't even pretend to anymore, haven't for over a hundred years. [/quote]
Absolutly not. I use the term Republicrats because both parties will ignore the Constitution when it suits them. Neither party are innocents.

[DuckDodgers]

Originally Posted by Fred1369

just wait till the Islamists take over. If their birthrate is 6 kids per family and ours is 2 it won't take long.

It's happening. My mom was in a taxi last year and the muslim driver was bragging and so very proud of his 29th child being born that day.

I guess that's why they don't mind sending one or two on a suicide bombing mission.

[DuckDodgers]

EDIT:

Oops, wrong thread

[DJW]

Originally Posted by Z16Monte

Absolutly not. I use the term Republicrats because both parties will ignore the Constitution when it suits them. Neither party are innocents.

Sorry, my bad - missed the poetic license.

Although there are a few in the Pub party that at least claim to care about the Constitution (Ron Paul for 1), I don't know of any Dems that still do (calling it a "living" document subject to the winds of judicial re-interpretation doesn't count).

[Z16Monte]

Originally Posted by DJW

Sorry, my bad - missed the poetic license.

Although there are a few in the Pub party that at least claim to care about the Constitution (Ron Paul for 1), I don't know of any Dems that still do (calling it a "living" document subject to the winds of judicial re-interpretation doesn't count).

I pretty much agree with that. The whole "living document" shill is just an at bypassing the amendment process to achieve what their goals.And had Paul been the Republican candidate, I'd have not only voted for him, I'd have helped campaign for him.
Ed

[James]

Originally Posted by DJW

Sorry, my bad - missed the poetic license.

Although there are a few in the Pub party that at least claim to care about the Constitution (Ron Paul for 1), I don't know of any Dems that still do (calling it a "living" document subject to the winds of judicial re-interpretation doesn't count).

How to you feel about amendments to the Constitution? Do you feel the government should be allowed to make those amendments?

[BigD]

Originally Posted by James

How to you feel about amendments to the Constitution? Do you feel the government should be allowed to make those amendments?

The GOVT? NO! That includes the Supreme Court. In other words, not by any small number of people.

By vote of the people, whom the document is designed to protect from government, within bounds of the Bill of Rights which are sacred.

[Z16Monte]

Originally Posted by James

How to you feel about amendments to the Constitution? Do you feel the government should be allowed to make those amendments?

As long as the process laid out in the Constitution is followed, any amendment passedand approved by the states, is the law, whether I agree with it or not

[James]

Originally Posted by BigD

The GOVT? NO! That includes the Supreme Court. In other words, not by any small number of people.

By vote of the people, whom the document is designed to protect from government, within bounds of the Bill of Rights which are sacred.

What's the sense in elections then? Those people are elected to represent US.

[BigD]

Originally Posted by James

What's the sense in elections then? Those people are elected to represent US.

Good question. "Those people" stopped representing "US" a long time ago.

Why do we give 545 (thereabouts) people that much control over "US"? Why do we allow these "elitists" the opportunity to lifetime control (Senators and Representatives) over "US"?

And the "Supremes" are NOT elected. They are appointed. In the case of a democratic, liberal administration, that means appointed by an administration I didn't vote for with views completely opposed to my own. By default, that means appointed judges opposed to me.

[baggerman11]

he's talking about the USA. what's it gonna look like in 6 months. remember, the majority is a minority now.