posted on May 18, 2001 07:25:29 AM
Good Morning, Everyone! My, you've all been so busy in here! Lessee ...
1) This form of government is defined as a Democratic Republic. Look up republic in any encyclopedia to understand why.
2) George Washington's Greeting to the Hebrews. "May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths ..." G.W. was a Master Mason and First Grand Master of Freemasons of Virginia. THat sentance is a paraphrase of a Masonic bendiction. The word "Light" refers to the "Light of Knowledge", Masons being big believers in education over ignorance.
3) I missed out on the fun of telling why America was NOT founded upon either Christianity nor Christian ideals. If you want to dispute that, please tell me exactly how the First Amendment goes about being anything, but anti-Christian in nature. The one thing that the founders of this nation hated the most after heretical monarchies was theocracies and the abusive power that churches had over the state and the welfare of the citizens. The First Amendment is not so much as a protection to DO religion, but rather, to KEEP religion from infringing upon the rest of us!
Whuups! Gotta run off to the dentist this morning. I'll pick up where I left off later if need be.
posted on May 18, 2001 08:02:17 AMthe United States ended in 1861, and in 1865 we formed a new country.
reamond, somewhere someone is getting their dates wrong by a hundred or so years, even in the Civil War (your dates above) we were still the United States.
Being caucasion had nothing to do with religion.
Help me here. How do you tell an non-practicing Christian from a non-practicing Jew or a non-practicing Moslem?
Um one goes to Church the other Synagogue, or not go to Church or not go to Synagogue?
In some states the electors are bound, however some states are not bound. So where does that put us now?
posted on May 18, 2001 08:52:54 AM
No, he's right. In 1861 the southern states seceded from the United States of America. That means that they left, stepped, booked, moved on.
posted on May 18, 2001 09:12:34 AM
Even though it doesn't have anything to do with the actual foundings of the country-The United States, when the South seceded from the Union, they did not leave, book, or move on, they fought, here, and lost, and it lasted a few years.
posted on May 18, 2001 09:33:02 AM
No, the Southern States started their own country, complete with a new constitution, legislature, diplomatic connections, etc.
Each Confederate state had to be readmitted to the union after the war.
If being caucasin has nothing to do with religion - which isn't the point, then what does either religion or race have to do with defining one's "country"?
posted on May 18, 2001 10:05:47 AM
reamond- I did not or ever say it defined a country. I did say 'founded', but not defined.
Ouch. I truley hope your not implying some sort of bigotry on my part, because that is not the case. There are countries in this world that do define by race or color, and it certainly is not this country.
Yes the Confederate States did form their own country, complete with military and their own currency.
I am definitly not a history scholar, krs is
But what I do remember, and of course could be wrong, is the United States is a Republic, and not a Democratic Repubic. (and that has nothing whatsoever to do with any politcal parties there are)
posted on May 18, 2001 10:25:31 AM"The colonies were no more independant of each other than the "states" were. They were all Crown charters under the rule of the same British government."-reamond
Wrong. The colonies were independant of each other, not the British Crown. To make it simple for you, that simply meant that Virginia didn't have to answer to New York, or Massachusettes, only the King.
"Al Gore would not be president under the terms of my statement "the presidential electors are now bound by the majority of their states direct democratic process." To simplify for you, this means the electors are bound to cast their votes for the candidate that has the majority of votes in the state, or as in some states, electors are apportioned by the vote."-reamond
No, Al Gore WOULD be President under a truly Democratic Republic. We are not. We are a representative republic, and as such work under a system of electors (AKA representatives) to vote. Those electors are NOT required by law in most states to vote according to the majority will of the people. There have been cases of electors NOT voting according to the will of the people, although it has never changed a Presidential election, it conceivably could have especially in an election such as our last one. This is all covered in a basic Government class that you could probably take for a couple of hundred bucks at your local community college reamond. Perhaps then when you limit your responces to what you comprehend, it might come off as more well thought out. Just a friendly suggestion of course.
"1) This form of government is defined as a Democratic Republic. Look up republic in any encyclopedia to understand why."-borillar
Looking up republic isn't going to tell us why this country is a representative one as opposed to a democratic one. Perhaps we should look up representative and democratic, since we are in agreement that this is a republic. As I stated above though, we are NOT a democratic republic by definition.
Perhaps enrollment is still open.
You are, however, correct in your point about Washington's Masonic phrases. An enormous Masonic influence was weighed in the founding of this country, and in its leaders and basic tenets. The United States was founded by Masons on Masonic principles, plain and simple.
"No, he's right. In 1861 the southern states seceded from the United States of America. That means that they left, stepped, booked, moved on."-krs
No kidding. That was not the argument. When those States seceded the United States DID NOT cease to be a country, nor did anything the country was founded on change. Under that logic, we became a different country when Alaska became a State, or Hawaii. The amount of States at any time in this country's history is irrelevant. The founding documents is what made the country a country. The fact that the South formed their own country for a couple of years doesn't change anything either. That just means that those States were not part of the country at that time.
posted on May 18, 2001 10:40:05 AM
If a Non-Christian person was elected President of the USA---would they be required to swear on The Bible when they took the oath???
Is the placing the hand on the Bible a requirement or is it a tradition??
posted on May 18, 2001 10:52:41 AMkrs, you must read up to fully understand the conversation.
"We were the same people, in the same place, save with a different government. With your line of thinking, the United States ended in 1861, and in 1865 we formed a new country. The history and identity of a people and its land are an unbroken line."-reamond
That was the comment being responded to. In reference to my line of thinking. The reasons this were not so were individually picked apart above. You can reference them by scrolling up with that little scroll bar on the left of your browser.
remedial computer skills for kenny.
to add the smileys
[ edited by jlpiece on May 18, 2001 10:54 AM ]
posted on May 18, 2001 11:33:08 AMNearTheSea, you keep mentioning that large corporations are a salvation to Ameerica because of all of the employing that they do. Actually, the US Federal government is the nation's largest employer. Between 60% to 70% of employees in America work for small Mom and Pop businesses, some 5% to 8% work for farms and agriculture, 20% in the public sector. That doesn't leave much for large corporations to do.
Large corporations are not large soley because of how many peole that they employ.
The key there is "usually governed by representatives of a widely based electorate"
A republic may not be a representative one and is a generalization that means anything but a monarchy. Therefore, the type of Republic that the United States is defined as having is a Democratic Republic, which means that citizens participate in a representative government.
posted on May 18, 2001 12:25:14 PM"A republic may not be a representative one."-borillar
Yes, we have all agreed on that sometime ago. However, the United States IS a representative one. If it were a democratic republic, then popular vote would determine the elections. I've explained all of this already, read up.
posted on May 18, 2001 03:07:45 PM" If it were a democratic republic, then popular vote would determine the elections. I've explained all of this already, read up."-jlpiece
ARRRGGGHH!!!
jlpiece, you'll just have to do all of the math for yourself on this. I refuse to put two and two together for you.
posted on May 18, 2001 04:09:57 PM
jlpiece-there is FIFTY states? when did that happen?
Snowy!! do you by chance listen to Art Bell?
There used to be someone on here that did, but now shes gone
Anyway, I envy the guy, he's got THEE perfect job, works out of a studio connected to his house in NV and stays up all night and takes the craziest calls! Its a riot most of the time!
I gotta go... but I gotta figure out the 50 state thingy LOL
How can you say that "the argument" being made by reamond is that a new country was formed at each major charter when in fact he only responded to your premise that that is the case in the negative?
"This "country" had a history of several centuries before the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and ratification of the constitution."
was reamond, to which you responded:
"No it didn't. That was the beginning of this country. This land is what you are referring to I assume?"
thus arguing that the country renewed at each of those events; the declaration and the ratification; and the articles.
It's odd to find a person publicly arguing with him or herself in here, but not so uncommon to find one putting words in the mouths of others because of a basic lack of understanding of what has been said.
