Chess Online

Play online chess!

Pages:  1 2 3 Next »
From	Message
thumper 06-Nov-12, 21:18	At last 'count': O-290; R-203 Was not expecting that. If those numbers hold up, conservatives can expect to be subjected to lots of gloating and laughing in their face. A lot of retribution and 'payback' has already started. I fear the end of the republic and all that that means. Make sure your house is in order.
chaz- 06-Nov-12, 21:34	... do you think we will once again see moderate conservatism return (e.g., Buckley, Lugar, et all.)? Or, do you think more radical right extremism will prevail no matter what? Will there be middle ground ... or two camps yet further separated?
thumper 06-Nov-12, 21:42	Chaz It appears that the radical left is currently prevailing. In my opinion, the road just got a bit shorter. It's not just the presidency being voted on today. There are a lot of other positions and measures that seem to be going left as well. The end of this road is going to be bitter no matter how happy you are at the moment. When we get there, remember who was driving.
chaz- 06-Nov-12, 21:54	... again you presume much ... as I've said before, I'm disappointed the GOP didn't have a better candidate (that's now old news). But I am concerned about how the extremes of both parties will manage this; by your remark, it appears there will not be any middle ground.
softaire 06-Nov-12, 22:58	The results? "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic"... Benjamin Franklin. I do believe that we have reached the tipping point.
thumper 07-Nov-12, 11:52	The results The majority of voters looked at the estimated 23 million people out of work or had stopped looking for work, and whose lives along with their own were even further encumbered by the massive debt; currently $16 trillion and climbing, and thought that was okay? In a nation whose citizens pride themselves on their ability to work to meet the needs of their families, it's disturbing that 47 million must now use food stamps or that millions have fallen below the poverty level. It seems their desire to redistribute wealth from others has become their siren song. Now that Obama has the opportunity to fill seats on the Supreme Court with more progressive judges, thus affecting not just the next four years, but generations of Americans to come, our nation's policies will be 'managed' (dictated) by a small circle of leftist advisers and shadowy handlers, largely unknown and unseen. The vast majority of active military and veterans understood what was being done, but why didn't the majority of voters understand the fearful implications of the erosion of the nation? In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship." John Adams, Founding Father and the nation’s second President warned: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
chaz- 07-Nov-12, 12:02	... if this "cycle" is inevitable, how then do we manage it? ... or is it better to prepare for revolution with a replacement but different democratic form? Or, perhaps, do we recognize the shortcomings of such democracies as ours, and build in necessary safeguards that prevent the pendulum from hitting either side of the clock? That would take unprecedented cooperation, but it's theoretically possible.
thumper 07-Nov-12, 12:25	This country was not created as a Democracy, but as a Constitutional Republic. That's why we've lasted this long. Now that people have been convinced/taught that we should be/are a Democracy, let the cycle begin. What do you propose Chaz? How would you 'manage' it?
softaire 07-Nov-12, 13:36	We have crossed the tipping point from a sick and weak country to a dying country. This next four years will see the cancer grow and metastasize. After that, we will be in the death throes converting from a constitutional republic to a dictatorship. Every republic and democracy in history from the Greeks to the many Roman governments and now ours have passed from rich, healthy, happy & educated societies into a time of greed, corruption, financial & credit emergencies (which we are fast approaching). The result has always been major turmoil, tearing down the civilization, civil wars and a take-over of the country by the strongest & meanest despotic dictator. Stability will finally result and life resumes... except with the loss of freedoms and rights, the rule of law, and economic prosperity. The only question is whether it will be a foreign or domestic take-over. We have passed the point of no return. It doesn't matter if there is obstructionism or not.
changeling 07-Nov-12, 13:47	Even if your doomsday scenario comes to pass (which I very much doubt) can you really see any foreign takeover of the US? You have to kidding yourself. Many of these democracies and so on in past history lasted far longer than a couple of hundred years. England (or Great Britain if you prefer) still going strong since the days of Charles II & Cromwell.
thumper 07-Nov-12, 14:09	Many countries have had their turn Change. Most still exist even after their fall from world power but were transformed into something far less and much different. The only reason that the people of the world currently have even a semblance of freedom and liberty has been America's 'stability'. In this modern age, who will step up when we fall?
changeling 07-Nov-12, 14:18	thumper If you really believe that the US is the only nation maintaining peace on this planet you are losing the plot. The world is/has changed since WWII. It is not so easy now to invade or takeover a country (unless of course it is by the US!).
dmaestro 07-Nov-12, 18:42	While I do not intend to be that active, it is important to state that it is no secret to those of us who believe in we the people and democracy that the extreme right and tea party is undemocratic and plutocratic (let our non-US posters take note). You rightly fear that the country as a whole and those who are not white males or the social conservative demographic are not in tune with your regressive agenda compared with those who vote more often and the isolated demographic that elected tea party extremists in 2010. But that is not a matter of social decline but fear of the loss of power and privileged such a democracy would represent for your narrow interests and agenda. It was amusing to see the tea party and you Mr T confidently predict a Romney landslide www.michigancapitolconfidential.com even as polls showed the opposite, but in your isolated, hate obama world you wouldn't be in touch with electoral reality any more than you were in touch with reality with your claims on Libya or, Fast and Furious. My opposition to your narrow and anti democratic agenda is deep and irreconcilable, as I am a democrat above all, although I do believe in a democratic republic. Your idea of a republic is simply an oligarchy or plutocracy, where those who benefit from the government matter less than those who should pay their fair share. You are entitled to your anti-democratic sentiments and detachment from the reality of our evolving society, but these ideas are a grave danger to democracy and the general welfare, and they MUST and WILL be exposed and defeated in the court of public opinion. Most people want a democracy, and we are determined that the evolution into am evem more democratic form of government where the people rule and are responsible for their own fate. Education exposing the true nature of the tea party is key to preserving and expanding our democracy. The Republic was a product of the class and race warfare on which the USA was shamefully founded, a unenlightened system where only white males over 21 who owned property had any say whatsoever. I among others will fight with any means necessary to stop any attempt to roll back our democracy into the kind of elitist republic you want. Keep that and demographic changes in mind in your ongoing culture war to roll back progress. In this election, even more of our base turned out than before because they realized a Romney victory would be a disaster for unmarried women, people of color, gays and those who are not religious, the young, etc, as well as the world at large. Only white males, married women and social/religious conservatives favored Romney, and a Romney victory would have imposed their agenda on the rest of us. The world rightly celebrates the decisive defeat of the tea party, and having dodged the bullet, and that is a triumph for democracy! Regarding the specific issue of Republic vs Democracy, the following says it very well: ================================== Republic or Democracy? by William P. Meyers Lately, from politicians, radio-talk show hosts, and other commentators, we have heard that we should forget about democracy, because the U.S.A. is a republic. But some questions are being posed by democracy advocates: What is a republic? What is a democracy? Should the United States be a mere republic, or a genuine democracy? Republicans and other democracy detractors point to the U.S. Constitution and bits of history, and say, "See, the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution gave us a Republic. They believed democracies were dangerous and unworkable." On that, they are partly right, but they fail to mention that democracies and republics overlap. They are not opposites. And they fail to account for the history of American government since 1788, much less the debates that took place in America prior to 1788, when the U.S. Constitution was substituted for the Articles of Confederation. Democracy means rule of the people. The two most common forms of democracy are direct democracy and representative democracy. In direct democracy everyone takes part in making a decision, as in a town meeting or a referendum. The specific rules may vary: perhaps everyone must agree, perhaps there must be consensus, perhaps a mere majority is required to make a decision. The other, better known form of democracy is a representative democracy. People elect representative to make decisions or laws. Again, specifics vary greatly. And, surprise, a representative democracy is a kind of republic. What distinguishes a republic is that it has an elected government. Representative democracies are, therefore, a kind of republic. Self-appointed governments such as monarchies, dictatorships, oligarchies, theocracies and juntas are not republics. However, this still allows for a wide spectrum. The classic is the Roman Republic, in which only a tiny percentage of citizens, members of the nobility, were allowed to vote for the Senators, who made the laws and also acted as Rome's supreme court. Most people would say that Rome was a Republic, but not a democracy, since it was very close to being an oligarchy, rule by the few. Although the Roman Republic was not a dictatorship (until Augustus Caesar grabbed power), it did not allow for rule of the people. In both theory and practice the Soviet Union, that late evil empire, was a republic (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) because the lawmakers were elected, if only by the Communist Party members. Beginning with the Constitution's adoption, America has been a Republic. But the dominant trend over the last two centuries has been to make it into a democracy as well, a representative democracy, also known as a democratic republic. True, the creation of the Constitution itself was partly a reaction against democracy. In states like Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, the situation was getting way too democratic for the monied aristocracy that had, since the American Revolution, refused to share power with ordinary men. The causes of the American Revolution were many, but for the monied class there were three principal aims. They sought self-government: that is, they sought to rule the colonies themselves, to further their own interests. They sought to protect the institution of slavery, which had been endangered by Lord Mansfield's ruling against it in the Sommersett case of 1772. And land speculators like George Washington sought to seize more Native American Indian land, which the British had outlawed. But to win the American Revolution this predatory elite needed help. Their own rhetoric about freedom and equality led to widespread demands for the right to vote: universal suffrage. In other words, the people began demanding democracy. Even the slaves (white and black alike) demanded to be freed and allowed to vote. After the British were defeated a centralized, national government was seen by George Washington and company not as a method of extending freedom and the right to vote, but as a way of keeping control in the hands of rich. They wrote several anti-democratic provisions into the U.S. Constitution. Slavery was institutionalized. The Senate was not to be elected directly by the people; rather Senators were to be appointed by state legislatures. The President was not to be directly elected by the voters, but elected through an electoral college. The Supreme Court was to be appointed. Only the House of Representatives was elected directly. More important to our democracy-versus-republic debate, the U.S. Constitution left the question of who could vote in elections to each individual state. In most states only white men who owned a certain amount of property could vote. So, on the whole, the first federal government that met in 1789 was a republic with only a fig-leaf of democratic representation. This is what today's commentators mean when they say America is a republic, not a democracy. Fortunately (for the democrats), the early federal government was not very powerful. In state after state it became easier for white males to qualify to vote. And slowly, decade after decade, our republic became a democratic republic. At the national level the major steps toward democracy can be marked by amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights guaranteed limits to the power of the federal government. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment effectively extended the vote to all adult male citizens, including ex-slaves, by penalizing states that did not allow for universal male suffrage. The Fifteenth Amendment explicitly gave the right to vote to former slaves. After the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments did not extend suffrage to women, a vigorous campaign for the vote was launched by women, who received the vote through the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. But the main Amendment that tipped the scales from the national government of the United States being a mere republic to being a true representative democracy was the often-overlooked Seventeenth Amendment, which took effect in 1913. Since 1913 the U.S. Senate has been elected directly by the voters, rather than being appointed by the state legislatures. That makes the national government democratic in form, as well as being a republic. There will always be anti-democratic forces in any society. The most blatantly undemocratic feature of U.S. government in the 20th century was the unconstitutional but systematic disenfranchisement of African-American and other non-white citizens. This came to an end in the 1950's and 1960's with a series of Supreme Court decisions against segregation laws, the passage of Civil Rights Acts, and the passage of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment outlawing poll taxes. We even lowered the voting age to 18 with the Twenty-Sixth Amendment in 1971. There are no longer any voter-qualification impediments to democracy in the United States. But many have noted that the will of the people has tended not to prevail, and that a majority of people eligible to vote are so discouraged that they do not vote. The main reason for this is the buying and selling of elections and politicians by the wealthier class of citizens and their special interest groups. A year or more before elections take place, the winner is decided by those who vote with dollars. But this is a defect in democracy, not a reason to abandon it. The answer is to cure the defect, not to attempt to destroy our representative democracy.
thumper 07-Nov-12, 19:09	DM I have no problem with and actually enjoy people expressing differing opinions. That's how we learn. I understand you asked to come back in this club and your request was graciously accepted. It appears you did this so you could come at me personally and get in my face. I understand you are giddy with excitement and anticipation but if you chose to personally mock and condescend, you and your posts will be removed.
chaz- 07-Nov-12, 19:14	... only thumper-friendly posts permitted now? Interesting use of thread prowess.
thumper 07-Nov-12, 19:19	You know what I'm saying Chaz or do you now approve of personal insults and in your face smears?
chaz- 07-Nov-12, 19:24	... no I don't like in-your-face smears ... but I've never removed a post because of them either. It's just interesting to see your use of threatening language. Are we supposed to fear your retribution or respect your wisdom?
dmaestro 07-Nov-12, 19:28	Nonsense. You are the one asserting that a democracy must fail when in fact history disproves your claims. I am responding specifically to your claims and the mindset that leads you to those conclusions. If you can't really defend your claims that democracies must fail compared with the system the founders set up (slavery, genocide of native americans, only white male property owners being able to vote, Senators being appointed rather than elected, no direct election for Presidents, etc), other than quoting a few people with vested interests it speaks for itself. It is obvious you just don't like the results of a multi cultural democracy for evident reasons, and in fact it does threaten the interest of your demographic. The other point I am making is about group think. You may not see the link between not understanding the changing dynamics of the electorate or complexities of issues because of right wing group think, the expectation Romney would win big despite polls which are right wing group think, and your views on democracy which are also right wing group think. That you don't see it does not mean the link does not exist. It is all related.
anomalocaris 07-Nov-12, 19:38	Thumper Let him be, we need other views. Even if they are twisted. The Republic was a product of the class and race warfare on which the USA was shamefully founded, a unenlightened system where only white males over 21 who owned property had any say whatsoever. I among others will fight with any means necessary to stop any attempt to roll back our democracy into the kind of elitist republic you want. Keep that and demographic changes in mind in your ongoing culture war to roll back progress. In this election, even more of our base turned out than before because they realized a Romney victory would be a disaster for unmarried women, people of color, gays and those who are not religious, the young, etc, as well as the world at large. Only white males, married women and social/religious conservatives favored Romney, and a Romney victory would have imposed their agenda on the rest of us. The world rightly celebrates the decisive defeat of the tea party, and having dodged the bullet, and that is a triumph for democracy! DM I have no idea if these last two paragraphs are your words or you copied this but two things. There is a new form of racism and its acceptable, its against white males. I have not one time brought up the fact that Obama is black, at least not in a negative way but even in victory the Dems take every opportunity to step on the neck of the white man. This has actually taken off quite well. DM, I am a white male. The only thing I do is get up each day and go to work. Then I come home, that's it. I have nothing to do with the dark history of any minority, Hell I wasnt even alive when they had troubles in the 60's so when I hear comments like this I get angry. I will tell you what i have experienced tho. I have experienced unfair work place practices of blacks against whites. I have seen this over and over in my work place. The last two paragraphs are completely wrong. Nothing could be farther from the truth. DM I have known you to make decent post and even better PMs how your post can come from the same mind kinda blows mine. You referring to an era that has been gone for 200 years and then inferring that this is the mission of the GOP is insane. Problem is a lot of your voters are easily influenced and actually believe this B.S.
thumper 07-Nov-12, 19:38	Chaz Then we are on the same page. Nor have I removed a post or person for at least a month or two. We've had plenty of disagreements but you're still here aren't you? DM left with some choice parting shots and was still excepted back and his first post back he starts with in-your-face comments? I'm sure he has plenty to say and is excited to say it. No problem but the rules will be enforced concerning personal insults and attacks. DM is playing his roll and so am I.
thumper 07-Nov-12, 19:41	Stinky I like how you argue. Well and plainly stated with no back-down and no personal vitriol. Thankyou.
thumper 07-Nov-12, 19:54	Deleted by thumper on 07-Nov-12, 19:57.
dmaestro 07-Nov-12, 19:55	What personal attack, Mr T? As you recall, I took a lot of flack for posting my prediction that Obama would win when the trend was moving in Romney's direction, and in fact I turned out to be quite accurate, BECAUSE I read and analyzed the polls and demographics every day, NOT because I led ideology get in the way. It is understandable that you would feel the election results will lead to the downfall of the USA because of your right wing views on what motivates voters, but letting politics get in the way of evidence is not generally a good idea and I am simply referencing some examples. However, you are also factually wrong, Obama voters are NOT looking to loot the public treasury or have the government run our lives, we just want it to do what it does best and protect us from predatory plutocrats and dogmatic social conservatives who want to impose their values. I defy you to find objective proof of your assertion. This result is a triumph of democracy and a reinforcement of democratic values, and yet because you lost you choose to condemn democracy instead. And unlike you I want a democracy, not just the republic we inherited in 1797 with all its flaws as well as brilliancy. That isn't a personal attack, it is a criticism of your views as stated here. If you think you are misrepresented, show us where.
thumper 07-Nov-12, 19:57	DM -edit- Sorry to be the one to inform you but Democracy WILL fail. Not if, when. It is mob rule that deteriorates to the point of a dictatorial leader taking over. History is littered with their carcases. A Constitutional Republic is the best chance we have for the most freedom and liberty for the largest number of people.
dmaestro 07-Nov-12, 20:01	So we don't really want a world safe for democracy? When you imposed the ban on gay marriage when you could still get a majority to support you, was that a proper use of democracy? You were not complaining then, were you? It all depends on what your agenda is, doesn't it? The fact is that a constitutional democracy is perfectly adequate. This is not 1797. And you have still failed to show how modern western democracies are doomed to fail. The assertion that is the case without adequate evidence is hardly proof?
dmaestro 07-Nov-12, 20:06	I am not an anarchist. So I believe in constitutions and in people voting as much as possible on issues that do not impose restrictions on personal choices that are no business of anyone else. As the article says, there is an element of a republic in that but a greater emphasis on democracy. Where we disagree is a matter of where the balance should be. But I think demonizing democracy is not an accurate view of history.
dmaestro 07-Nov-12, 20:28	""There is a new form of racism and its acceptable, its against white males. I have not one time brought up the fact that Obama is black, at least not in a negative way but even in victory the Dems take every opportunity to step on the neck of the white man. This has actually taken off quite well. DM, I am a white male. The only thing I do is get up each day and go to work. Then I come home, that's it. I have nothing to do with the dark history of any minority, Hell I wasnt even alive when they had troubles in the 60's so when I hear comments like this I get angry. I will tell you what i have experienced tho. I have experienced unfair work place practices of blacks against whites. I have seen this over and over in my work place." I am not going to claim this never happens. But OTOH studies have consistently shown that white male attributes do increase the chance of success in part because of the unspoken rules of the game, culturalism having replaced outright racism and sexism. Women and minorities tend to do more poorly at interpreting the rules and have different interests, and addressing this is seen as unfair by many white males. When we look at the election, we see the GOP focusing on white male culture and the Dems focusing on other cultures because the country is hugely divided along demograhic lines and the gap is growing. If you are a married White woman, you probably voted for Romney, if you were single, you probably voted for Obama. If you were a person of color, you probably voted for Obama. White males have been reliably GOP for half a century and part of that has to do with a perception of threatened status by others. Race relations have gotten worse since Obama was elected simply because of different racial perceptions about motives. The same goes for the gender gap and the class gap.
softaire 07-Nov-12, 23:07	Thumper "A Constitutional Republic is the best chance we have for the most freedom and liberty for the largest number of people." Yes, true, but THAT requires adhering to the written Constitution. We have a written Constitution that is quite clear in what it says and what it means. It is quite clear in enumerated duties of the government and what is left for the States and the people. It is quite clear what the duties and responsibilities of the government are and also, by implication, it is quite clear what they are not. We have a government that has been tending away from following the Constitution more and more since inception, but it has gotten so out-of-whack over the last few administrations that we don't have a "Constitutional Republic" any more. We now seem to be to the stage of one party rule and "the people" have found that they can get that party to pay them for their votes. This is best exemplified by unions contributing to the party and the party voting to raise taxes in order to pay higher salaries and huge pensions to the unions. After the one-party rule comes the dictator. Another example is the government mandating that everybody must buy some government approved commercial product or be fined. That duty of government is NOT in the written Constitution. A third example is the Chief Executive arbitrarily deciding that the government will NOT enforce certain laws legally passed by the legislature. That is NOT how it works. And, that is not how the duties of the Chief Executive are defined. I'm sorry Thumper, but we do not live in a "Constitutional Republic any more.
dmaestro 08-Nov-12, 10:20	The constitution is a living document not a historic relic or revealed text. It is amended and interpreted based on the evolution of society. As it should be. Besides misstating what is going on you miss the critical issue. The founders intended for adaptability, vision, compromise and centrism to be the principle as it was for them. If one branch is failing and held hostage by extremists, the other branches must adapt. People want results not rigid ideas.
chaz- 08-Nov-12, 10:24	Softy ... ... why are you so bitter? There is so much good to embrace within our country's customs and environment. Tell us about those things for which you are grateful.
Pages:  1 2 3 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, online chess puzzles, Internet chess league, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, chess clubs, free online chess games database and more.