what option do we have A.vote for the canidates or B.who ever is in office to dictate to them hey lets us vote on your healthcare plan...meaning we can vote on a offical but let him tell us the good and bad,then leave it to us to vote,hope a judge doesn't overturn it...i like b

actually there is a fine line between democracy and anarchy,Sudan is anarchy, democracy_______ you fill in the blank what country is

actually i can't think of a country that is truly democracy

hell if you vote for an offical that alone excludes democracy,they only democracy this country has is to elect an offical into our republic government?

you are saying that you want a referendum style vote on every issue?

basically this is my point,period we truly aren't a democracy,we are governenred by the government not the people

well if this was true and was going on would i post all this?

good luck with that..

"We" in this case is the minority of voters who lost. The minority of voters who do not have enough push to be the majority. And sour grapes.

with what an imaginary belief/this isn't religion here this is our government which needs to be more unified they're to busy trying to degrate each other and passing bills that the election got rigged for for them to become a "represinative" to pass but you can just sit on your *** and just think everything is hunky dory?...interesting i guess it's true we(americans) complain about everything and thats about it

I agree to a certain point.

Americans vote their people in on these "selling points" in the elections. Use for example Obama, people agreed with his desires for this country.

And after the election they expect the elected official to be bewitched and twinkle their nose and pow the promises or desires expressed in the election are done.

In a society of instant gratification and selfishness would we expect anything else from the people.

Sensible people understand that there will be time and "debating" and compromising done to try to get these "desires" and promises done or get as close to them as possible.

No one person can do what they express as their desires for this country in the elections without cooperation and compromise in Congress. Even the president has to go through this process.

And to top that off the mature Americans realize that they are one of 300 million people in this country so their "desires" in this country may not be the "best" for the country of 300 million.

So basically we are a republic government electing officials to do the best for ALL the people of this country. When they pull ALL together, it doesn't always appear as they wanted before considering ALL.

the only time this 2 party government pulls together is in an obvious event

No "we" is not the minority and the sour grapes because a percentage of the majority are siding now with the previous minority, not that Obama did not win big, but not as big as some landslides in the past. The majority slowly switched to the minority side when they suddenly realized that they still werent working the economy's in the crapper and if you go back to ten years ago when the economy took a turn towards the negative it was Democratic law implementing that took ten years to take affect. 2+8=10 no policies of the Republican Party have even really taken affect for another 6 - 8 years. So in correlation, to amounts of time it takes to see an actual affect takes you right back into the Clintons lap with NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND and EVERYONE SHOULD OWN A HOME implementations. Now in effect, even though the lower fees for banks help the people......in the eventuality the banks become unstable again as they have reduced income reducing positions. Its all a Catch 22 basically......yes war creates profits for certain companies, but hinders other companies back home, also drives up oil and gas prices because our fleet remains operable and in consumption, reflected back towards the people to pay for through pumped up gas prices with lower productions in refinement. Big oil profits, and any companies creating anything for the purpose of war itself. When you add more socialistic programs how do we pay for it, well we tax the crap out of the working class people to support the poor. And if we make everyone "equal" and distribute the wealth through socialistic programs the economy becomes even more unbalanced in actuality with greater gaps between wealthy and poor because of the battle at hand between yes that's right two parties.......neither side remains good for the people..........Now we have actual Libertarians and Tea Partiers entering the ring, hopefully this will break up the two parties since the Independent Party seems pretty ineffective. When you take a look at Socialistic Countries and what they go through from the people expecting emtitlements when they arent received you get chaos in the streets as well........so tell me what will in actuality limit chaos.....does dictatorship or do the people rise up.........no matter what whether minority or majority no one agrees.......the medical over haul the majority was against it and it passed anyway........the electorial college should be disbanded to be honest and it should be popular vote. Not that they always disagree but elctoral college has beaten popular before. If we make everything equal.......we take away the "American Dream". You will have no chance to rise or fall in this country and be dictated to by governemntal control. The American Indians had it right.......take no more than what you need and give back to the earth live as a community working together with issues brought before a council to decide disputes and how it should remain.........The funny things is the United States stole their land and their life........one day the United States citizen may be turning to them for help and survial....

For one we are not a democracy. We are a republic.
Secondly, to the person that said he had no money. Do you know what you are talking about? They have billions of tax dollars. They set a budget and if they go over the budget the dept increases. His increase in dept has nothing to do with any current dept our country had.

We are not a republic we are a multidimensional government........

I guess its all perception, when I say 'we' and 'our country' I am including myself and not making a statement of exclusivity

being bright and aknowledging the human condition doesnt make anyone a snob in my opinion,,,nothing he said wasnt the truth and I didnt hear the 'them vs us' political rhetoric in that statement,,,

Definition of WE
1: I and the rest of a group that includes me : you and I : you and I and another or others : I and another or others not including you —used as pronoun of the first person plural — compare i, our, ours, us



I wonder what definition of WE that taught at Harvard Law

Ok, I will forget that I pledge my allegiance to the republic for which my flag stands.

b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

Merriam webster dictionary

Yea.. i am pretty sure we are a republic

When people do not use words in the traditional sense you can not lend a traditional definition to the phrase you must place it in context of which it is written.......when he says we he mean that people technically react to fear......but in this context he is both correct and incorrect because not all people react to fear....just as not all people react to emotional stimulations or even grief...since the majority reacts this way or that it is called the norm and when someone acts out of the norm they become suspect....the norm is not norm but a norm placement by the majority based on traditional reactions of the majority.......and stating that someone doesnt have as much say because they arent as intelligent and I use the term loosely is quite snobbish actually

what he said was true, and inclusive of himself as an american

imho