Autocracy sorta works too.
Autocracy \Au*toc"ra*cy\, n.; pl. Autocracies. [Gr. ?: cf. F.
autocratie. See Autocrat.]
1. Independent or self-derived power; absolute or controlling
authority; supremacy.



Agreed.. Highly optimistic of you.

If this were really the obstacle.. then anyone regardless of class or status, who could read a newspaper would have been able to vote from the start. The obstacles in place were designed to keep the vote very exclusive. Some of those obstacles are still in place today. The Delegate system, the Electoral College, the power of special interest and lobby, all impede the popular vote, despite our technological ability, advancements in communication, and apparent will of the 'anti- American' masses.
No one, who really matters, seems to be in any great hurry to revisit those dynamics either... Why would they? It works for them.

Some of those voting rights that were won along the way? Were probably fought for by design... The Black vote, the Women's vote, became pretty significant in winning elections. Some pretty bright folks in the house minority could very possibly see the writing on the wall, full well knowing it would serve them in the near future.

I know my view is pretty pessimistic compared to yours, Sox...
I will give you this though. I do believe that on occasion someone gets an opportunity at bat... and strikes a home run that weighs in the peoples favor. Whether they did it for selfish reasons or were really trying to make a change for a much broader reason? That can be debatable. I'd like to think there were a few in our history that measured up to the later of the two possibilities.



These provisions have worked in the peoples favor, in our history...without a doubt. There are also many instances where they worked against us too. Both in our past and in our current time.

It could be viewed that these were designed to work for those who worked the system...Regardless of the reason. It is human nature for people to do things only viewing the short term outcome. Politicians are a fine example of that aspect of human nature, sometimes. Climbing the ladder sometimes requires someone to get noticed by the people. A fine way to do that is to surrender some of the power to the people. They will not have to deal with the inevitable outcome, which usually happens after they have long left this life.

Jistme - Much respect for your opinion, it is well thought out and logical. As with leahmarie and myself, it comes down to a simple difference of opinions on a subjective matter. Of course I can't, in good faith, dispute anything having to do with the fact that political moves are calculated and intended to serve those who make them. I just think that they had a broader view that maybe one day (or slowly along the way) there would be enough cahritable good will that it would add up to actual progressive change rather than a series of solely self-serving political changes.

PS - Autocratic refers to a single all powerful leader, it was a complete error on my part to confuse it with aristocracy.

soxfan.... Once again, you are taking my thoughts out of context and distorting what I have to say. Please reread my posts again. As far as your statement that our Founding Fathers were not educated men, read jistme's post. He is absolutely correct that our Founding Fathers were men from privileged families. Those men of privilege could not get a higher education in our country since America had colleges, and not universities at that period. Therefore, most of our Founding Fathers were educated in England, in Oxford. They were known as Oxford Men, the elite who had the right educational background and came from the correct families.

In connection with voting, one needed to own property and one could not be illiterate. It was the rich and the educated class who decided how our country was to be governed. So, before you chastise me, I would suggest that you know your facts.


INCIDENTALLY, HOW DARE YOU CRITICIZE ME FOR MENTIONING EDUCATIONAL LEVELS. I JUST CHECKED YOUR PROFILE AND YOU HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN WOMEN UNLESS THEY HAVE A CERTAIN EDUCATION LEVEL. YOUR PROFILE STATES YOU WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH WOMEN WHO



"can't display a basic grasp of grammar and the english language."


I will not be responding to anymore of your posts because a man who expresses outrage over the very same behavior he is engaging in is ...... well never mind.

jistme......

I take it you are kidding since everyone knows why America was founded and what we stand for.

Yes it does, in it's traditional sense... It can also mean an exclusive group of self appointed...


I do believe we are saying and wanting of, the same thing, just from differing points of view.
I am reminded that my girlfriend often tells me she thinks I am very optimistic about individuals and people in general.. Yet when it comes to politics, I become a pessimist.
I prefer to think that I am a realist. Full well knowing how power has the ability to corrupt even the best intentioned of us.

If you prefer...if it makes you feel more comfortable... I could follow in her steps. Lashing out at you and groups in general, with veiled insults and derogatory remarks. Just give me the word.. I can do that!

No.. I was very serious. I am interested in how you view our country, it's founding, it's mission in history and today.

I encourage you to open a thread, explaining it to us.. So we can give this thread back to the ones who want to discuss the Presidential race.

I would encourage you to do the same since none of your posts are in relation to this thread.

My text: "To the best of my knowledge, this was due to the incredible disparity at the time between the education levels of the leaders and the common citizens." ...as in, the leaders were extremely educated and everyone else was not. Sorry if that was unclear, but I was agreeing that our leaders were super educated and others were not...in fact that was specifically the point I was making as a pretext to my argument.

Additionally, there has been no name calling on this thread at all...I fail to understand how our debate can be considered to be leahmarie-bashing. I've disagreed with you, and you've disagreed with me. I have no intention of turning it into anything other than that, and once again, you're putting words and intentions into my mouth which simply are not there.

The issue here is that I don't believe that there is one "right" was to view the "facts" that you keep speaking of. That our founding fathers were educated men is an undisputable fact. However, other issues such as what their view was for the country, how they wanted it to play out, and why they did it, are all subjective matters. There is no conclusive answer to this, as can be shown by the voluminous scholarly record which includes well reasoned and well researched articles, books, and otherwise which reach vastly different conclusions on those questions. By assuming that there is only one conclusion to be drawn, you are implictly announcing yourself correct and everyone else as necessarily wrong.

If you do perchance come back to this thread to read the comments which followed your hasty departure, I hope you will realize that your contentious nature is undermining the persuasiveness of your arguments...which I belief are all well presented and reasoned.

Jistme - No, god no, please stick with the reasoned and level headed debate...it's all I ask for!

soxfan..... I didn't hastily depart from the thread. I was editing my post while you were responding to it. So, reread my edited post.

Lol ok I was going by your statement that you wouldn't be responding anymore. Your words, not mine. Here are some more of your words:

"INCIDENTALLY, HOW DARE YOU CRITICIZE ME FOR MENTIONING EDUCATIONAL LEVELS. I JUST CHECKED YOUR PROFILE AND YOU HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN WOMEN UNLESS THEY HAVE A CERTAIN EDUCATION LEVEL. YOUR PROFILE STATES YOU WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH WOMEN WHO



"can't display a basic grasp of grammar and the english language."
"

May I clarify that who I would prefer to date and who I think should be entitled to a fair chance to be heard by their own government do not necessarily align without exception, haha. If you are seeking men, do you feel that all women should not be heard by their government simply because you choose not to romantically seek after them? Let's be for real here...you are starting to go a little crazy on us at this point.

Oh leahmarie... Sometimes I marvel at your skill to point at others!



I except my part in this.. However.. please explain how this has anything to do with the subject at hand? Even the post you responded to spoke of the topic, at least in part.. You just chose to focus on this aspect...and ran with it. I was simply going along for the ride!

This is so not the first time I've seen you jump into a thread like this.. where no one is being provocative in any way. Sometimes I get it.. most times I do not. The part I usually do not get is when you start complaining of being attacked when there was none, and attacking.. consistently claiming innocence.

soxfan and jistme......

I see you are both on the defense....beaten by one little woman. Well enough playing around. I have better things to do. Take care both of you.

Oh, have a good day. I know I will.

You as well...

Glad to hear it, hope it's a good one.

So.. What was the subject?

Obama and McCain?

I personally think.. Should it end up that way... It will probably be the most interesting occurrence in the Presidency during my lifetime, since the Nixon resignation.

I also believe it will probably cause a greater number of the young vote to come out in force. Much like it did.. in that same era.