America not a democracy

[WallofYawn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVsjZBy7h ww

Decided to save you lot a long drawn out wall-of-text, in favor of a video explaining this.

What do you think of it? Personally, I'm a supporter of a social democratic republic with laws and regulations, that distribute power and wealth evenly between the people, the government, and business. Making sure that no one from the top, to the bottom, can exploit the classes through economic or political means.

Personally, tho, I believe an oligarchy is always inevitable. All government and systems, especially the larger ones, are subject to flaws, inequality, and all of them will eventually fail, collapse, and be replaced by a new form of government, or republic, that works for a time, until the process repeats itself.

This will continue until we reach an equilibrium wherein the population, the resources, the classes, and the powers/wealth, is in complete balance. The problem is that this balance is never, and can never, be permanent. There will always be imbalance, and inequality. The best we can do is to keep the system as balanced, and uncorrupted as possible, and hope for everything to work out like it's supposed to.(which it never does)

[thegarbear14]

yes technically it is a democracy. and so what you are a socialist? or no you just believe in spreading the wealth around and trying to eliminate social classes. (socialism or communism they are similiar as heck anyway just one believes the proletariat will violently overthrow the bourgeoisie.)

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

At 11/7/11 07:07 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: anyway just one believes the proletariat will violently overthrow the bourgeoisie.

I have a quote by Bertrand Russel which has always haunted me.

"Marx has taught that Communism is fatally predestined to come about: Bolshevism is concerned to win the empire of this world."

This is a snippet from the actual text on my desk, but you get the point (rather not go into ad nauseum)

I have read the communist manifesto. Well, up to page 51, but it was so frightening I put it down for later read. But Russel is right, Marx so ardently believes that the only way history can proceed onward is through bloody revolution. He says this three times or more in the first half of his book, if I'm not mistaken.

But what scares me the most about this "mindset" that communists and socialists have is that it raises a question in my brain that I don't have an answer for. Can we ever hope to succeed against the march of collectivism? Will my children have to endure the shackles of statism? Even if we can dislodge the cancer of progressivism from the tree of liberty in America, can we ever hope to keep it from returning? Or will history be a never ending battle between the individual and the collective? I don't want to have to answer these questions.

I'd rather I never had picked up a book on this subject at all, but what is seen can't be unseen.

[SolInvictus]

At 11/7/11 07:00 PM, WallofYawn wrote: What do you think of it? Personally, I'm a supporter of a social democratic republic with laws and regulations, that distribute power and wealth evenly between the people, the government, and business. Making sure that no one from the top, to the bottom, can exploit the classes through economic or political means.

the issue i have with greater representation is that i'm not sure most people know what they want, or is good/feasible/advisable for them and their social system, but of course greater centralisation is generally much less productive [read; asking for abuse]. so in closing, i'm hoping we find some magical means of adequately educating everyone on how to be part of a productive system before implementing such reforms.

woo, non-commital positions!

[Gustavos]

What, nobody has heard the term "democratic republic" or "direct democracy"? America is the former, as it takes political cues from both styles of government. Our two houses, the House and the Senate are made up of citizens elected by the people. In a direct democracy proposed by the Greeks, average people such as you and I would be asked to vote on EVERY single law, mandate, and hell, every daily action our three branches of government were elected to do. Under a direct democracy, everybody is a representative, there are no branches, nor leaders. A direct democracy, to me, sounds like anarchy, but isn't a transitional "period of change" for a nation. A direct democracy does not specify any sort of executive rule to uphold laws that the people voted for. So, say a law is passed to prohibit drinking outside of somebody's property, but I voted against that. Who is there to stop me? The answer is other, average people, who will likely solve the problem via homicide or other forms of aggressive behavior.

I really like how it brings up the old west to demonstrate what makes a republic different than a democracy, and how neither upholds Enlightenment ideals of "freedom". The united states are a democratic republic as defined by our constitution, not by textbook definitions of "democracy" or "republic". Our own constitution is malleable, such that any issues we would have in the coming decades or centuries where we must change, create, or abolish a law that no longer serves it's original purpose, we have the ability to do just that.

One more thing, if America is "doomed to become an oligarchy" as some claim, than why hasn't it happened in the 200 years since the Constitution was written?

[Camarohusky]

Anypne who got a C in high school civics can tell you the US is NOT a Democracy (or am I being too optimistic?)

It's a Republic with some Democratic tendencies.

Regardless of the governmental system you will have three groups:
- Those smart enough to exploit the system and do.
- Those smart enough to exploit the system but have a conscience.
- The vast ignorant masses.

Our system, which is a great system, is no exception to this.

[Tstelie]

Which means representive democracy

Well if we look at literature or newspapers from long ago we can see that at least the vocabularity was much better. It's more like group one working to make the last group

[ScytheCutter]

At 11/7/11 07:50 PM, Gustavos wrote:

One more thing, if America is "doomed to become an oligarchy" as some claim, than why hasn't it happened in the 200 years since the Constitution was written?

Dear God, that's like asking why the Sun hasn't exploded in the past 1.5 trillion years if it's destined too.

[Warforger]

Gee? Looks like we've got passed 4th grade.

At 11/7/11 07:07 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: yes technically it is a democracy.

No. It's a Democratic Republic, if it were a Democracy there would be no representatives and everyone would just get together and vote on everything. Nothing would get done ever and so we made a Republic instead, where we elect our officials to make those decisions for us, making it a Democratic Republic.

[Warforger]

At 11/7/11 07:26 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: I have read the communist manifesto. Well, up to page 51, but it was so frightening I put it down for later read. But Russel is right, Marx so ardently believes that the only way history can proceed onward is through bloody revolution. He says this three times or more in the first half of his book, if I'm not mistaken.

Well in context of his time period the only way the social structure was changed was through death and/or violence, this is true in the black death, this is true in the French Revolution. In his mind it was the only way, as during his lifetime peaceful methods failed and failed again and again. Of course this would change as time went on, but this was not a insane assumption to make at the time, radical sure but it wasn't out of the question.

But what scares me the most about this "mindset" that communists and socialists have is that it raises a question in my brain that I don't have an answer for. Can we ever hope to succeed against the march of collectivism? Will my children have to endure the shackles of statism? Even if we can dislodge the cancer of progressivism from the tree of liberty in America, can we ever hope to keep it from returning? Or will history be a never ending battle between the individual and the collective? I don't want to have to answer these questions.

Erm you mean having a sort of welfare state? They haven't made up bad idea's such as minimum wage or welfare, but I think "progressivism" is just a myth that people like Glenn Beck make up to scare their followers into believing they're under threat of the Communists.

I'd rather I never had picked up a book on this subject at all, but what is seen can't be unseen.

Well of course, it's out of context when you read it, but in context of his life and views, it makes more sense.

[WallofYawn]

At 11/7/11 07:07 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: yes technically it is a democracy. and so what you are a socialist? or no you just believe in spreading the wealth around and trying to eliminate social classes. (socialism or communism they are similiar as heck anyway just one believes the proletariat will violently overthrow the bourgeoisie.)

It is not a democracy, it is a republic, because a true democracy is ran by majority rule, whereas a republic is governed by law. Decision making is still done by vote, and positions are decided upon based on an electorate, but the actual government, country, and economy are governed by the rule of law, and rightfully so.

In the video, he brings up a good point, that if the majority of people decide to lynch someone, unanimously, the guy gets lynched. But in a republic, where they're governed not by democracy, but by law, they can all vote to lynch him, but if a sheriff shows up, and stops them, that's that.

Fair trial, due process, these are all inalienable rights, which democracy plays no part in. America is therefor not a democracy, but could be said to be a republic, with some democracy included, but a true democracy it is not.

[WallofYawn]

And I am for spreading the wealth, I am not for eliminating social classes(that's communism, not socialism)but for shrinking the gap between the rich and the poor. A stronger middle class, more power for the people, more restrictions on big corporations. Eliminating special interest groups, , instituting a 10% flat rate tax for anyone who makes more than 50,000 dollars a year, and getting rid of the federal reserve, federal income tax, and sales tax.

A lessaiz-faire trade system like we have now, but with laws that prevent monopolies, currency manipulation, and exploitation of the class system.

I am against communism because communism advocates a dictatorship, and the idea is frankly a Utopian one. I am weary of giving the government complete control over ever resource, and all the wealth, just as I am against giving the top 1%, or the CEO's all the wealth. It puts the rest of us at a disadvantage, and we are all effectively made slaves.

Also, I believe that a truly equal and classless society is impossible. There are not enough resources to go around, and no true structure or foundation to facilitate such a thing. Communism requires balance, and mutuality. Communism actually makes things even worse than they already are.

Giving the government absolute power eliminates both freedom and equality, so communism is a fallacy. A Utopian dream, that can never truly work in a real world. Look at any communist society that exists today, and you'll see I'm right.

[Dogbert581]

I always thought the definition of a Republic is a country with an elected Head of State (for instance, UK is not a republic as we have the Queen).

I think that video's definition of a republic is flawed. The video defines a republic as a country governed by a code of laws. Well surely all countries have a code of laws? What changes is just who decides those laws.

This is where I refer to the diagram I have made. At one end, you have Perfect Autocracy - one person making all the decisions no questions aksed. At the other end you have Perfect Democracy - everybody has a vote and a say on every decision. Both of these systems are impractical and unlikely to ever happen. Even an autocrat will often have advisors (although they might often be little more than yes men), whereas in a perfect democracy nothing will get done because you have to ask the people on everything (imagine if you had to hold a referendum of all 1 billion people in China everytime the Chinese government wanted to pass a new law).

Instead all governments fit somewhere along the scale, they all have varying degrees of democracy (even if it is just a council of ministers to advise the dictator) whilst still retaining some autocracy (eg the President of the US can veto any bill). In democratic societies, the people vote for their elected representatives (MPs, Senators, Mugwumps whatever they may be called) and these representatives decide the laws on behalf of the people - or at least they're supposed to. If we feel our representatives aren't representing us fully a democratic vote (ie Majority) can remove them and replace them. Sometimes there will be a nationwide referendum on a big issue which will be open to the whole population (for instance in the UK we recently had a referendum on changing the voting system) but these occasions are rare in most democratic societies.

The key factor in deciding the levels of democracy and autocracy is time. More time available means more time to deabte the decision, more time to open it up to more people. However, as time gets shorter, the need to make a quick decision grows. This is when the degree of autocracy kicks in, one person (or a smaller group of people eg the Cabinet) can make the necessary decision. This is why a lot of constitutions allow the Head of State emergency powers to make decisions without the support of the legislature.

[Psil0]

At 11/7/11 11:26 PM, WallofYawn wrote: , instituting a 10% flat rate tax for anyone who makes more than 50,000 dollars a year, and getting rid of the federal

This is by far the dumbest idea I've ever heard... you do realize that that $50,000 isn't that much right?

[morlockcleric]

Fuck sharing and being equal because people aren't I will tell you this right now. Race and who you like the fuck doesn't matter. But what does matter is if you work, how hard you work and what do you do. Money is earned things we have are earned. FUCK SHARING THAT!

[kakalxlax]

democracy is a popularity contest where the media have 100% of the power

thats a way of seeing it

but i mostly think that all the elections are fixed, all the drama is just to make people think that they are choosing

[WallofYawn]

At 11/8/11 09:23 AM, Psil0 wrote:

At 11/7/11 11:26 PM, WallofYawn wrote: , instituting a 10% flat rate tax for anyone who makes more than 50,000 dollars a year, and getting rid of the federal

This is by far the dumbest idea I've ever heard... you do realize that that $50,000 isn't that much right?

Ok, then 70,000 or 80,000. Whatever the cut-off point is between middle class, and lower class. Basically, anyone middle class and up would be paying a 10% flat rate tax, which guarantees that the rich do pay more.(because 10% of a million is 100,000, while 10% of 80,000 is 8,000) This is one tax you pay, year-round, that you get back at the end of the year.

The lower classes would pay a lower percentage, while anyone who makes 20,000 or below would pay no taxes. Basically, anyone who can afford to pay a 10% tax, without suffering a major blow, would.

[WallofYawn]

At 11/8/11 03:34 PM, WallofYawn wrote:

At 11/8/11 09:23 AM, Psil0 wrote:

At 11/7/11 11:26 PM, WallofYawn wrote: , instituting a 10% flat rate tax for anyone who makes more than 50,000 dollars a year, and getting rid of the federal

This is by far the dumbest idea I've ever heard... you do realize that that $50,000 isn't that much right?

Ok, then 70,000 or 80,000. Whatever the cut-off point is between middle class, and lower class. Basically, anyone middle class and up would be paying a 10% flat rate tax, which guarantees that the rich do pay more.(because 10% of a million is 100,000, while 10% of 80,000 is 8,000) This is one tax you pay, year-round, that you get back at the end of the year.

The lower classes would pay a lower percentage, while anyone who makes 20,000 or below would pay no taxes. Basically, anyone who can afford to pay a 10% tax, without suffering a major blow, would.

Also, this tax isn't 10% on every penny, it's 10% of your overall yearly income. The federal income tax, and sales tax would be gone, and no extra taxes would be tacked on. You'd actually be paying less than you are now, and doing your taxes would be easier. It will guarantee that the rich pay their fair share, and that anyone below the middle class threshold will be exempt from such a tax.

[H-h-h-heliopios]

At 11/8/11 03:34 PM, WallofYawn wrote: which guarantees that the rich do pay more.(because 10% of a million is 100,000, while 10% of 80,000 is 8,000) This is one tax you pay, year-round, that you get back at the end of the year.

www.ctj.org/html/flatwrng.htm

Try reading.. Dont believe right-wind Trickle-down propaganda. Unless you truely believe this, then you're a fucking idiot.

[WallofYawn]

At 11/8/11 03:48 PM, H-h-h-heliopios wrote:

At 11/8/11 03:34 PM, WallofYawn wrote: which guarantees that the rich do pay more.(because 10% of a million is 100,000, while 10% of 80,000 is 8,000) This is one tax you pay, year-round, that you get back at the end of the year.

www.ctj.org/html/flatwrng.htm

Try reading.. Dont believe right-wind Trickle-down propaganda. Unless you truely believe this, then you're a fucking idiot.

Ok, so maybe it's not the right idea. I was under the assumption that it'd simplify things, and consolidate debt. But I do not want moderate, to lower income people to be hit harder. My idea was always to have it so it'd be simple, while ensuring that the rich pay more. But if a flat rate tax is not the right solution to that problem, what would you propose? Another idea I've supported is the Warren Buffet tax, a higher tax on multi-millionaires.

I think we need to shrink this gap between the rich and poor. I'm not an economist expert(tho I will do more research until I am), but it seems like our system is broken, and we need to do something about it. Tired of seeing the rich economically ass rape the rest of the country. It's not right.

[Iron-Hampster]

well, that's a bit disturbing. rule of law alone sounds like oligarchy in itself. I suppose democratic republic is really what they chose but then you have the word democracy, and the video depicted that as a vicious lynch mob.

The main problem is that people are naturally full of ignorance, spite and greed. this will ensure that any and all systems put in place for the people will turn into oligarchy unless good people man up and do what needs to be done to keep civilization on the right track. (without becoming Oligarchs themselves)

in short, Humanity is hopeless.

And we are already picking up disturbing warning signs of despotism, anyone else think its gonna happen with in our lifetimes?

[thegarbear14]

At 11/8/11 08:06 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

And we are already picking up disturbing warning signs of despotism, anyone else think its gonna happen with in our lifetimes?

it probably will, it may happen when many bbs posters are quite old but eventually it will happen.

[Kwing]

I'll say it flat out. America runs on corporate fascism. And any time a form of government topples completely into anarchy, it bounces back into a form of fascism.

If sustained, anarchy is the best form of government because it allows everyone complete freedom, but when a society crumbles into anarchy, someone always assembles a military and seizes power for themselves.

[WallofYawn]

Anarchy is about as bad as pure democracy, because it too is subject to mob rule. A society without laws and those to enforce laws(never mind government) will lack both freedom and justice. It cannot sustain itself, because interests, resources, power, all of it is divided, and everyone is left to fend for themselves. It requires everyone to get along, and be on the same page. This is possible, but only temporarily. People can only share, ration, get along, for so long before shit hits the fan.

The only instance of a truly anarchist society in recent times, was the spanish revolution of the 1930s, which only lasted a few years before being overtaken by communism. Anarchism cannot sustain itself for long periods, and if it exists at all, it exists merely as a transitional period. Either the people tear each other apart from civil war, and elect a government to quell the violence, or an outside force overtakes them and establishes a government for itself.

Anarchy as an actual political ideal is a Utopian ideal. It is perhaps the most extreme of political ideologies, next to communism, and I call it an ideology because that is all it will ever be. It is a fallacious notion that mankind as a whole can get along, with so much inequality, so many dwindling resources, so much overpopulation, so many factors which will simply not allow lawlessness to prevail. Lawlessness can prevail, but only at the expense of mankind's freedom, prosperity, and livelihood.

Anarchistic societies only prevail if they are small, and everyone is an anarchist. The world is not small, like a town, or a city, and not everyone is an anarchist. An Anarchist is the ultimate libertarian. But not everyone is like that. With absolute freedom comes the responsibility to not infringe upon one's fellow man, whether it be upon his freedom, his privacy, his property, or his family. Absolute freedom is a fallacy. A society without laws is like a wild beast, or a parasite that feeds upon itself, and devours from the inside out.

[WallofYawn]

Anarchy only truly exists as a mindset. Riots, lawlessness, and transitional periods are examples of this mindset. Anarchy as a political ideology, however, is simply fallacious. It cannot be sustained due to psychological, and terrestrial factors. A lawless society cannot cope with tragedy, nor can they be expected to take on every burden the world throws at them. An Anarchistic society would make life harder. It's easier when you don't have to vote on everything. Shit gets done. It's easier when the citizens don't have to take up all the responsibility or slack for themselves.

That's why there are businesses, corporations, government, police. Granted, these institutions are highly susceptible to corruption, but not having them makes life harder and more difficult, especially in this global age.

Going back to primitiveness is not an option either, we are too far forward to turn back now. Anarchy, especially primitivistic anarchy, are usually always products of cataclysm or upheaval. It almost comes out of great turmoil.

If a widespread Primitivistic Anarchistic revolution were to take place, a giant cataclysmic event would have to happen that would plunge the earth back into the dark ages. Then Anarchy would occur, until society rebuilt itself, and eventually government would return, and we'd become more advanced as time went on, and it would happen all over again.

It's a cycle that's doomed to repeat itself, and there's no avoiding that. The only purpose Anarchy serves in all of this, is to uproot an existing system, only to have it superseded by another system. It cannot, will not, and does not, serve any other purpose. It is not a political system, nor a permanent entity. It is not an "idea", but a catalyst for an event, or idea. A catalyst is the best way to describe it. It cannot function outside of this. This is all Anarchy can ever hope to accomplish.

[Camarohusky]

Our system is perhaps the best compromise between specialism, and the will of the people. Even then it can be polluted by the idiocy of the common man.

Look at the State of Washington for example.

Tim Eyman's initiatives promised less taxes and a lower burden for everyone. So a cap on property taxes and many other taxes was created.

Now, the schools are underfunded, prison funds are being cut, police funds are being cut, the world famous ferry system is literally falling apart, and in general many programs people have relied upon are being cut and disappearing.

The people's will was heard in lowering the tax cap, but in the end they lost out because the will of the people is narrow, uneducated and short sighted.

[WallofYawn]

That's true Camarohusky, that's why I think instead of cutting funds, we need systems in place that better allocate funds, and distribute the wealth, and government spending, more evenly across different agencies.

Call it socialism, but I think we need more taxation on the rich, more distribution of wealth, over a wider area.(as opposed to having it all balled up in special interest groups, or cutting funding from one area to pay for another)

We need to slowly reduce our borrowing, and debt, while strengthening the value of the dollar, and invest in more US businesses, and industry. And if we really cared about the education and welfare of our people, we'd make it easier to have access to a better education.

A large amount of young adults these days either don't go to college, can't get in to a good college, or drop out after their first semester. I advocate free education, free universal health care.(while still allowing private, career institutions to exist. Higher academic education should be available to all, tho)

Now, I am not for a purely socialist regime, like the soviet union or anything.(i'm more a social democrat if you wanna get technical) I still believe in some of the programs we have in place today. I still agree with the constitution, the bill of rights, the diffusion of power over different branches of the government, and a lot of the laws we have in place today.(excluding the bad ones, like the patriot act)

But we need more regulation, more fail-safes in place. We need to make sure corporations and lobbyists don't have free reign over the government. America began as a government by the people, for the people, of the people. Now it seems like it's a government by the money, for the money, of the money. Money is our king, and supreme dictator, and greed is the "in" thing.

I believe that the wealthy are entitled to their money, so long as they don't exploit the lower classes to get it, and so long as they don't use their wealth to influence economics only in their favor, at the expense of the working class.

America is supposed to be a place where you can achieve the American dream. Now you're lucky if you move out of an apartment to buy a house, which will be worthless when you go to resell it later at a lower price than what you paid for it.

[highschooldude]

At 11/11/11 01:57 AM, Kwing wrote: I'll say it flat out. America runs on corporate fascism. And any time a form of government topples completely into anarchy, it bounces back into a form of fascism.

If sustained, anarchy is the best form of government because it allows everyone complete freedom, but when a society crumbles into anarchy, someone always assembles a military and seizes power for themselves.

I agree to say America is only a republic or an or just one anything else is just incorrect! It's been said that American was started on a clean slate. But as did ever serial killer as wile.

let's review so far we the NG users on this tread have accused the good old U.S.A of being "corporate fascism", "Republic", "Rule by few" or one of many kinds of Democracy.
Sometimes this is a contradiction so it can't be both (like being two different kinds of Democracy)

But let's go nuts! Let's say where looking at this though some kind of tunnel vision because where missing something. ok, now just keep that in mind, in recent history Many Americans have been accused of having a "Political Agenda" example include being a communist in the 1950's all the way to the pissed off anarchist seen in the link provided on the first post okay now let's assume some Americans with an "Agenda" made it into positions of power (oh sorry let's just say you have those to think about, like not every ones word is as good as a U.S President) now once there they could tip the government into doing something that they want! And the government didn't nasally promises. for example when the first U.S Drug Czar was put into office the people had been promised that something would be done about the coke and morphine addiction rising. which they got to a point but this guy saw that people in the south west where smoking a plant in the form of a cigarette that came I with a flood of Mexican immigrants well he diced it was far worse than morphine and cocaine combined! He said so and without any scientific evident went public with that know age! By the time he stepped down he still thought it was evil (but by know most of America did) and any and all scientific studies had been quickly censored.

As you can imagine I didn't just make all that up for sake of my argument that actually happened! He used fear to persuade the American public to think that way. This shaped much of the laws on drug possessing and even the way we think of drugs for years to come Offaly that's still true! But my point has nothing to do with drugs just with how an influence can shape so much hardly makes for a republic. But using due process as an example we clearly have a Republic. Unless you're a government agency like the EPA in which case any actions taken are immune to lawsuit and never make it to court making it imposable for corporations (or anybody) to sue the EPA. that's two examples of the U.s being something other than a republic the first suggesting "Rule by Few" or passably a unstable Democracy the Second suggesting some level of dictator ship where the government is above the laws but both suggesting much more if you look into it more than what I have posted in conclusion the U.S.A was a Repluic! Just like what Ben Franklin promised but has been used and abused to the point where no one true form of government exists! It's just a cluster fuck of whatever seemed like a good idea when first introduced

[WallofYawn]

At 11/11/11 10:07 PM, highschooldude wrote:

At 11/11/11 01:57 AM, Kwing wrote: I'll say it flat out. America runs on corporate fascism. And any time a form of government topples completely into anarchy, it bounces back into a form of fascism.

If sustained, anarchy is the best form of government because it allows everyone complete freedom, but when a society crumbles into anarchy, someone always assembles a military and seizes power for themselves.

I agree to say America is only a republic or an or just one anything else is just incorrect! It's been said that American was started on a clean slate. But as did ever serial killer as wile.

Mind rewording that? You grammar/spelling makes it hard to understand you. Also, I wouldn't necessarily say it was started with a completely clean slate. For example, they chose to keep slavery in there.

let's review so far we the NG users on this tread have accused the good old U.S.A of being "corporate fascism", "Republic", "Rule by few" or one of many kinds of Democracy.
Sometimes this is a contradiction so it can't be both (like being two different kinds of Democracy)

The USA is a republic. Plain and simple. Like any society, however, it is susceptible to corruption. There are pros and cons to a lessaiz faire economy, and we are now seeing the cons. We need to get back to a point, once again, where the pros far outweigh the cons.

But let's go nuts! Let's say where looking at this though some kind of tunnel vision because where missing something. ok, now just keep that in mind, in recent history Many Americans have been accused of having a "Political Agenda" example include being a communist in the 1950's all the way to the pissed off anarchist seen in the link provided on the first post okay now let's assume some Americans with an "Agenda" made it into positions of power (oh sorry let's just say you have those to think about, like not every ones word is as good as a U.S President) now once there they could tip the government into doing something that they want!

Nice run on sentence there buddy. But all grammatical errors aside, I'll address your "points" accordingly. First off, the interest in socialism and communism dates back to the 30s and 40s, when many russian and german immigrants were arriving in the USA. Many Americans around that time were becoming increasingly weary of the Soviet Union. This lead to what was called the red scare; a widespread political attack in the US of anyone associated with socialist or communist ideals.

All far-left liberals, communists, and socialists were lumped in together, and many were shipped back to communist russia.(including socialists who were against Stalin, though they were lumped in with communists, and shipped back anyway)

Then came WWII, and the fear of fascism and Nazism, which superseded the fear of communism, and swept it under the rug. After the war, we entered the great depression and many Americans began to question the current establishment. Many started to look toward alternative ideologies, such as Marxism.

But there was still weariness by a good amount of Americans about communist nations, who were at the time, beginning to develop nuclear weapons. Widespread panic about the threat of a possible nuclear war, led to much disillusionment among Americans. It seemed a very possible and real threat to them at the time.

This fear became most prevalent during the cold war, which began in 1946 and ended in 1991.

::
:And the government didn't nasally promises. for example when the first U.S Drug Czar was put into :office the people had been promised that something would be done about the coke and morphine addiction rising. which they got to a point but this guy saw that people in the south west where smoking a plant in the form of a cigarette that came I with a flood of Mexican immigrants well he diced it was far worse than morphine and cocaine combined! He said so and without any scientific evident went public with that know age! By the time he stepped down he still thought it was evil (but by know most of America did) and any and all scientific studies had been quickly censored.

That man was known as Harry J. Anslinger. He originally was a prohibitionist trying to outlaw alcohol. He saw Marijuana as harmless, and a mostly minority thing. Never the less, the federal government gave drug control over to the treasury department, which created the federal bureau of narcotics, who appointed him as commissioner in 1930.

He declared an all out war on marijuana. They went and arrested many high class celebrities, mostly movie stars, and burned fields of the drug. In order to still the tide, rather than try and take the problem on head on, he devised the plan to wage a media war on the drug. This led to films like the infamous, Refer Madness, as well as news paper articles claiming racial violence was caused by the drug. The goal was to make it sound as horrendous as possible to deter would be users, and race was used as well, to try and convince the public that "n****ers and sp***s were smoking that reefer and raping innocent white women."

Later, he came under scrutiny from congress, when he allowed the American Health Association to conduct an investigation to prove the harmful effects of marijuana.

The AHA concluded, however,that marijuana had no harmful effects and did not make people angry, or commit random acts of violence. These reports, however, were disregarded.

Finally, Anslinger found a way to solve the marijuana problem for good, with the marijuana stamp act.

Basically, you need buy a stamp to own marijuana, but you had to have possession of the plant to get the stamp. However, it's illegal to have it in your possession without a stamp, so by going there to get the stamp, you're already breaking the law. Also, the government only printed a set amount of the stamps, so it effectively made it illegal to possess pretty much.

The supreme court struck this down as unconstitutional in 1969 in the case Leary vs. United States.(leary being the infamous timothy leary)

[WallofYawn]

::But using due process as an example we clearly have a Republic. Unless you're a government agency like the EPA in which case any actions taken are immune to lawsuit and never make it to court making it imposable for corporations (or anybody) to sue the EPA.

No, but the EPA keeps them in check. The EPA is the Environmental Protection Agency. The only people who oppose the EPA are republicans(which is ironic because Nixon is the one who created it) and big business CEOs, because they put restrictions on where they can dump toxic materials, etc.

The EPA keeps businesses from doing cheap, unhealthy, and unlawful things. They're the reason you don't have nuclear chemicals dumped in a landfill in back of your local children's hospital.(kind of a funny example, i know, but you get my point)

::
:that's two examples of the U.s being something other than a republic the first suggesting "Rule by :Few" or passably a unstable Democracy the Second suggesting some level of dictator ship where the government is above the laws but both suggesting much more if you look into it more than what I have posted in conclusion the U.S.A was a Repluic!

A dictatorship means that there is an autocracy. There is one totalitarian ruler, who rules over the entire country. What you are describing is more of what's been called an oligarchy. A country ruled by a select few.

I would argue that the US is a republic, but a corrupt republic. Special interest groups, and lobbyists fund campaigns on the promise that said politician is going to not pass laws that will limit their business making opportunities.

They have the money to influence politics. All the politician has to do is promise to cut taxes on the wealthy, and to not impose laws which will make it harder for CEOs of big wealthy corporations to run their businesses how they see fit.

If politician goes against their agreement, they lose credibility from their particular political party, because they'll effectively be contradicting everything they promised in their campaign.

So, the funding makes them promise things, and the desire to preserve credibility, and keep getting votes/high approval ratings, makes them keep those promises. Also, you don't bite the hand that feeds you. If they ever wanted to run again, they'd need that campaign money.

This, of course, is most prevalent in Republican politicians, and is truly why many of them oppose taxes on the rich, and de-regulation of government. 70% of average americans are for taxing the rich, and believe in some form of regulation. It just so happens that all of the Republican GOP favor big business.