We did not throw off a tyrannical king to embrace tyrannical majoritarian democracy

Obama's inaugural speech was progressive propaganda at it's finest.

"This is progressive tribalism on steroids, with the chief leading his people toward his enlightened moral vision."

"When he rejects “the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future,” he rejects the very premise of economics — that the world is a world of scarcity. Across America those choices are being made, responsibly, even as the president and his party refuse to make them.

"For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.

The purport of that allusion — “muskets and militias” — is clear. That old, antiquated Constitution, which established a limited realm for “collective action,” mainly to secure individual freedom, is not up to the task of meeting today’s challenges."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/22/obamas-slim-majority-parading-as-we-the-people/#ixzz2Ip942Aht

- - - Updated - - -

"Far from being a modern, then, Obama comes from an earlier age, from a time when progressive ideologues championed a bold new era of collective accomplishments. Ignoring economic reality, to say nothing of basic moral principle or the Constitution, they charged ahead, much as Obama is doing. But reality is catching up. It always does."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/22/obamas-slim-majority-parading-as-we-the-people/#ixzz2Ip9N1Ljn

 

You're right. The Founders through off a Representative Consitutional Monarchy to institute an oligarchic Republic were only the rich had any rights and the vast majority of the people were either disenfranchised or enslvaed.

- - - Updated - - -

You're right. The Founders through off a Representative Consitutional Monarchy to institute an oligarchic Republic were only the rich had any rights and the vast majority of the people were either disenfranchised or enslvaed.

 

No.....there was never any "joint effort" in American history, certainly none that worked.

We won World War-II by everybody individually buying or building their own rifle, paying for a ticket to England, and coming up with their own individual plan for invading France.

 

You went into treason to your King to dodge the taxes you owed for your defence against France and the Native Americans. Aintche proud?

 

My fondest hope and desire is that someone respond intelligently to the OP.

 

And lets not forget the Revolution- where Washington just happened to be at the head of a group of individuals who all decided to cross the Delaware at the same time.

 

Of course...."joint" efforts always fail. Only individual ones succeed, America proves that.

Like the Moonshot....Neil Armstrong went out, designed a rocket, built it from cash he earned at his part-time job at the hardware store and some capital investment from Buzz and Mike Collins (who he in the spirit of capitalism allowed to ride along).....and boom, "Hank Reardon" lands on the Sea of Tranquility.

 

Your hope is not likely to come to fruition as you failed to recognise the four learning opportunities presented so far.

 

That's not quite true.

The King decided we needed protection so left a standing army on our soil then attempted to charge us for it.

We never actually asked or needed their help and would have preferred if they weren't there.

Kind of a big difference.

 

If fail to see how taking care of builders and investing in our children's future is somehow "uneconomic" in the "world of scarcity". Do these "world of scarcity" economic policies trump capitalist "supply and demand"?

don't think anyone is saying that spending must not be cut. In fact so far, Obama has cut 1.4 trillion and proposed another 1.5 trillion which of course was rejected by the "noes". Its a start. The conflict lies in exactly where additional cuts are to come from.

As to how one arrives at the fantastic stretch that obama's speech implies "the constitution in not up to the challenge" is beyond my semantic processor. I see that paragraph as a clarion call for co-operation, for moving forward, for americans to be americans, particularly in light of the challenges of the times and the dysfunction of the republicans.

 

One vote per citizen means---------majority rules.

It means that the majority decide who leads us and what laws we follow. We founded this nation to get out from under minority rule.

Majority rule is called freedom---its what this country is all about.

If you are in the minority on some issue, you get to state your case, but the majority will decide how the issue is resolved.

 

We're a republic, and the majority in this country cannot rule tyrannically. Straight "majority rules" is just mob rule, and that is not how we are set up, nor is it what we are all about. Individuals have rights that cannot be taken away by the "majority".

- - - Updated - - -

 

True.....but we're a democratic republic, which means the majority elects the representatives who rule in our stead. And once upon a time, people claimed an individual "right"...to OWN another individual....and the democratic elected representatives voted to take that "right" away.

Was that wrong?

 

No, she's right. What you called learning opportunities are dumb proposals of a dumb philosophy. None of them address the OP's assertion except through indirection.

 

Of course you do!

 

I always get a little bit of a tickle when the Righties, who have been spouting as justification for imposing their beliefs "The majority says no gay marriage". "The majority says no abortion"., "the majority says Christians rule" all the sudden become obsessed with minority rights when the leadership is not themselves!

Indeed, individuals have rights which cannot be taken away by the "majority". Righties learn fast, under the right motivation.

 

They're effectively satirising one of the main points.

 

All this is predictable, it's happened before. I remember when I was wandering around the States on a visit and I would listen to the car radio. G. Gordon Liddy had a syndicated radio programme from, as he put it, "Occupied Washington DC". He was pissed because Clinton was in the White House. Driving through some fairly arid country (you Americans have an excellent radio network) it was amusing to listen to poor old G. Gordon exercising his paranoia for money.

 

I no longer hold the democracy as legitimate. The democracy is now a puppet of the socialist mexican invaders and their
traitorous collaboraters.

I intend civil disobedience, rebellion and maybe direct action against left wing organizations. Lets see how the Sierra Club likes having their (*)(*)(*)(*) burned down like so much property they've arsonized over the years.

 

Appropriate target on your avatar.

 

Homeland security will be paying a visit shortly.

 

We stopped being a republic when we instituted universal suffrage. We are a Constitutional Representative Democracy.

 

The right wing version of "individualism" is completely absurd and laughable. To think that everything was done without joint efforts is ignorant and uneducated...Oh wait thats the republican platform!

 

The FBI really needs to pay you a visit one day.

 

Why were Washington and such fighting the French then - patriotism?