Why Do we Keep Using the Term Democracy?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by TLF1088, Sep 17, 2009.

  1. Why do politicians, the media, and people in general insist on using the term "democracy"?

    The United States is a Republic.

    We have, or at least have attempted to, establish Republican nations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Yet we insist on using the word democracy. We're not spreading "democracy. We're spreading "republicanism."

    I can understand the average American not knowing the difference, but why do politicians insist on describing us at a democracy?

    Do they think the American public is too stupid to learn the definition of the two completely different political systems?

    Do they believe it will confuse people into thinking they are speaking about the American political ideology known as "Republicanism"?
     
  2. And why do they call the Earth round? It's an oblate spheroid, people

    Get with it
     
  3. #3 UnbyJP, Sep 17, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 17, 2009

    :smoking:

    I sense a debate about oranges looming.
     
  4. Most people dont understand that a republic doesn't have anything to do with Republicans..

    and most people think that democracy has something to do with Democrats..

    Most people are stupid
     
  5. It's because they get to vote...people see that as democratic.

    Most people get confused if you say: A constitutional, representative, republic.
     
  6. People call this country a Democracy because they went to public schools. Public schools tell you lies--our country isn't a Democracy, Democracy is a very poor system of Government. Our Founding Fathers had nothing but bad things to say for a Democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic, and we elect our leaders in a semi-Democratic manner.

    People are dumb.
     
  7. We arent even, since 911 we have been post-democratic spiraling into a fascist police state and if you cant see that, you are just blind
     
  8. democracy is an ILLUSION!

    it's a marketing buzz-word.

    nowhere in the world is it actually working as people think it does.

    but if you keep repeating it often enough people might miss the fact that we live in a global totalitarian system called 'corporatism'.
     
  9. So what's the problem then? We'll always have "stuff". Corporations make stuff...they want us to buy it. It's win-win. Unless "stuff" isn't what interests you. But it does for most...the more stuff the better.
     
  10. Are you asking what is wrong with corporatism? Corporations, in general, do a lot more than "make stuff" and sell it to us.

    That said, corporations aren't all bad, but there are those that have become too powerful for their own good. Look at how many lobbyists there are in Washington. That alone is a pretty good indicator of corruption in our government and most of it stems from corporations and their interests.
     
  11. But IS it a PROBLEM...really? Corporations know they need people with jobs as customers to buy their product. Do you think they're out do do us any real harm? I think the politicians do more harm than if we were just run directly by the corporations.
     


  12. It's not the corporations that are the problem, it is their partnership with a corrupt government. Without the state exploitative monopolies would not form.
     
  13. #13 UnbyJP, Sep 22, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2009
    That's the essence of modern day slavery. Distribute the harm and adverse affects amongst a massive national population, and the average personal plight of individuals appears rather mild. And the few people that do deal with major crap are so rare that they are buried under the loud and boisterous claims from everyone else that 'things are good enough' and 'you should appreciate that you live in a country where you have the freedom to complain' amongst other retarded viewpoints. Add to that the fact that the people who deal with the worst in our nation are underrepresented and the ones that deal with the worst that our corporations and government have to offer aren't represented at all, because they don't even live in this country. Yes, it is a problem if you view yourself as a member of the human race and have high hopes and expectations of that race. No, it's not a problem if your easily captivated by all the pretty lights around you and are content with a life that provides you with those lights, while turning a blind eye to all those that don't share a similar experience of the world they live in.
     
  14. That's not my problem. They have their own life to run. They can make of it what they can.

    You have a socialist view...everyone deserves equal no matter what. I believe you reap what you sow. You sow nothing you reap nothing.

    I view others as competition to the things I want. I want pretty lights. I'd rather you didn't have to suffer...but I'm not all that concerned if you do. Don't like it? Change it.

    That's why I don't fault the Mexicans coming here for benefits...I would too. I blame our government for selling us out to them. Allowing it to happen so easily. Condoning it through laws that don'r discourage it...REALLY discourage it.
     
  15. You're failing to recognize that everything, and I do mean everything is related in some way. Those at the bottom are there for a reason, and it ain't all their fault. Those at top are there for a reason, and it's not all due to their positive traits, or hard work. Trust me, I don't have a socialist view. I'm not trying to equalize everyone. I'm against taxes, nanny states, and big govt in general. What I am for is equal opportunity, not some unrealistic concept of equality. I agree that we should reap what we sow, but I absolutely am against any system that forces our kids to reap what we sow. The fact is though that in this country, and world in general, we reap what others sow all the time, and some of what we sow is reaped by others.

    You even concede, through your example, that we don't necessarily always reap what we alone sow, and it really isn't as black and white as poor minority groups do nothing so they deserve nothing. To be clear, you stated that the Mexicans reaped what the US government sowed. That is a perfect example of how everything is correlated in some way, and you can't just look at people as segregated groups of colors that look and behave in stereotypical ways that affect only their specific group. I agree with you in that there is validity in stereotypes, because in general people do fulfill them, but you don't seem to see how the government, corporations, and those in power actually help to support this system of discrimination because it serves their purposes.
     
  16. #16 letsgetPOD, Sep 23, 2009
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2009
    Why do we keep calling this nation of fools a country, its clearly a company, and I want everyone to start saying it that way!
     
  17. Meh, usages change.

    That's part of how languages evolve (grammar changes too). It's how we went from speaking Old English to Modern English.

    Democracy used to refer specifically to democracy in the Athenian sense. Now it's an umbrella term for liberal systems of government, including but not limited to a republic. It also serves double-duty to also refer to simple majority rule. The magic of context usually makes what you mean clear. Nobody's confused when a politician says we live in a democracy. Nobody's mislead into believing this is ancient Athens; they know what the politician means.

    From my dictionary:
     
  18. lol you sound like you know what your talking about but... whoops

    Democracy- government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

    The republic- Star warss!
     
  19. no, i'm not interested in 'stuff'.

    especially if 2/3 of the global population have to live in inhuman poverty so the other 1/3 can buy 10 pairs of tube socks for 99 cents.
     
  20. They were ALREADY living in inhuman poverty. Now at least they make $2 a day. Before that, they made nothing a day. Which is better? There are a LOT of former 3rd world countries that have brought themselves up through "sweatshops".
     

Share This Page