Con_Alma;1153503 wrote:It being difficult for you to determine would seem to then make it foolish to conclude.

Con_Alma;1153508 wrote:...not based on the definition of a Constitutional Republic.

Con_Alma;1153496 wrote:Who has that attitude? Is there anyone on this thread that has posted such a thing?

isadore;1153511 wrote:no if one is true you are a fool and if the other is true you are a fiend. Either can be difficult to reason with or save.

isadore;1153517 wrote:you claimed their abolition would not produce mass suffering. which people like the gut support you in.

isadore;1153497 wrote:ostensibly?"seeming to be true or genuine, but open to doubt: presented as being true, or appearing to be true, but usually hiding a different motive or meaning "
so I am calling them failure but I really don't mean it. Ok Just so I don't mean they are failures.

Con_Alma wrote:...not based on the definition of a Constitutional Republic.

isadore;1153512 wrote:that is what we have become for the better of almost all of us.

Con_Alma;1153529 wrote:Are you confused? That's my point. We are still a constitutional republic.

The elected representatives functioning according to the law of the constitution fits the classic definition of a Constitutional Republic.

Do you believe we function differently than that?

Con_Alma;1153518 wrote:...and yet you being unable to determine such, acting in a manner as if one is true would steer you improperly.

Let me try and help. I struggle not with conflict as it relates to my views on social programs. Without such struggle cognitive dissonance doesn't exist.

isadore;1154762 wrote:my mistake is in seeing it as a struggle within you rather than as a strategy to help cut the threads of our safety net by damning it with faint praise.

gut;1153525 wrote:No,I didn't use the word improperly. Ostensibly you're saying they are failures (not apparently, that is implicit in this whole debate), but your real motive is perhaps just to give them more money, likely because of some sort of selfish motive. The generosity and altruism of people tends to be virtually unlimited when it comes to someone else's money. "I'd really like to help the poor people....can we give some more of his money to them?"

Con_Alma;1153529 wrote:Are you confused? That's my point. We are still a constitutional republic.

The elected representatives functioning according to the law of the constitution fits the classic definition of a Constitutional Republic.

Do you believe we function differently than that?

isadore;1154915 wrote:...The Constitution is just a transient document.

Con_Alma;1153523 wrote:???? I claim that I don't believe we have or will have mass suffering in this country. Part of that is due to the presence of social safety nets which I believe we need. I also claimed that a threat is not actuality.

In addition to those "claims" I think such lengthy programs have the ability to rob people of their freedom and dignity over extended periods of time.

If you keep things in context they have the ability of being more clear.

Con_Alma wrote:
They wouldn't starve to death any more than those people not being fed by the government starve to death.

Con_Alma;1154923 wrote:Which defines the manner the people and the government can function. That "transient document"'s existence is what fulfills the definition of a constitutional republic.

isadore;1154936 wrote:but the ultimate power is not with the Constitution but with the People. It is WE THE PEOPLE who establish this Constitution. It is we the People who are sovereign that make us a DEMO people Cracy rule. A Representative Democracy.

isadore;1154931 wrote:QUOTE=Con_Alma]
I clearly stated above that having safety nets in place are good thing.

I don't believe, however, that there would be suffering on a monumental scale.

Con_Alma;1154944 wrote:
You consistently ignore your previous statements, falsely limiting the negative impact of doing away with the social safety net.
The net includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance, Food Stamps, WIC, TANF and the rest. Abolish that net and you will see suffering on a monumental scale and you will see mass starvation.

Con_Alma;1154942 wrote:The power and it's existence has nothing to do with the classic definition of a Consitutional Republic or a Representtive Democracy.

The people have chosen to operate according to the rule they put in place and defined it in a constitution. That constitution provides for many things as chosen by the people. The existence of that Constitution and it's contents fulfills the classic definition of a Constitutional Republic. The people can change that any time they choose, if done so within the means presented in the constitution.

isadore;1154915 wrote:Our government represents the people who have ultimate sovereignty, not any document. We are a representative democracy. The Constitution is just a transient document.

isadore;1154953 wrote:I don't ignore them. They simply do not rescind or negate the fact that I agree with the need for social safety nets and recognize their presence.

I would not abolish them. Why would I? Why would you even inject that premise into the equation?

isadore;1154956 wrote:Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people....

dwccrew;1154957 wrote:Really? It's what is supposed to define our nation and it is being ignored IMO.

Con_Alma;1154961 wrote:I agree....and that existence is defined by Constitution. The Constitution existing and defining such parameters fulfills the classic definition of a Constitutional Republic.

isadore;1154975 wrote:The idea that the governmnet is controlled by the people and they set its limits, not the other way is found in our true founding document, the Declaration of Independence.