Why "republican"? What about "democratic" ones?

The Declaration of Independence talks about the overthrow of government without a qualification of what type.

we have a republican form of government not a democratic form of government...

We have a republican form of government because the Constitution, which you think is bullshit, specifies it. Good to know that this document gives a foundation to your thinking.

Food prices are soaring...

Gas is nearing $4.00/gallon...

Jobless rate remains over 9%...

S & P downgraded our outlook...


It's Bush's fault!

"We didn't start the fire."

- Billy Joel

Boner; you do have to agree with skrum on that one. You just stated a few posts ago that the constitution can be used to "argue anything".

But now you claim the government is a republic (which of course it is). BUT; it is only a republic because the constitution says it is.

Are you claiming that parts of the constitution are clear and should be followed; and others are "arguably anything" and should be ridiculed when used as sources for arguments?

Please explain.

If it is easier; please highlight the sections that we can follow; while redacting the areas that we shouldn't. I'm interested to read the new constitution.

http://www.altweeklies.com/aan/9-things-the-rich-dont-want-you-to-know-about-taxes/Story?oid=3971382

Lets stick our discussion on taxes.

Not all the events mentioned in the article are tax related: For example, this:

"And right now, America's corporations are sitting on close to $2 trillion in cash that is not being used to build factories, create jobs or anything else, but act as an insurance policy for managers unwilling to take the risk of actually building the businesses they are paid so well to run. That cash hoard, by the way, works out to nearly $13,000 per taxpaying household."

This is not tax-caused, this is Obama-caused. Especially Obamacare. Companies don't want to hire workers because they don't want to buy their health insurance. Obama's appointees are hostile to business. Holders of financial capital are waiting at least as long until the constitutionalty of Obamacare is determined, and they may want to wait until Obama can be voted out. What we are seeing is a strike by capital.

I don't understand why skrum is getting caught up on semantics. I made it very clear I was responding from my phone and the context makes it clear that I was referring to how ambiguous constitutional law is. Not that the constitution meaningless.

I think we can all agree that constitutional law is indeed ambiguous and things that are seemingly against the constitution can easily be defended through some of the more vague articles of the constitution.

Which is why you shouldn't try to subvert something that is seemingly something a just society would have its government do just because you don't think it's constitutional. Such an argument shouldn't be relevant in a serious discussion about the purpose and goodness of public institutions, in this case fiscal protections for the common man.