When the Constitution becomes an instrument of tyranny

[TheTexan]

There was the larger mob taking selfies and there was the smaller mob planting pipe bombs, kicking in doors and smashing windows. Unfortunately Babbitt found herself with the smaller mob. Rule of law means you don't ignore the facts that don't fit your narrative. I know the door kicking, pipe bombs and smashed windows don't fit your narrative. But that still happened.

You're saying Ashli Babbitt was with the group* that was planting pipe bombs? Do you have evidence to back that up?

From the video, I saw 1 person was smashing windows. Everyone else was relatively calm.

(and by with the group, I mean proximity, not necessarily by association)

[TheTexan]

Here's one of the "violent mob" offering water to the guards, with Ashli Babbitt next to him.

And if you check the last 1 second of that video, you can see the back of that hallway was still tightly packed. Evacuation was still undergoing at that point.

That hallway was pretty bare at the time Ashli was shot. Which backs up what I've said before that the evacuation route was clear for anyone who wanted it at the time Ashli was shot.

[jmdrake]

For what purpose? Any codification would be my opinion alone, when the point of it, is that everyone has their own opinion.

For the purpose of fairness. That's why God wrote the 10 commandments on tables of stone. That's certain contracts HAVE to be written.

[TheTexan]

For the purpose of fairness. That's why God wrote the 10 commandments on tables of stone. That's certain contracts HAVE to be written.

Even God would probably say that those are just a guide. That even the commandments have exceptions.

[jmdrake]

Here's one of the "violent mob" offering water to the guards, with Ashli Babbitt next to him.

What your video left out.

And if you check the last 1 second of that video, you can see the back of that hallway was still tightly packed. Evacuation was still undergoing at that point.

That hallway was pretty bare at the time Ashli was shot. Which backs up what I've said before that the evacuation route was clear for anyone who wanted it at the time Ashli was shot.

Yep. Because everyone had gone down the elevator. He was manning a checkpoint. But hey, if you can't even acknowledge that the mob was kicking in the doors and smashing the windows then I don't expect you to acknowledge any other facts from that day that don't fit your narrative.

[TheTexan]

Yep. Because everyone had gone down the elevator. He was manning a checkpoint. But hey, if you can't even acknowledge that the mob was kicking in the doors and smashing the windows then I don't expect you to acknowledge any other facts from that day that don't fit your narrative.

I did acknowledge it. I said I remember seeing 1 person smashing windows. Turns out it was 2.

Everyone else, like I said, pretty calm. Clearly upset, but calm.

And I haven't seen any evidence, that any of the guards by Ashli had been hurt. At worst, some windows got hurt. Broken windows is not worth someone's life.

Either way it's dishonest of you to say that I "cant even acknowledge that the mob was .... smashing the windows". Where have I ever not acknowledged that? When people aren't capable of honest debate, it's because they have internal biases that they are either not aware of or can't acknowledge externally. TDS is a common example. As is racism. Whatever it is in your case I wouldn't claim to know, but either way you should evaluate yourself and figure out what it is.

[Snowball]

If the distinction between Republic and Democracy it is so overrated, why did the Founding Fathers do EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER to keep us from having a Democracy?

They didn't. Re-read my post. As you know, the Democratic Party had founding fathers in it.
You live in a democracy. A republic IS a form of democracy. The two powerful groups of founders
politically were either Democratic-Republicans aka Jeffersonians or Federalists, and the Federalists
were also democratic republicans, just favoring elitism more.

[Snowball]

I agree with Snowball that the distinction between democracy and republicanism is overrated.

In practice, either way the Iron Law of Oligarchy is always bound to prevail.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Invisible Man again.

[Occam's Banana]

I agree with Snowball that the distinction between democracy and republicanism is overrated.

In practice, either way the Iron Law of Oligarchy is always bound to prevail.

Dave Smith on Republics vs Democracies
https://odysee.com/@MichaelMalice:6/...-democracies:1

//

[jmdrake]

They didn't. Re-read my post. As you know, the Democratic Party had founding fathers in it.
You live in a democracy. A republic IS a form of democracy. The two powerful groups of founders
politically were either Democratic-Republicans aka Jeffersonians or Federalists, and the Federalists
were also democratic republicans, just favoring elitism more.

The R in U.S.S.R. stands for "republic." So you can have a republic without having a democracy and a democracy without having a republic. King Darius was bound by the "law of the Medes and the Persians" to follow through on his decree to throw Daniel in the lions den even though he didn't want to.

[jmdrake]

Even God would probably say that those are just a guide. That even the commandments have exceptions.

Well you can ask Him. The "exception" is that Jesus died the second death so you don't have to. It's called grace. Jesus said people should strive to go beyond what is written in the 10 commandments. Instead of just "don't murder", don't even hate. Instead of just "don't commit adultery" don't even go lusting for another man's wife or another woman's husband. And nobody said there weren't exceptions to laws, especially man's law.

[DamianTV]

The distinction meant a lot to them, or at least to the people whose support they needed to get their Constitution ratified.

But how'd that work out?

No form of government DOES NOT MATTER if its laws are ignored by TYRANTS who intend on ignoring the law to MURDER ITS CITIZENS.

[Invisible Man]

And who determines what is actually right? You?

No - people must determine this for themselves.

It is no different than who determines what is right in mathematics, logic, or the physical sciences. The Creator determines it.

Our role is to discover these truths. We have no power to invent them to be whatever we may want.

[TheTexan]

It is no different than who determines what is right in mathematics, logic, or the physical sciences. The Creator determines it.

Our role is to discover these truths. We have no power to invent them to be whatever we may want.

It's fine if people want to believe that their truths are absolute. It's when they force those "truths" on other people that it becomes tyranny.

[Snowball]

The R in U.S.S.R. stands for "republic." So you can have a republic without having a democracy and a democracy without having a republic. King Darius was bound by the "law of the Medes and the Persians" to follow through on his decree to throw Daniel in the lions den even though he didn't want to.

I guess you didn't know that the Soviets held elections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electi...e_Soviet_Union

Republic has always been defined as sovereignty in representatives of the people. That's why they both begin with "rep".
The representatives are democratically elected. Hence, America's founding parties were both republican AND democratic.

I'm not going to sacrifice correct history or correct etymology in an argument with anyone.

[jmdrake]

I guess you didn't know that the Soviets held elections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electi...e_Soviet_Union

Republic has always been defined as sovereignty in representatives of the people. That's why they both begin with "rep".
The representatives are democratically elected. Hence, America's founding parties were both republican AND democratic.

I'm not going to sacrifice correct history or correct etymology in an argument with anyone.

An election where all of the candidates are pre-screened by a single party hardly counts as a democracy. And no. The "rep" in "republican" has nothing to do with representation.

[Snowball]

REPUBLICAN, rS-pib'-II-ken. a. Placing the government in the people.power is lodged in more than one.

DEMOCRACY, dc-mok'-kr.\-fy. f. One of the three f >rms of govern- ment, that ill which the fovereign power is lodged in the body of the people.

^^^note that the definition of "democracy" does not mean the people decide every matter and question. It never has. So, why act like it does? There is no reason for it except to suggest, without EVIDENCE, that "at least we're not that", or that, "we protect you from that risk". Hence, it is propaganda and intimidation. It is the protection racket, constantly scaring the gullible into thinking we NEED representatives to think and act on our behalfs, not for ourselves. Alas, because in THEORY, elected representatives would do as the electors wish, a Republic is democratic. Show me ONE un-democratic Republic. It would have to be a form of government in which the people have sovereign power but do not choose anything. Is that not a mere paradox?

COMMONWEALTH, kom- f '' mun-un-welth
A polity, an eftabliflied form of civil life; the publick, the general body of the people; a government in which the fupreme power is lodged in the people, a republick.

A complete dictionary of the English language, : both with regard to sound and meaning. One main object of which is, to establish a plain and permanent standard of pronunciation. To which is prefixed a prosodial grammar. by Sheridan, Thomas, 1719-1788 Publication date 1789
https://archive.org/details/complete...2up?q=Republic
---------
This is not really the subject matter of this thread. It has gone off-topic, not relevant to the first post anymore.
This discussion in any serious way is better to take place in another thread I made some months ago. Lest anyone believe the Constitution would allow its "guarantee" of a "republican form of government" to NOT be democratic, that was not the intent of the founders. Every state admitted to the Union was a democracy. The only differences became the EXTENT of suffrage. All forms of "republic" that ever existed in the USA, both states and federal, both original parties, all statesmen, all law, and all precedent has ALWAYS BEEN DEMOCRATIC. Those who attempt to INVENT or "extract" any differences between Republic and Democracy are merely arguing over the characteristics of that DEMOCRACY. If you imagine the Founders of USA envisioning separate commonwealths (democracies/republics) forming a Union without ANY Federal Body AT ALL, that government NEVER EXISTED. Even under the Articles of Confederation, there was a president chosen by Congress, and Congress and democractic principles extant in the decision process. Nine States majority were required to wage war, coin money, etc. Majority rule is a characteristic of democracies, republics, and commonwealths. The Founders argued against pure democracy, such as in ancient times, but that doesn't mean this Republic or any of the Republics that preceded it in modern times (Italian City States, Maritime Republics, etc.) were not democratic institutions. And that democracy ended up in the same state of affairs we have today - the mercantile classes, the oligarchy and secret societies, armies, they controlled the so-called democracy via influence. Hence sometimes they are called Oligarchic Republics. We live in one again today. One can only wonder if we would actually be better off with the "PURE" democracy that Franklin, Hamilton, Adams, disparaged. Where is the pure democracies today? Extinct as they ever were. Just like the "pure" communism of native peoples. What is the difference? Oligarchy and Conspiracy took over these WEAK, MALLEABLE forms of government to their own purposes which is WHY they fought against Church and King that repressed them for centuries, nay, millenia. That is where we are. What is our legal path away from it but to leave? And so, that has been tried and resulted in Civil War. They knew what they were doing. Every single problem we face today and have faced in the past was PERMITTED by the Constitution. It is NOT a divine document. If you make it your idol, understand what you idolize. Even the judges are chosen by democratically elected judge-makers. That is not a true separation of power. It is a lie to say there is separation of powers in the USA. OF THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE is a democracy. End of Story. Source: Greek dēmokratia "popular government," from dēmos "common people,".

Permissible State Governments under the U.S. Constitution....
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...S-Constitution

republic (rɪˈpʌblɪk)
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a form of government in which the people or their elected representatives possess the supreme power
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a political or national unit possessing such a form of government
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a constitutional form in which the head of state is an elected or nominated president
4. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any community or group that resembles a political republic in that its members or elements exhibit a general equality, shared interests, etc: the republic of letters.
[C17: from French république, from Latin rēspublica literally: the public thing, from rēs thing + publica public]