If all the Universities and Government institutions and "professionals" are in consensus with each other... Then why aren't they? That sure sounds like the argument of an intelligent man to not give the science behind why something is or isn't the case, but to use a scarecrow argument to take a totally absurd list of "past foibles" to arbitrarily affix to anyone who may second guess the "establishment of absolute consensus". Sounds a bit like "Wikiality" to me, but then again, that's your kind of thing, isn't it Waffler? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

It has been said that words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen -- the enunciation of truth. While society and its majority may overpower and redefine the absolute, truth still maintains its potency (even when purported by a severe minority) -- and it appears here that the truth cannot be denied. No substantial/real argument has been made in furthering the asinine idea that we were intended to be a "Democracy", when going back to the words of the founders. We are a Republic (Article 4 Section 4), or at least we were intended to be -- which meant something completely different than a "Democracy" when spoken by the founders than what "Anonymous" (I have to say "anonymous", because he has asked me not to address his alter ego persona of Mr. Fort Smith from Arkansas) has repeatedly used from modern day sophists to justify his present by redefining the past. I cannot use another "word" for the idea of a Republic, as the founders spoke, because there is no other word that describes this system of government. Once the basic definitions of the premise of our government have been redefined, what better way is there of divorcing the people from actual ideas, philosophies, and beliefs of their founders? If the idea of a Republic, as meant by our founders and not modern-day sophists, bothers Anonymous -- that is fine -- I do not care about a difference of opinion. I do, however, decide to have a little fun at his expense when he uses modern day terms to redefine history. I am a little surprised that with how much everyone disagrees with him on this site (even the "10 regulars") that he has singled me out, even over Mike or Archer, to cry about not addressing him over a particular issue. Can he not substantiate his side? Can he not find a founding father who supports his claim as well? Can he not give me his arbitrary number? I have purposefully not addressed him on several threads when I speak of Republics, wherein he has retorted with an indirect comment. I'm not quite so passive aggressive in my comments (except for this particular log maybe). I apologize to the rest on the blog who are reading these comments, this is all all a little childish; it is one thing to argue ideas, philosophies, etc. which I love to do (and which this blog is a wonderful source to provide) -- but it is another thing when someone doesn't want to be spoken to and is crying because he feels verbally picked on.

Waffler, Waffler, Waffler -- simply because the concept behind republics and democracies are ambiguous to you, don't be so naive that they are ambiguous to everyone else. Thank you for proving my point... You cannot provide me with sources of what our founders said concerning "Democracy", nor can you tell me your arbitrary majority number wherein your praised "Democracy" can legitimately rape women, kill children, or take away in one fell swoop all of man's rights. You have side stepped the issue from day one, and now you are incapable of providing me with sources from our country's founders supporting your claims. You justify your present by redefining America's past. If you would like me to stop addressing you concerning the topic, then stop speaking untruths and nonsense about it (although, by not speaking nonsense, it may silence you entirely -- and that would sadden me -- I enjoy bantering with you). I will plan for future retorts.

Waffler, I didn't ask if Bush, McCain, or the Russians support or deplore Democracy -- I asked you to give me a source (even better, sources) where our founders specifically addressed "Democracy" as their intended form of government. I have given you multiple quotes from our founders showing their spite for "Democracy" -- even while they purported a Constitutional Republic wherein the affairs of the government would be handled by the voice of the people. Do you see something that doesn't add up here in your argument? You are defenseless here son... You can give me a thousand current definitions of Republics and Democracies and you'll still show your ignorance, because all of us here have constantly said that current definitions have been redefined... How do you explain that our founders expressly did everything in their power to steer away from "Democracy" while purporting a system of government wherein the people would vote -- and they actually said they had succeeded in their endeavor -- a government that was not a "Democracy" but was still governed by the voice of the people. Get with the times here son.

Robert, the source is: The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 3rd ed, Oxford University Press, 1993.

Waffler, can you please provide me a source (or, even better, sources) where the founders specifically purported "Democracy"? I have provided you multiple sources where they condemned "Democracy" and sought to stay as far away from it as possible -- even while creating a system of government of "We The People". I dare say you will not find any, but good luck!

"Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit" English translation: "And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness" -- Alcuin to Charlemagne

Hence is the case with those who cannot differentiate between Democracies and our Constitutional Republic. The "bamboozle" of redefined terms throughout American history has educated a populace who does not know the language of their founders (as they spoke the words), because the words themselves have been redefined without telling the student the original meanings. This transition is slow, but is generally permanent until society comes full circle on the freedom to slavery to freedom cycle... Man, as a human being, and a creature made from its Creator, desires freedom and has to be indoctrinated to choose otherwise. The repentance of thought is often impossible as men would rather accept their own convoluted sophistry than by acknowledging a better way -- it appears that pride is often stronger than reason and logic. Oh, that we had men like our founders today, who humbly looked throughout history to accurately depict and understand things for how they worked and did not work -- and that they gave us a government that could work, if we would only let it.

I give it two stars, because truth is not reliant upon the "heart". Just because my "heart" may believe "truthiness" (google the term) does not mean that what I believe is true. My heart may tell me that gravity does not exist or that Al Gore is god incarnate/an intelligent man, but this doesn't mean/prove anything other than my own stupidity. My heart may tell me that all infants need to die, women need to be raped, and politicians need to be hanged in a public square (whether or not I actually act on what my "heart" tells me is the truth or not) -- this does not constitute "truth". I DO have the right to coerce others to act according to my version of the truth, if I believe/reason/argue that man has acted outside his natural and inalienable rights and is no longer fit for protection at the law. By my RIGHT to do this, I may delegate my representative to act in my stead to incarcerate the agent who is not capable of self-government. I do NOT, however, have the right to coerce an innocent man (who has not infringed upon another's rights) to do what I want him to do, because he is a freeman who needs no permission from myself or society to express his property or to travel in any way he desires.

Well said, Mike. The educated scholars of political science, philosophy, economics, and sociology have no problems with admitting that definitions of terms within each field have changed -- within the last few decades, let alone over the last century. The problem is that when you redefine a term, what term do you use to describe the old definition and idea? Unless you find a way to define the old understanding, such learning and thought is often lost to time. Sadly, this is commonplace with many institutions of learning -- as students nowadays no longer wish to learn "how" to think, but only to know "what" to think to pass the professor's test. When society's goal is to make money, and not to learn the ideas, language, and understandings of history -- terms are easily redefined to justify/fit current sophistries. In such a system, you end up with the Logan's and Waffler's of society who argue semantics between origins of words, meanings, ideas, philosophies, and understandings; one argues the newly defined terms (Waffler) and one argues the original terms as constituted by the founders (Logan). Neither is "good" or "bad" -- but such establishes the battlegrounds for months of debate.

Numbers are symbolic, as are words, of more complex meanings -- this is the whole "if a tree falls in the woods, and no one was around to hear it, did it make a sound" thing -- yes, the tree made "sound" waves, but these are interpreted differently by each creature (even if by "nature" itself). Whether you define something by "one" (english), "ek" (Hindi), "uno" (Spanish), "un" (French), etc. -- the concept is still the same. When a Tiger chases its prey, it, even at a basic level, understands the concept of numbers as it chooses the weakest of the herd or between two separating animals that run in two opposite directions -- the tiger will have to divide its attention and chose "one" to follow. It's a philosophical quandary to ask what came first: language or thought. Gravity exists and its existence is felt on every creation of this earth, regardless of whether any individual, creation, majority, or government says otherwise. The definition that we have affixed to the sound/word "gravity" may be changed to mean something differently (thereby changing people's perception/life-experience as to understanding clearly what "gravity" was meant to mean). Should this be done, however, the force that pulls us to Earth would keep on keepin' on -- it would not change, simple because we ignored it or redefined the term that was originally/honestly purported to define things for "how they are". Natural law exists independently in truth, and is up to the interpretation of man (as the only creation/creature who has the complex ability of reason, logic, and rhetoric) to figure this out. Each generation will reinvent how they will apply, adhere, or be honest to "how things actually are" -- but the wise generation will take that long and hard look to those who came before to see the mistakes, successes, and "truths" that worked to move forward to future freedom, liberty, and personally accountability/responsibility.

Luckily, the ability to get whatever I want, need, or THINK I need is my inalienable right -- so long as I do not infringe upon another's ability of doing so as well. "Don't Tread On Me"

I would never be so naive as to be automatically assume an epochcentrist point of view. Well said Archer. History has taught that principles transcend modernist practicality/philosophy towards what "works". Application will change, but the substance of what "works" will never change, because, at the end of the day, we're all just creatures of nature -- and we will never escape this.

Very well stated, Archer, thank you.

Aw, Waffler, did you hear that -- you're my helper.

Well said.

ABSOLUTELY!! As I've studied history I've concluded that it was perhaps our founding fathers who were the last really great men who saw history for what it was (and not what they pushed and wanted it to be). Some people on this blog have made it a point to establish themselves as persons who don't have to rely on the "authority" of the ancients, because they perceive themselves as having the same educational ability of mastering the deduction of history without knowledge or trust of what the "authorities" actually said; however, such stupidity aside, and to repeat, our founders -- the greatest of men -- who took that long look through history to see mankind in their, ideas, civilizations, societies, applications of ideas, religions, and philosophies, etc. to piece together such a masterpiece as is our Constitution; to find something that would work! A perfect balance, within a Republican government, to rule according the majority, while protecting the expression of the inalienable rights of the individual. Brilliant!

Waffler, I began to write another "book" to counter-act your stupidity, but it's not worth my time tonight. You are an ignorant fool, and your entire premise of logic, (un)reason, and rhetoric is one counteracting fallacy after another. You are a traitorous hack to this beautiful country and to the ideas that made her great. Get an education, go to school. Stop talking about things you have no clue about. I'd be more than happy to have intelligent debate with you, but I realize that until you gain your education, this is an impossible endeavor.

Ah, a good primer that many college students read concerning statistics is the book "Damned Lies and Statistics" that is taken from this quote. Nothing is intrinsically wrong with statistics; however, the problem arises when axe-grinders purposefully or accidentally (due to their over-zealousness) purport findings that aren't accurate... this happens all of the time. It's allowed to happen because the American people never question statistics; they blindly trust the authority of the written word... After all, if our media was really tainted, wouldn't there be whistle blowers? ..laughs.. Perhaps there ARE whistle blowers, but how would you ever hear about it when it is the very media who would shut them out?

No, actually a license, as per Black's Law Dictionary, is a privilege granted from a higher authority, to a lower authority, in an action that has previously been illegal. Um, excuse me, but Marriage is a religious entity wherein government is not supposed to cross, let alone license -- Waffler, can you tell me whether or not I can get married? What about Archer? What about RKA, Ken, Mike, or any other person in this blog? What if all you guys got together, THEN do you have the right? You may FORCE the power of the majority against my inalienable rights (Democracy), but that would simply show just what a sick control freak you must be! Where in the hell do you automatically assume the right when delegating this power to your representative to do this in your stead? Your representative is just that, a person who represents you in all your inalienable rights -- can you tell me, exactly, what inalienable right you have to tell me whether or not I can take the Lord's supper or get baptized or take confession? Where in the hell do you get the right to tell me whether or not I can get married? You really are this ignorant, aren't you? You really have no fathomable clue as to your own history? Wake up man. Get an education, take a local community class in American politics and philosophy -- and quit speaking until you know what you're talking about. Before you comment, learn your history concerning the topic you're addressing -- and try something else other than wikipedia for a change... I can give you a few scholastic places to begin your quest for knowledge, if you really want to know the truth outside your meandoring rhetoric.

Apparently there's more dissension among the "professionals" and "scientific experts" concerning the cause of global warming than what most man-made global warming purporters have wanted to admit: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Complex and esoteric as government may be, the reason and ability of telling whether or not legislation prohibits/infringes upon inalienable right is actually quite simple. A simple test question of: "Do I have the 'right' to do this to my neighbor" is the easiest test as to whether or not we can give government the power to act in our stead. Otherwise, any action, wise or unwise, is usurpation and tyranny.

Telling the truth is always a revolutionary act -- it takes reason, logic, and thought to discover things for what they are, and not for what everyone else wants them to be.

It's been said that the most dangerous thing in the world is to be right when the government is wrong.

Where is there protection of the minority in a mere majority rule system of government, unless it is just mere "trust" of the minority that such benevolence of the majority will continue? In absolute majority rule systems of government (true Democracies), there are no "inalienable" rights. Why? Because if you claim the majority gives rights, then you claim a system of government wherein the majority can legitimately take them away. If rights do not come from the majority, then where do they come from? If there is no "rule book" (laws, ideas, philosophies, etc.) for the majority to follow, then ANYTHING is possible in such systems. These systems only claim alienable rights -- So I pose you the questions: How do you purport inalienable rights within a Democracy? If the only legitimacy of government is majority vote (excluding an outside codex of laws) then you claim that the majority can legitimately rape, murder, or plunder whomever it wants. How do you overcome the disdain that our founders had for "Democracies" and their relentless observance in making us a "Republic"? Where do you find that our founders wished for Democracies? Can you provide as many sources from our founders for Democracies that I can for Republics to support your theory? Why did Machiavelli say that Democracies cannot endure for longer than 200 years, while many Republics consistently have lived for longer than 500? I'd ask you the ratio question again, but I don't think I'll ever get an answer out of you, because it would destroy your whole premise.