www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall What do Democrats think?

I did not say the Republicans where much better. I did say I was a monarchist, recall. A Christian Monarchy that permits other religions to exist and allows free speech and free press is infinitely better than party politics and this ridiculous game of popularity seeking and special interest support ever could be.

Those events are fun, you may get to shake hands and then wonder if you actually met the politician. The meet-and-greet isn't just for VIPs who purchase the highest grade ticket?

At a dinner I went to where Alan Keyes was speaking, I entered the banquet hall and ran into him and shook his hand.

Terry

[I deleted my post because I don't want to cause offense.]

I got to shake the hand of then Governor Ronald Reagan once...I was in the 6th grade and one of my classmates was high up in the leadership of the Virginia Republicans. His dad got us seats at the convention center along the entrance where Ronald Reagan would come in. When he came in, I stuck out my hand to shake his and he did! I have a tape recording of me doing it.

It is amazing how a simple thing like that makes an impression on a kid...

Enjoy your dinner, Alexis!

Gordo

This may explain why our politicians behave like bickering children!

I attended a Sunday School service led by Jimmy Carter a few years ago in Plains. Top that!

Terry, I was lucky enough to have one of the VIP tickets! But I got so close to Clinton during her speech that I really didn't want to wait in the line in the back to shake her hand after it was all done. What a waste of a VIP ticket, huh? But the dinner was swell and I was interviewed by a CBS news station from Japan. Edwards wasn't there since he's bowed out, obviously, and I don't know where Obama was.

But the whole event was fun whatwith my parents there, their friends, a generally good atmosphere, and my spitfire grandmother downing her bourbon-and-waters!

Alexis

LOL!!! Too funny!

Let me CLARIFY....

The father of one of my classmates was high up in the Virginia Republican Party!

Gordo

Dear Friends,

I have noticed several of my brothers on this forum identify themselves as "monarchists." There is at least one young man in my parish, a friend of mine, that wants us to go back to a "danteistic" (sp?) economic system.

With all due respect for people's views, I wonder how meaningful it is for any of us to assert such preferences, when there is virtually no chance that it will ever come about? It is an anachronism for our day. Americans would never begin to tolerate it.


Blessings,

Lance

I;d not say Never, if I where you. Ancient ROme was a Republican state, yet, over itme, it became ruled by an Emoeror. Granted, this sort of trulewa sunstable, but so where ht itmes that bred it. Most of the Monarhces in Europe had been, at oen time, Subject to the Republic of ROme, and had no independanrt Monarchs.


Likewise, hwo much as America CHanged frm tis foundaional principles? Soem fo those CHanges where Diliberate, and others happeend as peopelsimly forgot what America was foudned upon. Those DIliberate Changes wehre at leats doen with the view that thigns where beign changed, rather or nto oen agrees withthem, but those chnages which occured osimply becuse of how popel think are less justifiable as their is no legak warrent for it.

That said, Americans at oen time woudl never have said the United States of America was a Democracy. The very foundaiton fot he naiton opposed Democracy. Yet, only 80 years later, some, incluing Lincoln, used his word.

But, the idea of it beign a Republic stood firm, and in the mdns of Most Americans, including Lincoln, it was a Republic, though with Democratic principles.

Later, at the start of the 20th Century, peopel began to view the united States of Americas as a Deocracy, and foudned as such.


Now, you wol be laughed ot scorn in many wuarters if you suggest America is not a Democracy.

And our political system now works in a far mroe democratic way than it wa sintended, with many Legeslations beign passed base don public opinion plls, and ht einterest of the majorty ruling. I heard one Political commentator even critising Politicns and demanding we assert Majority rule.


This wodl have been untinkable in the 19th century.


Other CHanges inCLude the idea htat the United Sttes are a single natiuon. In the past, the United STates was foudned as a COnfederaiton of Sttaes, though not a loose one. Within eahc states boarders, it was soverign, though budn by an overall Constitutional law they all shared.

Each State thouth of itsself as a seperat eintety, that serve din unison with the others.

In fact, when the Pledge of Allegienc,e writtne by a Socialist, was composed, ti as hotly contested by the populace, and grealty opposed. THis wa snot for th eline "Under God" which had ye tot be added, and htta woud find its way into the Pledge some 60 years later, btu becaus of the phrase "One Naiton, indivisible".


The idea of the United States as oen naiton was apbbhorent to he citesenry sho beleived their state was thier naiton, and only shared an alliance with the other STates.

Now, you'd be hard pressed to find an America who thinks of each State as a Seperate naiton, and many of them dont undertsand why we have such things as State ID's and not naitonal ones. ( And a Naitonal ID is coming.)

Those are radical changes in hwo the Unites States Of America operated.

And, they haoepend graudlaly as peopels thinkign changed, nto by legal aciton.


The United STates also mad eintentional Changes, such as the 17th Amendment, which ended the Senate beign selected by State govenrments, and made it Elected byt he people in a Popular vote, in the same fashion as the Representitives.

This radically changed the style of Govenrment, in which the Representitives originally where seen as the voivce ofhe peopel, and he Senators the voice of the States. The Represnetitives whee answrale to the people, and he Senators to the State Govenrments.

No longer, they are now all "Peopels representiives" as it where.

Slavery was also at oen time understood as somehtign that was permissable, and women did ot vote.

As much as I oppose Slavery, and as mucha s, f w are allowign voting, I htink women shoudl be permitted, they ar nevertheless Changes.

So, given enoughtime and social reaosns, a Monarchy may eventually emerge int eh United States Of America, or if the United States Of America Jojsn the OCmmonwealth, thye may adopt the tradional Monarch.

I know it may not happen, but we can't sya never.

The closest to a "monarchy" America can get to is a type of socialism. The structure of our economy naturally resists a monarchy of the type seen in medieval europe.

Terry