"Agreed with LP."
I encourage people to use that sentence as a signature.

As the situation in Iran continues I become more and more convinced Ahmadinejad cheated big time. The high number of protesters in the streets despite the high risks (being captured/tortured or shot) at least shows how much resistance against the current regime is alive in Iran.

I do hope it ends up in a peaceful revolt with a more democratic regime and more freedom for the Iranians. It would be good for them and maybe the entire world.

lol

...and it costs a lot of money to pay for trash. We are now officially paying  taxes for publicity against driving to much and more use of public transport,  and then paying taxes for citizens to buy a new car. Perfect. European logic I presume.

*LP hides from yell"

"I am not necessarily disagreeing with what you are saying, but there is one mistake you make: a democracy is not a check on government, a democracy implies that the government IS the people, either in its representative form or its direct form."
Thats the definition of a democracy idd, but its i.m.o. not possible now nor does it exist on this planet on the scale of a nation. So you are right about the definition I do not say that.

I was simply explaining why our modern democracies (or what is generally called democracies, to be correct, because it doesn't follow the definition stated above) function so well and what is their strength and weakness.

"Institutional checks come from our belief in a mixed government and mixed constitution."
You have to explain mixed. You probably mean authoritarian and democratic?

"The executive is an unelected structure and so is the supreme court."
true. It makes it even less democratic following the principle again. However, in order to function the supreme court should not be voted on directly i.m.o. because the last thing we need is judges campaigning. Problem now is that in a lot of countries the executive or law giving structure is responsible for assigning them as well. The executive I'm all for.

"And what I meant by my comment was simple,"
for you because you know the meaning of it.

"in its representative form America's current government doesn't represent its constituents and represents the whole  of the 'people' i.e. the working class even less."
No -what we call- democratic country does represent its people let go such a large groop of it. It can be controlled by elections thats all. So they can be kept in check to a certain extend but thats all.

"However, there is a demographic that is overly represented in politics and that is the bourgeois/capitalist class."
What is the bourgeois/capitalist class then?

"The Executive, the Supreme Court and the Constitution are Monarchic remnants used as 'checks' on democratic governance."
The division of the 3 powers is what makes a democracy stable and prevents a lot of corruption. There was no "check" on the kings decisions, and while he had to keep check of all powers. That is what made the whole system highly nonfunctional, slow and unproductive.

"In any true, direct democracy, the tyranny of the majority is the reigning rule."
A true democracy is a utopia. What we have right now is not a voice for everyone or a voice for the majority but a system to keep the leaders in check so they have to pretend to do whats in most voters favor. THAT is its strength. Nobody has total power. The better you are in cheating people the more power you have. Its a balance. But none the less all other systems are worse.

"That being said, there is nothing democratic about the executive branch of the United States government. No one voted for bailouts, but they went ahead even with majority opposition."
depends on your definition of democracy. Its not a democracy in the sense of direct rule by the majority of the people. But it doesn't have to be. People have to keep the gov in check and thats all they need to do. The smarter the gov in cheating the crowd and the greater the peoples stupidity the less the system will work. As I said, its a balance.

"This particular government, and the ones before it, are bourgeois governments and thus, implicitly and explicitly undemocratic."
not sure what you mean by that sentence. It seems ripped of a movie of a soviet leader giving a speech during cold war.

The dutchies have a "party for animals". LOL

"Basicly, the economic crisis is something we have to sit through, the only thing a government can do is trying to make that not too much jobs get lost."
We both agree on that. However, you can make it worse. I wouldn't have blamed Obama if GM went bankrupt. Thats the truth. Obama did not make the crisis neither is responsible for years of bad management I do not say that either. But for what he is doing now there is no excuse. If he does this trick with other branches as well, he is making sure that the crisis will last.

agreed 100% with BG's last post.

"Now, GM went bancrupt cause Obama didn't do anything, and it's all wrong again"
This sentence is correct in so many ways But on a more serious note I think you are misinformed here WFS. He did put a lot of money into it. And I mean A LOT. I don't want to write the number here cause it disgusts me.

"The American people voted, its called "DEMOCRACY". If you don't like the end result,
move to North Korea."
zarf, its the other way around. Here you can disagree with any policy to a certain extend. Ok, I know you were joking right.

"Screw my liberal descendants."
lol. That could so easily be taken out of context