Prove either of these statements wrong:

"God exists" or "God does not exist". It can't be done it is impossible to "prove" either right or wrong.

Although I may not disagree with you, not being able to "prove" something is wrong (or right) does not make it gospel. Try using something like that in a court and you'll go nowhere with it...

Also, this seems to be written to somehow favor the interpretation that the U.S. is a "democratic republic". Actually, according to Karl Marx, the US has been a communist country for sometime. Karl said any country that practiced 6 or more planks of the 10 planks of communism (in any way direct or indirect) was in fact practicing communism. The 10 planks are listed below and I don't see how we aren't practicing ALL of them in some way or another.

So, if we are all really communists (please note that none of the 10 planks states communism MUST be like that of the former Soviet Union - just becasue it is not violently totalitarian doesn't mean it's not communism - also note that all of the planks are not necessarily "bad", but many seem unsustainable, Utopic, and far too centralized), the only question left is, "When will the famine come to fruition here?" Think about it...


1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose. Property Taxes –fully implemented

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Income Taxes – fully implemented

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. – partially implemented via death/inheritance taxes

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. – partially implemented via current confiscation laws

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. – fully implemented via the Federal Reserve

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State. – Fully implemented via FCC, DOT, etc.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. – Fully implemented via Corporate Taxes (50% of profit) and corporate farming

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture. fully implemented via Women’s rights, migrant workers, etc.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country - fully implemented via corporate farms and "urbanization" of almost all cities regardless of size, etc.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc. almost fully implemented via Public Schools

Before I answer, define Democratic.

IG

joeknowledge:

1) No. All rent has not been applied to the public good. People still buy houses and pay rent to private parties. Granted, private ownership has been successfully attacked of late, but the fact is we still have the right to buy and sell property and keep the money for ourselves.

2) If there has been any advanced culture that didn't have taxes I'm unaware of it. The fact that we tax the wealthy more is something most on the Left here would thoroughly disagree with.

3) Just because we pay inheritance taxes doesn't mean that we don't get an inheritance. Again, this is an assertion the folks on the Left would laugh at.

4) Back that one up. We haven't nationalized anything, and foriegn interests own a lot of stuff in the US. Again, something that the extremes of both sides would deride.

5) Wrong. Credit is overseen, that doesn't mean it is centralized. When I borrow money it comes from private interests. If I default, it is to private interests who take what I have. This has even moved further from socialism of late.

6) Wrong. Oversight doesn't mean "centralization". With the exception of public transportation, which represents a piddly-ass amount of transportation, it is still in private hands. Most of the rail in the US is privately owned. Commercial transportation is privately owned. If I own a business and need X moved from point a to point b, I don't go to the government, I go to private interests. If I want to travel from point a to point b, I buy my ticket from private interests.

7) Taxation is not centralization, again. If anything corporate interests control MORE of the government than the government controls them. The means of production and the administration of such is still in private hands.

8) Nope. Unionized labor is private, and doesn't have any intention of turning over the reigns to the government. This one you don't even touch. After 30 years very, very few strides have been made to even protect the classes you mention.

9) Those "advances" you mention are the result of private enterprise absorbing other private enterprise, and only works if you consider corporations "government", which is patently silly. Whether cities are urbanized is up to the cities themselves, and it isn't imposed by anyone but those within who vote for "metro" status within their county.

As for population distribution it is also patently obvious that you are way off base. We do NOT live in a proletariat society, and if we did, we do not live and work at the behest of the state. When I need to get a job, I go to the newspaper, not my local bureaucrat. Our population distribution is no different than it would have been in any major civilization.

10) Another of the points far-Leftists would scoff at. IF this is the standard than any civilized nation with child labor laws and public education would apply. If anything we are robbing our children of vocational education.

Sorry, there's nothing there that applies.

Apparently "Joe User (anonymous user) just proved that he is an idiot who can't stay on topic.

Prove either of these statements wrong: "God exists" or "God does not exist". It can't be done it is impossible to "prove" either right or wrong. Although I may not disagree with you, not being able to "prove" something is wrong (or right) does not make it gospel. Try using something like that in a court and you'll go nowhere with it...

Did you even understand the question stated in the article? It was a point of historical fact and you respond with philosophical rhetoric which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at all.

The question stated in one of historical reference not philosophical pondering. Facts can be proven or disproven with a little thing called research. The question regarded historical fact not some vague philosophical nonsense.

Back on topic now.

Personally, I am not an expert in history, but I can't think of any examples to contradict the stated information.

What was Ireland during the potato famine? What about the Confederacy (south during civil war, whatever it was called)?

As for joe's argument about proving god's existence (or lack thereof), the problem with that is that much of the proof (either way) relies on faith, making it all subjective. Generally speaking it is easier to prove something is instead of isn't, but both can be done. Assuming of course it is true in the first place, it should be rather hard to prove a falsehood as true (not that it hasn't happened before).

What was Ireland during the potato famine?

That's the problem with the question. There is no straght definition of Democracy. The famine hit in 1846, and Ireland was governed by England which at that time was a Parliamentary form of governmet. So the case could be made that a democratic country had a famine if a colony counts as part of the country.

The Confederacy could also be a democratic form of government. But again, was it a valid government.

Also Hitler was elected as chancellor. He then passed laws giving him supreme power. Yes the validity is in question, but he was elected and then waged war on France. A republic (democratic)

There is also the war of 1812, although that is a bit stick in definition of democracy..

IG

There's plenty of room to believe that total famine wouldn't have happened in Ireland if the English hadn't wanted it to be so. Beyond the fact that they knowingly witheld aid and jailed the Irish for trying to feed themselves almost any other way, Ireland had been beaten down to the point of starvation before the blight.

It's an argument for another blog, but my belief that the Irish were purposely, needlessly starved by the British over the course of decades, and the famine was incedental. In that case I would call it a case of genocide, and not famine.

Re: the confederacy, I don't think they really had any political choice to direct the course of their nation once the war started and the government was formed. You could also say that it was the deprivation of self-rule that brought about the division to begin with. I think most Southern voters at the time would say that they left the Union because they felt it was no longer a real democracy.

Hitler discarded all the pretenses he used to get elected, and the people couldn't have ever gotten rid of him if they could. I don't feel that there was any true Democracy involved, though out of fear or complacency the German people went along with his totalitarian rule.

To me, the war of 1812 is tough. England had a monarch, but they were also Democratic. For that matter, the Spanish-American war? If I am not mistaken, Spain was a democracy at the time, even though they had a monarch like Britain did.

I guess you could disqualify them based on the monarch, though, which brings us back to the original question of what is Democracy in terms of the question.

England had a monarch, but they were also Democratic.

The "problem" with england is that there is no set date when the Parliment took over the reigns from the Monarch. Is was around the turn of the century though.

IG

What about the Confederacy (south during civil war, whatever it was called)?

That could kind of qualify, except they will say that was a Civil war, and not a war between sovereign nations.

That could kind of qualify, except they will say that was a Civil war, and not a war between sovereign nations.

That one really depends on whos perspective you're looking at it from. From the South's point of view, they were a sovereign nation. They had their own government, military, and currency so technically it really wasn't a civil war by definition.

But wasnt the Souths President appointed and not elected? Just not sure. That would make it something other than an elected Democracy I think. Maybe Im wrong but just checking.

That one really depends on whos perspective you're looking at it from. From the South's point of view, they were a sovereign nation. They had their own government, military, and currency so technically it really wasn't a civil war by definition.

The South will rise again!

But wasnt the Souths President appointed and not elected? Just not sure. That would make it something other than an elected Democracy I think. Maybe Im wrong but just checking.

From Wikipedia:

Davis was elected to a six-year term as president of the Confederacy on November 6, 1861.

I think you have to consider that the South was part of the nation it was fighting against before the fighting started. I think I am aiming at the point that two independant nations who were Democracies have not declared war on each other. So I don't think it was a Nation declaring war on another nation, it was a succession of part of a nation and then the former trying to force them not to.

The point is that Democracies don't fight each other. A very interesting point. And should Iraq become one, then what might that mean in the future? One less threat? And the Famine point was VERY interesting, leading one to think that maybe Democracies take better care of their citizens than other types.

Two very interesting facts.