The original "goal post" had to do with whether Palin was justified in using the word "democracy" to describe the U.S.
Perhaps we disagree, but I see no problem in doing so. Certainly it would be incorrect to describe our nation as an "undemocratic constitutional republic".
EVERY elected representative is elected DEMOCRATICALLY, except the President and Vice-President (and perhaps just a few others).
Further, to suggest that there are democratic elements to our form of government, but that there are no democratic principles, is just a little too far out for me. Certainly there are SOME principles to our form of government. I would be very surprised if none of them could be described as "democratic principles".
But let's review, just in case...
William Tell said...When somebody asks, "Why does Palin keep on emphasizing that our nation is a republic and not a democracy", what short answer would you suggest that she give?
A completely, and intentional I might add, rhetorical question.
However, I deigned to answer it anyway by agreeing with the short, simple answer someone else gave...
Um... she could say, “America is a republic and not a democracy.”
Nice answer.
Easy.
It is, isn't it.
You obviously didn't like the answer.
It seems that it is your belief that she is justified in doing so, and you've gone to great lengths, to no benefit, to reinforce your belief and to convince me of that belief.
The change in goalposts that I was referencing was the one you established in reply #59.
William Tell stated...The reason we are a democratic republic...
...which was then moved at reply #68, to wit...
William Tell stated...We are, indeed, a democratic constitutional republic. (which is comical on it's face, IMO)
As I stated in reply #70...If you actually thought we were a "democratic constitutional republic" you would've responded in that manner from the get go...but you didn't, did you?
You changed the goalposts.
Certainly it would be incorrect to describe our nation (slick) as an "undemocratic constitutional republic".
Someone could describe "our nation" in such a manner, though that would be rather silly. But we're talking forms of government, not nations, aren't we. It would be just as incorrect to describe our form of government as a "democratic constitutional republic", as you did.
Further, to suggest that there are democratic elements to our form of government, but that there are no democratic principles, is just a little too far out for me. Certainly there are SOME principles to our form of government.
Perhaps you should be looking for the republican principles of our form of government. You know, things like limited government, private property rights, States rights, etc. Perhaps that's too far out there for you too.
So you're sticking with "America is a republic and not a democracy"?
I am certainly "sticking" with America's form of government as being a Republic and not a Democracy.
Without a further lengthy explanation...
There's nothing stopping you. You have time on your hands.
...people would be laughing at Palin, suggesting that there was no distinction between the U.S. and the various communist republics already mentioned.
You've got it, IMO, bass ackwards. By describing our form of government (a nation isn't a form of government though you've done a yoeman's job of trying to confound the two) as a Democracy she is the one suggesting that there is no distinction. People should be crying, not laughing.
"Democracy is the road to socialism." Karl Marx
"Democracy is indispensable to socialism." Vladimir Lenin