Oh I know, I just wanted to point out I was one of those.

is that like a double negative?  So now Charles is in Charge?

Shouldn't some left-winger come on around now to try to insist that we're all part of the "fringe right wing nuts of JU?"

Liberals, contrary to their beliefs, aren't the majority. They're only apparently 47% of the population.

This year I was supposed to hire five people to launch my E-book publishing house. Now that we have Obama care, I was only able to give a $2000 bonus to my employees, and not hire new staff. I guess I just became a graphic artist, editor, proof reader,writer, and publicist. All the ones I had interviewed are poor, two on welfarelooking for a way out. hell, for of them were white. (just so you don't think i discriminate) anyway since I don't know how bad it will be I will have to hold off hiring until the laws stabilize, maybe wait till the next presidential election. For me to hire a person at 50k I have to have 80K in profits, since Mr. Obama does not like it when companies make a profit, I can't hire anyone.

Oh, and I am part of the 47% that don't pay taxes. Thanks for the 154 dollar refund.

So that is where my $365 payment went to!

The Movies?  I can only afford Chicken McNuggets!

Because I wanted to know what qualifies a "poor" people, income-wise, in the USA, and if the breakdown was before or after the 47%. If you happened to HAVE a fixed limit of income defining "poor", and not simply taking the X% poorest and defining them as the "poor" class of a nation, that would have been limited.

In the end, I was curious to see the % of poor of your country, and checking if what was qualified as "poor" would pay taxes (meaning there were more than 47% of poor in your country), or, the other way around, many people who weren't considered as "poor" still did not paid taxes.

But the point is nill, because of the stupid definition of being poor described by Guy.

I wasn't ranting against you. I do not shoot the messenger

I was ranting about the stupid definition.

Government does what it does because it is exactly what we want done only we are not smart enough to know it.

Hey, you got the system that you voted for.

(not talkin' about the party, but the system)

Monarchy is not technically a form of government but a form of state. Monarchies are different from republics in that the sovereign is not the people (as it is in a republic) but a prince (possibly even a foreign prince) of some kind.

The United States and the (past) Soviet Union are republics, but the Soviet Union wasn't democratic.

The United Kingdom and Saudi-Arabia are both monarchies, but the United Kingdom is not a dictatorship.

Both monarchies and republics can be democracies (or representative democracies). And both can be dictatorships or anything in between.

My own definition of "dictatorship" puts in contrast to legitimate government, which in my opinion doesn't have to be democratic. I define a "dictatorship" as any system in which the ruler's power is limited neither by a constitution nor by tradition. (Both a constitution and traditions may allow for elections as a method to control the ruler.)

North-Korea is a republic. As is Libya and Saddam's Iraq. Jordan and Luxemburg are not. Nevertheless I consider the last two states with legitimate governments. (I don't consider the Saudi "king" legitimate. He says the constitution is the Quran, but in reality Saudi power is limited by absolutely nothing.)

Personally, I like monarchy and democracy and accept a republic only as a worse alternative. I find that having the people be the sovereign only creates an imbalance when one group has power over another. (This is not a problem when the nation is formed by agreement as in the US or Switzerland.)

But the three most important features of any state are stability, justice, and democracy; in that order.

Those are easy words for those who live in a land as naturally safe as the USA.

Because your land is so naturally safe, it is easy to put freedom above safety.

About a form of government... hmm.. What do you think of the one proponed in Starship Troopers? (the book). The one where only people who gave parts of their lives to the government, but are no longer part of the service, can vote and take office?

I always thought people didn't took their voting right seriously because it was an automatically-granted right in our countries. Since it's so easy to have it, people don't value it.