Why Communism & Democracy Don't Mix

Where are you getting your info related to Gilgamesh? Based on the period of time he is supposed to have lived, and ruled for over 125 years, it's highly unlikely the Epic of Gilgamesh was written prior to his existence. It's been many years since I was lectured on Gilgamesh, but I don't remember any mention of the form of government under his rule, after all he was a King and a demigod.

Hammurabi, the King of Babylon who created the first written laws, came to mind reading your post, but not Gilgamesh.

 

A Republic is a form, or kind, or type, or version of a Democracy. Why is that hard to understand?

 

There was a lot of time between Hamurabi and Gilgamesh, as in thousands of years. Gilgamesh did not live when the story was written. He lived long before that. The Cuniform records that are located at the University of Pennsylvania are not the only ones that exist. They say he lived about 4500 BC, or about 6500 years ago. But, there are other records, in non-fired tablets. These were discovered in Iraq and show Enuma Elish and Gilgamesh to be older. It is sort of like Plato saying Zoroaster lived 6800BC, and others claim he lived 1800BC. You are free to believe what you want. I still say a Republic is a type of Democracy.

 

Not necessarily.

 

Yes, a Republic is a form of Democracy. You are free to insist otherwise; however, you would fail Poli Sci 101.

 

Please try and post accurate historical data as it detracts from your believability relative to current events when you do not. The oldest fragment, as best I can find still remains dated to be from the 18th century BC, which would make it less than 4000 years old, and Gilgamesh as best I can find is still claimed to have existed between 2800 and 2500 BC. Hammurabi, on the other hand is claimed to have ruled from 1792 BC until his death in 1750 BC. If the dating you are presenting has been changed recently, please provide the source.

From my teachings interpreting the Constitution, the U.S.A. is a Constitutional Republic made up of Republics (Article IV, section 4) and employs a democratic process as the means of selecting those who will represent them in local and State government as well as their districts and States at the Federal level of government. In my opinion, government is meant to begin with the people, meaning the voters who elect persons who will represent them faithfully in creating and administering laws as consented to by the people. Laws at the Federal level applicable to all the States should be made very clear and concise, allowing for the States to administer them by the most efficient and cost effective means available.

 

Oh yes, I remember that constitution. They were talking about it at the Klan ralley. That constitution says black people are three fifths of a human being. Great constitution isn't it. I bet Oral Roberts, Jerry Fallwell, and Billy Graham all like it real well.

 

Ditto on this one. We see this exact thing happening every time there is an election. The majority of the people who vote elect the person who will represent them. So, in reality it is true that while we are supposedly guaranteed a "republican form of government" where the peoples interests are represented by those elected, democratic means are used to elect those who supposedly represent us.
I don't think it is the form of government that is the issue, it is the apathy of the people of any given country that allow whatever government ("government" being those people elected or appointed to office) they have to eventually ignore what the people want and need and insure they take care of themselves first. They are people too, and, hey, who wouldn't want an easy job with high pay, little effort required, little accountability, lots of ways around the rules, nepotism, etc., etc..
There really is no good form of government, they all become corrupt with time. The people need to keep a hand in what is going on, and see to it that the ones who stray from the founding documents are removed from office.
The problem with that is just try to get a group of people to agree that something needs to be done. Just look at any political discussion here, seldom will two people agree on any problem enough to find a solution to it.

 

Apathy is fine, as long as it isn't justified at pluralistic knowledge for our beliefs. What's worse is ....hmmm, not knowing how to declare a War against an explained aggression.

Actually communists had that problem too.

 

I agree with you on this one. Voter Apathy is a big issue in American politics. So is tyranny by the minority, a rich and influential minority.

 

There are no communist countries, just pseudo-communist totalitarian dictatorships that more resemble fascism in a lot of ways.

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Why+Communism+is+evil


Cuba is not repressed it's just a ghetto that cant afford international marketing beyond 90 miles.