2006-12-28 07:55:47 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
What is so wrong with a stable democracy?
2006-12-28 07:59:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
A prisoner knows stability. He knows what is going to happen every day.
Democracy is mob rule and not stable.
The perfect balance was created 230 years ago.
Freedon isn't free. Too many Americans forget that fact.
2006-12-28 17:04:14 · answer #2 · answered by john galt 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
STABILITY
Consider this:
Iraq under Saddam (Dictatorship but stability)
> Electricity
> Food
> Water
> Education
> Law abiding citizens
> Gun control
> Healthy employment
> Peace and stability
Bush's Iraq (Democracy)
> Kidnappings
> Car bombings
> Bloody deaths
> A gun for every man
> Stale bread
> Piss for water
> No electricity
> No education (dreams destroyed)
> Curfew
> Civil war
There you go! Stability, of course!
2006-12-28 16:00:52 · answer #3 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Well, I'm gonna be a little detail queen right here. America isn't a Democracy. It's a Republic. I think if you phrased it stability vs freedom it'd have been easier for me to answer. But I can sum it up by saying...
2006-12-28 16:00:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
You can't have Democracy without stability.
2006-12-28 15:57:49 · answer #5 · answered by BORED AT WORK 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
To the average person trying to lead a normal life, feed their children and live: stability.
For me (a college educated American with a cushy job and a fantastic standard of living): "Democracy" (or as Americans know it, representative republic) all the way
2006-12-28 16:28:55 · answer #6 · answered by Mrs. Bass 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Fancy wording. Whatever is being practiced here is neither nor is the capacity present to effect either. First deal with the corrupt, then everything else will follow. I don't mean give them forty acres and a mule. And start with ' government '.
2006-12-28 15:58:08 · answer #7 · answered by vanamont7 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Democracy by a long shot.
2006-12-28 15:57:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Was it Franklin who said that "He who would who would trade security for liberty (roughly synonymous words to the above which go to the essence of your question) deserves neither"? I would go with that and against the creeping fascism of Dictator Dumbya.
2006-12-28 16:29:57 · answer #9 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Freedom at all costs. Even if it means killing our current leadership. Even if it means blowing up the whole planet. Freedom and democracy forever.
2006-12-28 15:58:47 · answer #10 · answered by Stop K 1 · 0⤊ 4⤋