Thank you.

Just because you have a majority-elected, Democratic government does not mean that its not succeptible to corruption and tyrany.

Think about it this way: If Bush would have repealed the laws for a 3rd term in office, and won, somehow, do you think that would have been majority rule? Democratic instituions are still made of humans, therefore corruptible. We just passed a sweeping healthcare bill that was opposed by the majority of Americans (and I can provide many polls that show this), and ratified by many members of congress that were paid off for their votes (not just the Louisiana Purchase, or the Cornhusker deal, but we're now learning that Stupak and the pro-lifers were bought off with nearly $4b USD of earmarks). Was that democracy in action?

Admittedly, I don't think such actions are deserving of death, or the overthrow of government, but the question begs to be asked: How far is too far? After all, Hugo Chavez was elected in a democratic election, and Venezuala is still a democracy, but you cannot convince me that the people are the ones in control of the government.

@mrstickball. Hugo Chavez has taken control of the media, the united states government has never done that. As soon as you take the media as a propaganda mouthpiece you can not have free and fair elections.

If Bush had removed the law for a third term and won then yes it would be democracy. I don't think he'd be able to win if he removed that law though.

Ah, but what if Bush rigged the elections ala Chavez?

And for reference, a federal bailout of newspapers is under consideration by the Obama administration, so that scenario is not far away.

Give me a break. The thing is we protest in America and then go have a bbq or something. We don't break into buildings or burn cars like you Euros. Freedom from the govt not govt freedom is a tradition here for 250+ years and is a political past time.

What about the lib Kristallnacht against Whip Cantor done by an Obamite and donor I might add? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/29/AR2010032903815.html But I guess that is just too far-fetched to believe.

Remember in November.

Modern democracies allow political representation for almost all individuals and only deny reperesentation for justifiable reasons.  In the USA, age limit and felony record are taken into consideration for allowing people to vote, and even felony record is in dispute in the US.

Slavery is not an example of a of democracy as part of the population is unjustifiablely removed from the voting process.  For example, the Confederate states of America was just as democratic as the Soviet Union, the CSA only allowing white males to vote and the Soviet Union only allowing communist party members to vote, thus an overthrow of these government types by the majority is justifiable.

Then it would be illegal.

If there were not solid safeguards in the bailout against government interference in those papers then you would have a right to protest, it's a breach of freedom of the press. In fact I'd thoroughly encourage protesting it. However at the moment it's entirely unfounded speculation.

Tell that to homosexuals. It's not impossible at all. I'm not advocating an overthrow of the US government, I'm only arguing that there can be reasons to overthrow a democracy.

Manus made the argument that there is never a reason to overthrow a democracy. I listed a reason why he was wrong. The US government and its civil rights laws really have nothing to do with it.

Funny that the first arrest in this wave manus is complaining about hitting only democrats was a person that threated a republican.

That's actually not what Godwin's law states, it just states that any arguement on the internet, if given enough time will eventually lead to one side comparing the other to nazis.

It doesn't actually judge validity off it though often times people see the person who pulls out the nazi card first loses because they ran out of arguements.