From: Ned Latham on
annily wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > annily wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:

----snip----

> > > > "Democracy" has a very clear and precise definition: it means
> > > > "the people rule"; it does *not* mean "the people get to choose
> > > > which gang of crooks and liars *rule them* for the next term of
> > > > office".
> > > >
> > > > This country is not a democracy: "the people rule" means, essentially,
> > > > that every citizen is a partner in the governance of the nation, but
> > > > we the people have virtually no say on any issue whatever. For example, we
> > > > had no say in it when the government gave themselves the power to use
> > > > the Army against us, and we had no say in it when the government gave
> > > > themselves the power to make us disappear.
> > > >
> > > > This country is not a democracy: we the people have virtually no say
> > > > in what the law is, what treaties bind us, or even in the running of
> > > > our daily lives. This country is an elective oligarchy and a tyranny.
> > >
> > > Your definition of "democracy" is too narrow. Here is the full entry
> > > from the Macquarie Dictionary, Third Edition:
> >
> > Two things:
> >
> > 1. Dictionaries describe popular use of words. They do not prescribe
> > them definitively.
> >
> > And this is not about "definitions" arrived at by accepting misuses
> > of words. This is about what democracy really is.
> >
> > (In case you're interested, democracy was invented, and "democracy"
> > was coined, 2,620 years ago, in Athens.)
>
> What the Ancient Greeks called democracy is irrelevant.

Wrong. They who invented it are the ones who get to define it.

> If you want to
> win an argument legitimately, you have to use what is understood by the
> word now,

You can eat your weaselling words. I am using the accepted meaning in
terms of politcial science, which is appropriate given that the subject
is political; there is no good reason to replace that firm definition
with a local misunderstanding of the term.

I repeat: this is not about "definitions" arrived at by accepting misuses
of words.

> otherwise people won't know what you are talking about.

Your own source gave my definition. See 3.

> You can win any argument with your own understanding of words.

You will not win this one by accusing me falsely. I told you to look up
the terms "elective oligarchy" and "tyranny". As to "democracy", you
should look that up too, in a prescriptive source.

> > 2. The Macquarie is heavily influenced by political correctness.
> >
> > You have chosen a flawed authority.
>
> LOL. We are in an group intended for Australians, talking about the
> policical system in Australia, and you don't recognise the commonly-
> accepted authority on Australian English.

Wrong. I recognise it for what it is: a flawed authority.

> > > democracy
> > > /duh'mokruhsee/
> >
> > Wrong. It is de'mokruhsee.
>
> Not in Australia.

Wrong. *I* am Australian.

> The first vowel is a schwa.

As in Uh-limpik, uh-lection, uh-legal, and other cretinous mispronunciations
pushed at us from the idiot box?

Forget it: I'm an Australian, not an idiot.

> > > noun
> > > (plural democracies)
> > > 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme
> > > power is vested in the people and exercised by them
> >
> > Your carping and flawed definition are the irrelevancies here.
> >
> > This country is not a democracy: it is an elective oligarchy, and
> > if you google that term (which is absent from the Macquarie), you
> > will find a description that matches the political system here.
>
> You don't seem to realise that it is both a democracy and an "elective
> oligarchy". The terms are not mutually exclusive, except by your
> out-of-date and no-longer-widely-used meaning of "democracy".

Wrong. "Oligarchy" means "the rule of the few": it can in no way be
associated with democracy. Try to understand this: elections do not
democracy make.

> > Similarly. you will find that "tyranny" matches the reality here.
>
> Rubbish. If you really think Australia is a tyranny, move to a country
> that really is.

Rubbish yourself. If you think that Australia is *not* a tyranny, answer
the question you surrepttiously snipped:

What is democratic about the power of the Attorney-General
to order the spooks to make anyone he chooses disappear?

Ned Latham
From: SG1 on

"Ned Latham" <ned(a)woden.valhalla.oz> wrote in message
news:slrnhk2gs2.joa.champ(a)woden.valhalla.oz...
> annily wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>> > annily wrote:
>> > > Ned Latham wrote:
>
> ----snip----
>
>> > > > "Democracy" has a very clear and precise definition: it means
>> > > > "the people rule"; it does *not* mean "the people get to choose
>> > > > which gang of crooks and liars *rule them* for the next term of
>> > > > office".
>> > > >
>> > > > This country is not a democracy: "the people rule" means,
>> > > > essentially,
>> > > > that every citizen is a partner in the governance of the nation,
>> > > > but
>> > > > we the people have virtually no say on any issue whatever. For
>> > > > example, we
>> > > > had no say in it when the government gave themselves the power to
>> > > > use
>> > > > the Army against us, and we had no say in it when the government
>> > > > gave
>> > > > themselves the power to make us disappear.
>> > > >
>> > > > This country is not a democracy: we the people have virtually no
>> > > > say
>> > > > in what the law is, what treaties bind us, or even in the running
>> > > > of
>> > > > our daily lives. This country is an elective oligarchy and a
>> > > > tyranny.
>> > >
>> > > Your definition of "democracy" is too narrow. Here is the full entry
>> > > from the Macquarie Dictionary, Third Edition:
>> >
>> > Two things:
>> >
>> > 1. Dictionaries describe popular use of words. They do not prescribe
>> > them definitively.
>> >
>> > And this is not about "definitions" arrived at by accepting misuses
>> > of words. This is about what democracy really is.
>> >
>> > (In case you're interested, democracy was invented, and "democracy"
>> > was coined, 2,620 years ago, in Athens.)
>>
>> What the Ancient Greeks called democracy is irrelevant.
>
> Wrong. They who invented it are the ones who get to define it.
>
>> If you want to
>> win an argument legitimately, you have to use what is understood by the
>> word now,
>
> You can eat your weaselling words. I am using the accepted meaning in
> terms of politcial science, which is appropriate given that the subject
> is political; there is no good reason to replace that firm definition
> with a local misunderstanding of the term.
>
> I repeat: this is not about "definitions" arrived at by accepting misuses
> of words.
>
>> otherwise people won't know what you are talking about.
>
> Your own source gave my definition. See 3.
>
>> You can win any argument with your own understanding of words.
>
> You will not win this one by accusing me falsely. I told you to look up
> the terms "elective oligarchy" and "tyranny". As to "democracy", you
> should look that up too, in a prescriptive source.
>
>> > 2. The Macquarie is heavily influenced by political correctness.
>> >
>> > You have chosen a flawed authority.
>>
>> LOL. We are in an group intended for Australians, talking about the
>> policical system in Australia, and you don't recognise the commonly-
>> accepted authority on Australian English.
>
> Wrong. I recognise it for what it is: a flawed authority.
>
>> > > democracy
>> > > /duh'mokruhsee/
>> >
>> > Wrong. It is de'mokruhsee.
>>
>> Not in Australia.
>
> Wrong. *I* am Australian.
>
>> The first vowel is a schwa.
>
> As in Uh-limpik, uh-lection, uh-legal, and other cretinous
> mispronunciations
> pushed at us from the idiot box?
>
> Forget it: I'm an Australian, not an idiot.
>
>> > > noun
>> > > (plural democracies)
>> > > 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the
>> > > supreme
>> > > power is vested in the people and exercised by them
>> >
>> > Your carping and flawed definition are the irrelevancies here.
>> >
>> > This country is not a democracy: it is an elective oligarchy, and
>> > if you google that term (which is absent from the Macquarie), you
>> > will find a description that matches the political system here.
>>
>> You don't seem to realise that it is both a democracy and an "elective
>> oligarchy". The terms are not mutually exclusive, except by your
>> out-of-date and no-longer-widely-used meaning of "democracy".
>
> Wrong. "Oligarchy" means "the rule of the few": it can in no way be
> associated with democracy. Try to understand this: elections do not
> democracy make.
>
>> > Similarly. you will find that "tyranny" matches the reality here.
>>
>> Rubbish. If you really think Australia is a tyranny, move to a country
>> that really is.
>
> Rubbish yourself. If you think that Australia is *not* a tyranny, answer
> the question you surrepttiously snipped:
>
> What is democratic about the power of the Attorney-General
> to order the spooks to make anyone he chooses disappear?
>
> Ned Latham

Why is Rod still here???? Just thought I might readdress the original Q.


From: Ned Latham on
SG1 wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:

----snip----

Please - *anyone* who thinks that Australia is a democracy - feel free
to answer:

> > What is democratic about the power of the Attorney-General
> > to order the spooks to make anyone he chooses disappear?
>
> Why is Rod still here???? Just thought I might readdress the original Q.

He's pretty good at dealing with Winblows problems. Not sure he qualifies
for Australian HoS, but.

Ned
From: Ned Latham on
SG1 wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:

----snip----

Please - *anyone* who thinks that Australia is a democracy - feel free
to answer:

> > What is democratic about the power of the Attorney-General
> > to order the spooks to make anyone he chooses disappear?
>
> Why is Rod still here???? Just thought I might readdress the original Q.

He's pretty good at dealing with Winblows problems. Not sure he qualifies
for Australian HoS, but.

Ned
From: z1 on
Ned Latham wrote:
> SG1 wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>
> ----snip----
>
> Please - *anyone* who thinks that Australia is a democracy - feel free
> to answer:
>
>>> What is democratic about the power of the Attorney-General
>>> to order the spooks to make anyone he chooses disappear?
>> Why is Rod still here???? Just thought I might readdress the original Q.
>
> He's pretty good at dealing with Winblows problems. Not sure he qualifies
> for Australian HoS, but.
>
> Ned

Rod is OK and he might make a good AU Prez.
The Office often makes The Man.
At least he tries to be helpful here in his own perfectly fine eccentric
way. So why shoot The Messenger ?

Happy New Year Rod. :)
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Go wii
Next: Email response management software