Rod Speed
@com
annily
> I vote him for president of Australia.
First things first. Let's get agreement on a republic, then worry about
a president.
--
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.
Clocky
"@com" <@here.com> wrote in message
news:%lO_m.65812$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>I vote him for president of Australia.
Don't forget his presidential advisors Google and Yahoo...
SG1
Make it Australasia, then when elected we can withdraw & leave the Kiwis
with him.
son of a bitch
> I vote him for president of Australia.
geez, get a room!!
I don't do wombats
Please don't feed the trolls.
Superman
> I vote him for president of Australia.
Please take your medication. That's a good chap!
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com
"We stopped the boats coming. The facts speak for themselves. People knew where we stood. We didn't try to be all things to all men. Look, our policy worked. There was no need to alter it" - John Howard
"Our journalists are finally noticing the elephant in the room. Rudd has given us grocery watch, fuel watch, a national dept our children will still be paying, an ETS scheme that will further bankrupt the nation without making an iota of difference to global warming. Rudd is all spin and no substance. Even worse, he expects to fool all people all the time." - media comment
"I don't care what you f__kers think!" - The Hon Kevin Rudd MP, Prime Minister of Australia
Ned Latham
> @com wrote:
> >
> > I vote him for president of Australia.
>
> First things first. Let's get agreement on a republic,
Fuck that republic bullshit: if it happens it'll just be a cosmetic
change, and we'll still be stuck with the elective oligarchy that we
have now. I want us to have democracy.
----snip----
Ned Latham
Hunter
Fucking hell, you live!!!!!!
annily
> Ned Latham wrote:
>> annily wrote:
>>> @com wrote:
>>>> I vote him for president of Australia.
>>> First things first. Let's get agreement on a republic,
>>
>> Fuck that republic bullshit: if it happens it'll just be a cosmetic
>> change, and we'll still be stuck with the elective oligarchy that we
>> have now. I want us to have democracy.
>>
Funny, I thought we already had a democracy.
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > annily wrote:
> > > @com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I vote him for president of Australia.
> > >
> > > First things first. Let's get agreement on a republic,
> >
> > Fuck that republic bullshit: if it happens it'll just be a cosmetic
> > change, and we'll still be stuck with the elective oligarchy that we
> > have now. I want us to have democracy.
>
Never stopped, China.
Ned Latham
> Hunter wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > annily wrote:
> > > > @com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I vote him for president of Australia.
> > > >
> > > > First things first. Let's get agreement on a republic,
> > >
> > > Fuck that republic bullshit: if it happens it'll just be a cosmetic
> > > change, and we'll still be stuck with the elective oligarchy that we
> > > have now. I want us to have democracy.
>
> Funny, I thought we already had a democracy.
You thought? I very much doubt it. If you had, you'd know the situation.
You'd know, for example, that the establishment and their media whores
lie to us about everything. And that includes democracy.
"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.
Google the terms "elective oligarchy" and "tyranny". That should give
you food for some *real* thought.
Ned Latham
invinoveritas
Seconded
annily
Your definition of "democracy" is too narrow. Here is the full entry
from the Macquarie Dictionary, Third Edition:
-----
democracy
/duh'mokruhsee/
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 or by their elected
agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government.
3. (in a restricted sense) a state in which the supreme power is vested
in the people and exercised directly by them rather than by elected
representatives.See republic (def. 1). .
4. a state of society characterised by formal equality of rights and
privileges.
5. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
6. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged
class; the common people with respect to their political power.
[French d�mocratie, from Greek demokrat�a popular government, from demo-
DEMO- + -krat�a rule, authority
----
Note that "or by their elected agents under a free electoral system" in
definition 1.
>
> Google the terms "elective oligarchy" and "tyranny". That should give
> you food for some *real* thought.
>
Irrelevant to the definition of "democracy"
Ned Latham
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.)
2. The Macquarie is heavily influenced by political correctness.
You have chosen a flawed authority.
> democracy
> /duh'mokruhsee/
Wrong. It is de'mokruhsee.
> 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
Correct up to that point.
> or by their elected
> agents under a free electoral system.
Wrong. Democracy is not implemented by representative systems.
----snip----
> > Google the terms "elective oligarchy" and "tyranny". That should give
> > you food for some *real* thought.
>
> Irrelevant to the definition of "democracy"
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.
Similarly. you will find that "tyranny" matches the reality here.
If, having looked up "elective oligarchy" and "tyranny" you still
"think" that this country is a democrcy, take the time to explain
to us what is democratic about the power of the Attorney-General
to order the spooks to make anyone he chooses disappear.
Ned Latham
annily
What the Ancient Greeks called democracy is irrelevant. If you want to
win an argument legitimately, you have to use what is understood by the
word now, otherwise people won't know what you are talking about.
You can win any argument with your own understanding of words.
> 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.
>> democracy
>> /duh'mokruhsee/
>
> Wrong. It is de'mokruhsee.
>
Not in Australia. The first vowel is a schwa.
>> 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".
> 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.
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > annily 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
SG1
"Ned Latham" <n...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote in message
news:slrnhk2gs2...@woden.valhalla.oz...
Why is Rod still here???? Just thought I might readdress the original Q.
Ned Latham
> 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
Ned Latham
> 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
z1
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. :)
annily
Apparently you don't accept that words change their meaning over time,
unlike realists.
>> 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
I am not a political scientst, so I will use the widely accepted meaning
of the term.
> I repeat: this is not about "definitions" arrived at by accepting misuses
> of words.
It is not misuse, it's a widely-accepted current use.
>
>>>> democracy
>>>> /duh'mokruhsee/
>>> Wrong. It is de'mokruhsee.
>> Not in Australia.
>
> Wrong. *I* am Australian.
And you're probably one of a small number of Australians who rhyme the
first vowel with that in "bet".
>
>
> What is democratic about the power of the Attorney-General
> to order the spooks to make anyone he chooses disappear?
>
With your definition of "democracy", nothing.
So to sum up, with your definition of democracy, Australia is not one.
With mine, and that of many others, it is.
Hence, no further point in arguing. Goodbye.
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > annily wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
----snip----
> > > > 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.
>
> Apparently you don't accept that words change their meaning over time,
> unlike realists.
With some intelligence and research, you might possibly have come to a
*correct* conclusion. The system that is alleged to be operating in
Australia is called "representative democracy". In common parlance,
and in propaganda, that is shortened to "democracy", but that doesn't
make "democracy" an accurate description of it, especially in debate.
> > > 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.
Your surreptitious snip is restored, weasel.
> I am not a political scientst, so I will use the widely accepted meaning
> of the term.
Answer the point made, you weasel: yhe subject and the forum both make
the *precise* definition appropriate, and the "widely accepted" misuse
inappropriate.
> > I repeat: this is not about "definitions" arrived at by accepting
> > misuses of words.
>
> It is not misuse, it's a widely-accepted current use.
Wide accepteance does not undo the fact that it is a misuse. And
FYI, it's no accidental misuse: it was deliberately engendered for
the purpose of masking the reality, which is oligarchic tyranny.
> > > > > democracy
> > > > >
> > > > > /duh'mokruhsee/
> > > >
> > > > Wrong. It is de'mokruhsee.
> > >
> > > Not in Australia.
> >
> > Wrong. *I* am Australian.
>
> And you're probably one of a small number
Small number? When did you conduct your survey?
> of Australians who rhyme the
> first vowel with that in "bet".
So you admit that it *is* current in Australia.
More surreptitious snippage, I see. Not too good at honesty or facing
a challenge, are you?
> > What is democratic about the power of the Attorney-General
> > to order the spooks to make anyone he chooses disappear?
>
> With your definition of "democracy", nothing.
Correct. Also with your definition. In fact, it's pure tyranny.
But you won't face that.
> So to sum up, with your definition of democracy, Australia is not one.
Correct. Also with yours, had you the wherewithal to see it.
> With mine, and that of many others, it is.
Wrong. Perhaps you're unaware that the practise does not follow the
theory. It is the practise that justifies the terms "tyranny" and
"elective oligarchy".
> Hence, no further point in arguing. Goodbye.
Larf. You have no argument, just your gullible acceptance of propaganda.
I told you: the establishment and their media whores lies to us about
everything.
Ned Latham
annily
OK, I said there was no point in further discussion, but I'll make two
further observations:
1. If you are arguing with someone in a forum like this (not a political
science forum), you should not expect that person to understand how a
person in a particular speciality (such as political science) defines a
particular term when that term may have a different meaning in the
general community.
2. You are an arrogant arsehole.
Ned Latham
Since you can't or won't address the points made:
----snip----
> OK, I said there was no point in further discussion, but I'll make
> two further observations:
Where are they? All I see is preaching and abuse.
> 1. If you are arguing with someone in a forum like this (not a
> political science forum),
Agreed, This stuff is off charter for this group. Mea culpa.
> you should not expect that person to
> understand how a person in a particular speciality (such as
> political science)
The basics of Political Science are no mystery: it's not Rocket Science,
you know.
> defines a particular term when that term may
> have a different meaning in the general community.
You and one other poster responded to my comment. He understood my
meaning perfectly. Don't pretend that your ignorance somehow makes
my use of the term esoteric.
> 2. You are an arrogant arsehole.
Tch. Sore loser.
Ned Latham
@com
"Ned Latham" <n...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote in message
news:slrnhk6lpn...@woden.valhalla.oz...
He`s a great man that couldnt be bothered
to reply to you at this moment.!
May be sleeping/snoring...zzzzzzzzzzzzz
@com
"@com" <@here.com> wrote in message
news:uTM0n.67048$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
He`s my dad..sometimes.