On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:31:37 GMT, "Mark Jones" <
[email protected]> wrote:
>"Muttley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> It doesn't mean a thing.
>>
>> I have already explained and shown, how, whether a thing is a republic or
>> not,
>> has *no* bearing on whether or not it is a democracy.
>
>Then you have absolutely no understanding at all of what
>these two very different words mean.
I know exactly what the two words mean. You do not seem to understand what Raoul
is arguing about.
>The U.S. has never
>been a democracy, except for occasional state and local
>matters.
Well done, you've got that right.
>At the federal level, all decisions and votes are made my
>elected or appointed representatives. Not by direct votes
>by the citizens. To be a democracy would mean that we
>are allowed to directly vote on federal issues. Instead, we
>have elected people do the voting for us.
All that is quite correct, but has nothing whatever to do with the fact that
Raoul Duke has been pissing in the wind since he started up with "US is not a
democracy, it's a republic".
That's true, but rather meaningless because as I have patiently explained more
than once, the two are not mutually exclusive.
It's like saying: "A carrot is not a fruit, it's orange". The statement is true
- it even means something - just nothing sensible.
The failure to understand this is what seems to keep Raoul posting, and it seems
that you also cannot appreciate this rather simple concept.
Just to *try* and make it easy for you if you want to carry on:
1) The US is not, in general, a democracy
2) The US is a republic
3) The above two facts are not related. Either could be reversed while the other
remained true.
*That* is the point that I've been trying with very little success to get
accross to Raoul.