Odd interaction with a road rager



"Curtis L. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:31:37 GMT, "Mark Jones"
> <[email protected]> wrote:


[...]

>> 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.


That's nonsense. Democracy means "rule of the people". There's nothing
inherent in that notion that says the entire people must directly
participate in decision making. That's why we differentiate between
participatory democracies and representative democracies.

> You are arguing two different sets of definitions. Yours matches
> pretty much what you get when discussing the two in Political Science
> 101 (contrary to Muttley's earlier comments). OTOH, his definitions
> are pretty much from the dictionary for commonly accepted definitions
> of the words, which removes nuance on one hand (so he can combine
> dictatorships and republics) and origins on the other.


The People's Republic of China is not a democracy. The constitutional
monarchy of Australia is a democracy. Did your political science lecturers
manage to cope with those two facts or did they simply avoid them as being
inconvenient?

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
"Curtis L. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:31:37 GMT, "Mark Jones"
> <[email protected]> wrote:


[...]

>> 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.


That's nonsense. Democracy means "rule of the people". There's nothing
inherent in that notion that says the entire people must directly
participate in decision making. That's why we differentiate between
participatory democracies and representative democracies.

> You are arguing two different sets of definitions. Yours matches
> pretty much what you get when discussing the two in Political Science
> 101 (contrary to Muttley's earlier comments). OTOH, his definitions
> are pretty much from the dictionary for commonly accepted definitions
> of the words, which removes nuance on one hand (so he can combine
> dictatorships and republics) and origins on the other.


The People's Republic of China is not a democracy. The constitutional
monarchy of Australia is a democracy. Did your political science lecturers
manage to cope with those two facts or did they simply avoid them as being
inconvenient?

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
"Raoul Duke" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Muttley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > The distinction that you keep talking about is not between 'republic' and
> > 'democracy', it is between 'absolute (or strict, if you prefer) democracy

> and
> > 'representative democracy'

>
> A "representative democracy" IS a republic, which is what I've said all
> along. Took you a while, but I think you finally got it. *Whew*
>
> > Let's hope that puts the matter to bed!

>
> God, I hope so. G'night.



I hate to tell you this, Dave, but Muttley is correct, and you are
getting your terminology confused.

Here in the UK, we are both a monarchy AND a representative democracy,
so your statement that:

"'representative democracy' IS a republic" simply cannot be correct.

That seems to have been the mistake you have been making all along.
There is, obviously, a distinction between a representative democracy
and a strict democracy, but saying there's a distinction between a
republic and a democracy is like saying there's a distintion between
'hot' and 'yellow'. There is, but it has no bearing on either the
colour or temperature of what you're talking about.

Perhaps I could try an analogy?

If I say a car is big, and you say: "No it isn't, it's blue", that is
an equivalent to what you are trying to do with your arguments here.

The distinction between big and blue is that one describes size and
one describes colour, so saying there is a distinction between the two
maybe true, in one way, but it is meaningless when talking about
whether or not a car is big, or blue.

In the same way, 'republic' relates to the attribute: "does the state
have a monarch", whereas 'democracy' relates to the attribute: "is
this state governed according to the will of the general populace".

So the distinction between 'republic' and 'democracy' is quite
irreleveant to whether or not a state is a democracy.

I hope this helps.

Mike
 
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:51:17 -0400, Curtis L. Russell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>snip
> (contrary to Muttley's earlier comments). OTOH, his definitions
>are pretty much from the dictionary for commonly accepted definitions
>of the words.


When arguing with people such as Raoul, I have found it's a very sensible
precaution to check the meaning of ever word in contention with MW.

>which removes nuance on one hand (so he can combine
>dictatorships and republics) and origins on the other.


It removes the variations caused by different people each having their own
personal take on the meaning of the word. I would always advise people to check
their definitions before arguing them.

>Because of where he is pulling his definitions.


i.e. The Merriam Webster Dictionary (an obscure little book - perhaps you've
heard of it ? )

>OTOOH, he is pulling common definitions to make his
>arguments incorrectly in the context.


Rubbish. I am using the dictionary definitions (which, as it happens were the
same as the ones I have been using for as long as I can remember).

> IOWs, he is now trolling.


Not at all. The trolling finished with your last post to this thread (which was
a lot better thought out than this one).

Since then I have been banging my head against a brick wall trying to explain to
Raoul that saying there is a 'distinction' between a republic and a democracy is
meaningless *as far as talking about whether or not a state is a democracy*.


Curtis, I would always advise checking definitions in a dictionary. You may be
quite happy with the definitions you've been using, and assuming 'correct' for
years, but if you start to argue a case, and after a lot of effort discover that
your opponents are using a different definition, and theirs is the one in the
dictionaries, you're going to find your argument going down the pan double
quick.

Trying to imply that everyone else should be using the definitions you prefer
when dictionaries are clear on the accepted meaning really will bring a serious
charge of weaseling.
 
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:54:22 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 07:12:42 GMT, [email protected] (Muttley)
>claims:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:39:36 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:50:17 GMT, [email protected] (Muttley)
>>>claims:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:44:31 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Take a good look at your boy Lurch. "Why the long face, John?"
>>>>> See how silly we all can get yet settle nothing?
>>>>
>>>>I wasn't trying to settle anything :)
>>>>
>>>>That is up to the population of the United States of America.
>>>>
>>>>Let's just hope that this time, the guy who gets most votes, gets the job.
>>>
>>> Oh, I can guarantee that the candidate getting the most
>>>electoral votes will be raising his hand

>>
>>Just a pity that you can't guarantee that it's the guy that most people cast
>>their votes for ;)

>
> Sure I can guarantee that. Just not in the United States.
>Bolivia, for instance.


What a crying shame that the US has to look to Bolivia for lessons in democracy!
 
I thought the terrorists threatened to attack us again unless we voted
for Bush. Didn't Cheney make that clear in a recent speech?

I'm getting confused. All this time I thought terrorists were pro-Bush.

Jack Dingler

S o r n i wrote:

>Ken [NY) wrote:
>
>
>
>>Bin Laden's plea to the US:
>>"ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"
>>
>>

>
>He better hope the US catches him and not these hard-asses:
>
>http://news.excite.com/odd/article/id/424964|oddlyenough|09-02-2004::09:09|reuters.html
>
>Bill "Geneva Confection?" S.
>
>
>
>
 
"Muttley" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> Since then I have been banging my head against a brick wall trying to

explain to
> Raoul that saying there is a 'distinction' between a republic and a

democracy is
> meaningless *as far as talking about whether or not a state is a

democracy*.

Thankfully, none of this really matters. What does matter is this:

Bush 52 %
Kerry 43 %

According to the latest Washington Post / ABC Polls

President Bush emerged from his New York convention with a solid lead over
Democratic challenger John F. Kerry, strengthening his position on virtually
every important issue in the campaign and opening up a clear advantage on
many of the personal characteristics that influence voters in presidential
elections, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

For the first time in a Post-ABC News poll this year, a majority of probable
voters say they plan to vote for Bush. Among those most likely to vote in
November, Bush holds a lead of 52 percent to 43 percent over Kerry, with
independent Ralph Nader receiving 2 percent of the hypothetical vote. Among
all registered voters, Bush leads Kerry 50 percent to 44 percent.

End of the day?

Kerry goes back to Mass, Bush stays in Washington.

Dave
 
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 01:46:01 -0700, "Raoul Duke" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Muttley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> Since then I have been banging my head against a brick wall trying to

>explain to
>> Raoul that saying there is a 'distinction' between a republic and a

>democracy is
>> meaningless *as far as talking about whether or not a state is a

>democracy*.
>
>Thankfully, none of this really matters.


I think he's got it at last !

Although, if it doesn't matter, I wonder why you were so keen to keep at it for
so long.
 
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:49:03 -0700, "Raoul Duke" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Muttley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Although, if it doesn't matter, I wonder why you were so keen to keep at

>it for
>> so long.

>
>Aw, c'mon now. Wasn't it fun?


A real giggle.

If you like that sort of thing, go to sci.math and ask if 1.999recurring is
equal to one.

or rec.scuba and ask if you should buy a spare air.


Hours of fun, and not even fattening!
 
[email protected] wrote:

> If you like that sort of thing, go to sci.math and ask if 1.999 recurring
> is equal to one.


I'm pretty sure everyone there will just say "no". Perhaps you meant 0.999
recurring? :)

--
Benjamin Lewis

I regret to say that we of the FBI are powerless to act in cases of
oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate
commerce. -- J. Edgar Hoover
 
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:10:45 -0700, Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> If you like that sort of thing, go to sci.math and ask if 1.999 recurring
>> is equal to one.

>
>I'm pretty sure everyone there will just say "no". Perhaps you meant 0.999
>recurring? :)


Yes :)

You see, I really wouldn't make that good a troll!
 
Ken [NY) wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 05:08:36 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
>claims:
>
>
>
>
>>S o r n i wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Ken [NY) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bin Laden's plea to the US:
>>>>"ANYBODY BUT BUSH!"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>He better hope the US catches him and not these hard-asses:
>>>
>>>http://news.excite.com/odd/article/id/424964|oddlyenough|09-02-2004::09:09|reuters.html
>>>
>>>Bill "Geneva Confection?" S.
>>>
>>>

>
>
>
>>I thought the terrorists threatened to attack us again unless we voted
>>for Bush. Didn't Cheney make that clear in a recent speech?
>>
>>I'm getting confused. All this time I thought terrorists were pro-Bush.
>>
>>Jack Dingler
>>
>>

>
> Oh, no doubt. After getting kicked out of Afghanistan, seeing
>all those Taliban killed, then losing over 70 percent of their own
>members to either capture or becoming room temperature because of Mr.
>Bush, the terrorists naturally HAD to become Bush backers.
>
>
>

The major news media has been reporting that the Taliban and Al Queda
have retaken much of Afghanistan with the US and the appointed
government staying in bases, near the oil infrastructure and protected
areas. They could be lying of course. You never know whta to believe in
the news, so much of it is invented political stuff.

The Northern Alliance of Poppy Growers and Heroin Producers that the US
backed, have been reported as funding the resistance.

But then at this point there seems to be an uneasy truce. They leave the
pipeles alone and we don't shell villages.

I think your info is just old, Ken.

I can't help but notice you have a derogatory sig line. Is this hate
speech against the French speaking peoples of the world?

Jack Dingler

>
>
> Good day. Or as John Kerry would say, bonjour.
>
>Ken (NY)
>
>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when
>the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact
>that we did disarm him."
> --John F. Kerry (ABC News, 5/4/03)
>
>email:
>http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
>
>spammers can send mail to [email protected]
>
>
 
Dave Mount wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:45:40 GMT, "S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >You snipped the claim that this was refuting. ("PArticularly if by "bin
> >Laden" you mean the Saudi bin Laden family who are such good and loyal
> >friends of Dubya that they were allowed to flee the country after 9/11 while
> >just about everything else was grounded...")

>
> It was purely laughing at the idiocy of allowing people to leave the country
> just because they didn't *say* they were terrorists.


Osama's father has 20 wives and Osama himself is one of 56 brothers and sisters. As
far as we know he is the only terrorist. The mere fact of being a blood relative of
his does not suffice to incrimminate a family the size of a large village.

I have plenty of other issues with Bush. Not least a recent documentary I saw which
showed a 10-fold increase in Al Qaida recruitment since the invasion of
Afghanistan. But this is really off-topic.

EFR
Ile de France
 
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:54:30 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>I'm getting confused. All this time I thought terrorists were pro-Bush.

>
> Oh, no doubt. After getting kicked out of Afghanistan, seeing
>all those Taliban killed, then losing over 70 percent of their own
>members to either capture or becoming room temperature because of Mr.
>Bush, the terrorists naturally HAD to become Bush backers.


The reason that the terrorist *leaders* want Bush re-elected is that he has
stirred up so much hatred amongst so many that the number of people available
for recruitment into terrorism has increased beyond their wildest dreams.

They hope that he will be re-elected, continue his current policies, and provide
them with even more confused and hostile young men who can be sent to their
deaths while they sit safely in their caves.
 
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:46:33 +0200, Elisa Francesca Roselli <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Osama's father has 20 wives and Osama himself is one of 56 brothers and sisters. As
>far as we know he is the only terrorist. The mere fact of being a blood relative of
>his does not suffice to incrimminate a family the size of a large village.


Very fair point, but it doesn't really address what I said: i.e.

| It was purely laughing at the idiocy of allowing people to leave the country
| just because they didn't *say* they were terrorists.


Nothing to do with who, or how many.
 
Muttley wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:54:30 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> I'm getting confused. All this time I thought terrorists were
>>> pro-Bush.

>>
>> Oh, no doubt. After getting kicked out of Afghanistan, seeing
>> all those Taliban killed, then losing over 70 percent of their own
>> members to either capture or becoming room temperature because of Mr.
>> Bush, the terrorists naturally HAD to become Bush backers.

>
> The reason that the terrorist *leaders* want Bush re-elected is that
> he has stirred up so much hatred amongst so many that the number of
> people available for recruitment into terrorism has increased beyond
> their wildest dreams.
>
> They hope that he will be re-elected, continue his current policies,
> and provide them with even more confused and hostile young men who
> can be sent to their deaths while they sit safely in their caves.


What I love is the self-righteous indignation over Cheney's (admittedly
ham-fisted) remarks, yet "official" Dems can say stuff like this with total
impunity.

Bill "blatant hypocrisy" S.
 
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:08:49 GMT, "S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Muttley wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:54:30 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm getting confused. All this time I thought terrorists were
>>>> pro-Bush.
>>>
>>> Oh, no doubt. After getting kicked out of Afghanistan, seeing
>>> all those Taliban killed, then losing over 70 percent of their own
>>> members to either capture or becoming room temperature because of Mr.
>>> Bush, the terrorists naturally HAD to become Bush backers.

>>
>> The reason that the terrorist *leaders* want Bush re-elected is that
>> he has stirred up so much hatred amongst so many that the number of
>> people available for recruitment into terrorism has increased beyond
>> their wildest dreams.
>>
>> They hope that he will be re-elected, continue his current policies,
>> and provide them with even more confused and hostile young men who
>> can be sent to their deaths while they sit safely in their caves.

>
>What I love is the self-righteous indignation over Cheney's (admittedly
>ham-fisted) remarks, yet "official" Dems can say stuff like this with total
>impunity.


I seem to remember a while back, that you claimed that you were 'apolitical'.

Let me remind you what you said: (thank the lord for google!)

|I'm not even a Republican.
|It's the mean-spirited bitterness of the left and their blatant hypocrisy
|in the recent past that's even motivated me to speak up.
|I'm usually a-political to a fault (don't really give a ****; don't believe it really matters)

Yet every time you *do* go against type and post something political, it is
always anti democrat. And your claim that you: "don't believe it really matters"
doesn't really ring true.

I find it odd that whenever anyone claims to be non-political, it is almost
always followed by something pretty partisan, and in 99% of cases anti-D or
pro-R. I wonder why that is.

When there are two major parties in your country, and you always seem to come
down for one, or against the other, you cannot really claim to be apolitical.

>Bill blatantly hypocritical" S.
 
Muttley wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:08:49 GMT, "S o r n i"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Muttley wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:54:30 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I'm getting confused. All this time I thought terrorists were
>>>>> pro-Bush.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, no doubt. After getting kicked out of Afghanistan,
>>>> seeing all those Taliban killed, then losing over 70 percent of
>>>> their own members to either capture or becoming room temperature
>>>> because of Mr. Bush, the terrorists naturally HAD to become Bush
>>>> backers.
>>>
>>> The reason that the terrorist *leaders* want Bush re-elected is that
>>> he has stirred up so much hatred amongst so many that the number of
>>> people available for recruitment into terrorism has increased beyond
>>> their wildest dreams.
>>>
>>> They hope that he will be re-elected, continue his current policies,
>>> and provide them with even more confused and hostile young men who
>>> can be sent to their deaths while they sit safely in their caves.

>>
>> What I love is the self-righteous indignation over Cheney's
>> (admittedly
>> ham-fisted) remarks, yet "official" Dems can say stuff like this
>> with total
>> impunity.

>
> I seem to remember a while back, that you claimed that you were
> 'apolitical'.
>
> Let me remind you what you said: (thank the lord for google!)
>
>> I'm not even a Republican.
>> It's the mean-spirited bitterness of the left and their blatant
>> hypocrisy
>> in the recent past that's even motivated me to speak up.


BINGO. What part of that don't you understand?

>> I'm usually a-political to a fault (don't really give a ****; don't
>> believe it really matters)

>
> Yet every time you *do* go against type and post something political,
> it is always anti democrat. And your claim that you: "don't believe
> it really matters" doesn't really ring true.


I see the VAST majority of hypocrisy and mean, nasty statements being made
by "official" Democrats this time around (and in fact ever since the 2000
election). Forget the 527s (over the line on both sides usually), how about
Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Terry McCauliff (sp?), etc., not to mention Kerry
himself. Blatant personal attacks, and the "general" media lets 'em slide.
(Not even including Hollywood fund-raisers and Michael S-Moores "embodying
the very essence of the Democratic Party".)

Why I say it doesn't matter is that partisanship is so entrenched nowadays
that no one is going to change his or her mind. I guarantee you that, even
if everything had gone perfectly in Iraq (found WMDs, welcomed as
liberators, etc.), the left would STILL hate Bush and go to any length to
defeat him. However, if a conservative questions Kerry's voting record over
the last 25 years, he's smearing him. Sorry, I call ********.

What's more important, the voting public is starting to see that, too. It's
pretty obvious.

Bill "when it's bad enough to get ME to speak up, it's pretty bad" S.
 
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:01:46 GMT, "S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> I'm not even a Republican.
>>> It's the mean-spirited bitterness of the left and their blatant
>>> hypocrisy
>>> in the recent past that's even motivated me to speak up.

>
>BINGO. What part of that don't you understand?


I understand what you said perfectly.

What I am saying is that it is patantly untrue. (Even more so, given what you
have written below).
>
>>> I'm usually a-political to a fault (don't really give a ****; don't
>>> believe it really matters)

>>
>> Yet every time you *do* go against type and post something political,
>> it is always anti democrat. And your claim that you: "don't believe
>> it really matters" doesn't really ring true.

>
>I see the VAST majority of hypocrisy and mean, nasty statements being made
>by "official" Democrats this time around (and in fact ever since the 2000
>election). Forget the 527s (over the line on both sides usually), how about
>Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Terry McCauliff (sp?), etc., not to mention Kerry
>himself. Blatant personal attacks, and the "general" media lets 'em slide.
>(Not even including Hollywood fund-raisers and Michael S-Moores "embodying
>the very essence of the Democratic Party".)
>
>Why I say it doesn't matter is that partisanship is so entrenched nowadays
>that no one is going to change his or her mind. I guarantee you that, even
>if everything had gone perfectly in Iraq (found WMDs, welcomed as
>liberators, etc.), the left would STILL hate Bush and go to any length to
>defeat him.


Of course. What else would the left do but try and get their candidate into
power.

> However, if a conservative questions Kerry's voting record over
>the last 25 years, he's smearing him. Sorry, I call ********.


Bill, you are 100% entitled to your views, and 100% entitled to enumerate them
whenever you wish.

It does not, however, do a lot for your credibility when you state that you are
"apolitical to a fault", when you clearly do not like the way (you see) the
democrats behaving.

You may not consider yourself a republican, but you are very clearly
anti-democrat, and (again, from your description of them as "the left"), you
clearly see your ideals as separate from theirs.

That is in no way the description of someone who is apolitical.

Another indication of your "politicality", is that you seem to only see
transgressions on one side.

I would say I'm slightly to the left of center - I would normally swing more to
the democrats than the republicans (so I'm declaring a bias), and yet I clearly
see nastiness and hipocracy on *both* sides of the divide. In other words,
although biased, I retain the ability to look objectively at what is going on.