|
"Thom Stewart" wrote in message ... Donal, What a Stupid Statement that is! You have to be Irish to say something like that. How in the hell can a appointed representative be more democratic than a representative elected by the public. Easy! Donal, if you reply; please find out what Democracy means Let me try to explain my understanding of "Democracy". Democracy refers to a system of government where the will of the people is the supreme power. Most forms of government are based on a "Pyramid of Power". At the top of the pyramid, we have the chief executive officer. The CEO may have one of the following titles - "President", "Prime Minister", "El Dulce", "Emporer", "Fuhrer" ... etc. The real difference between a Democracy and a Dictatorship is where the real *power* lies. In a dictatorship, the dictator has ultimate authority - and the people have none. In a democracy, the people have ultimate authority - and the CEO (in theory) has very little. In a Democracy, the people elect representatives. These "representatives" should always vote according to their constituents' views. However, they tend to toe the party line, therefore they behave in an undemocratic manner. The "CEO" should be responsible to the representatives, however, in most democracies, the CEO has the ability to confer status upon the representatives. This means that the elected representatives will place more weight on the views of their leader than their voters. Bush wanted war. The Republican represantiteves supported him because they would not get promoted if they voted against him. The same thing happened in the UK. Here, most people were against the war. However, because Blair wanted war, the MP's voted for it. Regards Donal -- |
"Donal" wrote in message ...
"Thom Stewart" wrote in message ... Donal, SOS Snipped Bush wanted war. The Republican represantiteves supported him because they would not get promoted if they voted against him. Donal you moron. You under estimate the American people. We have had it with terroists, and threats. Saddam had to go. The same thing happened in the UK. Here, most people were against the war. However, because Blair wanted war, the MP's voted for it. Your Irish right?. Dont you vote in Ireland? Are you a British citizen or just a Gypsie meddelin in nunya? Joe Regards Donal -- |
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:42:11 +1000, OzOne wrote this crap:
Ummm Joe, Saddam made no threats, it was all in GWB's mind! Tell that to the Kurds. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
"Joe" wrote in message om... "Donal" wrote in message ... "Thom Stewart" wrote in message ... Donal, SOS Snipped Bush wanted war. The Republican represantiteves supported him because they would not get promoted if they voted against him. Donal you moron. You under estimate the American people. We have had it with terroists, and threats. Saddam had to go. I bet that you cannot explain the connection berween Terrorists and Saddam. If you found the "terrorist" challenge too difficult, then I will offer you an easier test of your knowledge. I bet that you cannot give us a single exanple of a "threat" from Saddam. The same thing happened in the UK. Here, most people were against the war. However, because Blair wanted war, the MP's voted for it. Your Irish right?. Congratulations!! How long did that take you? Everybody else figured it out years ago!! Dont you vote in Ireland? No, I don't. Are you a British citizen or just a Gypsie meddelin in nunya? Uh . oh! What the heck is "nunya"? Regards Donal -- |
Horass is so stupid that he can't even copy a link.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:03:12 +0100, "Donal" wrote this crap: I bet that you cannot explain the connection berween Terrorists and Saddam. Saddam's connections to bin Laden/al-Qaeda/911 Excerpts from 60 articles with links provided to each of the original articles http://www.pixelpages.net/intel/saddam-laden.htm Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
"Joe" wrote
You under estimate the American people. We have had it with terroists, and threats. Absolutely. Now if we could just find any decent leadership ..... Saddam had to go. Why? He had zip to do with the terrorists who attacked us. In fact, they hated him and his secular government more than they hated us - and vice versa. Logically, from a pro-America standpoint, we should have paid Saddam to go after Al Quida. But no, Bush pulled assets away from the war on terror to go after Osama's other enemy, Saddam. Eliminating one of the terrorists' enemies makes zero sense from a pro- America standpoint, especially when we took pressure off our mutual enemy to do it. Now we're in a $trillion quagmire that looks more like 'nam every day and Osama is laughing up his sleeve |
"Horvath" wrote
Anybody who would gas his own people is a danger to everyone. Remember Waco??? |
In article ,
Vito wrote: "Horvath" wrote Anybody who would gas his own people is a danger to everyone. Remember Waco??? Yeah, but they deserved it... just kidding. Good point Vito. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:04:35 -0400, "Vito" wrote
this crap: "Horvath" wrote Anybody who would gas his own people is a danger to everyone. Remember Waco??? Exactly! Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com