Home Articles Forum Wiki Poll Garden Contact

 
 
 
  
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
 
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

  Australian Politics Forum › General Discussion › General Board › mandates in representative democracy
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Send Topic Print
mandates in representative democracy (Read 11932 times)
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 78293
Gender: male
Re: mandates in representative democracy
Reply #45 - Apr 4th, 2013 at 6:52pm  
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:34pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:31pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:27pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:24pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:22pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:20pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:18pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:11pm:
A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support.


if that were true you wouldn't need the opponents support now would you!


yeah... because no popular policy has even been denied by parliament...

move along, ernie.


do you even think about what you have written or does it just run out like diarreha?


that would be your problem as evidenced by your inability to argue the point and instead just post your typical abuse. If you disagree with me then show me why and how. Assuming of course that you are capable of such a feat.


your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST despite the majority of Australians voting against it is a clear indication that you have no idea what you are on about.  Do you need some toilet paper to wipe your mouth?


take a look at the two-plebiscite example given earlier and tell me what you think should happen. My guess is you will defect and abuse or do a FD and just leave the thread.


I've given you my example ... stick to that ...



stop running pippylonglooser .... do you stand by your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST?
Back to top
 
Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: mandates in representative democracy
Reply #46 - Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:09pm  
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 6:52pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:34pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:31pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:27pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:24pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:22pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:20pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:18pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:11pm:
A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support.


if that were true you wouldn't need the opponents support now would you!


yeah... because no popular policy has even been denied by parliament...

move along, ernie.


do you even think about what you have written or does it just run out like diarreha?


that would be your problem as evidenced by your inability to argue the point and instead just post your typical abuse. If you disagree with me then show me why and how. Assuming of course that you are capable of such a feat.


your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST despite the majority of Australians voting against it is a clear indication that you have no idea what you are on about.  Do you need some toilet paper to wipe your mouth?


take a look at the two-plebiscite example given earlier and tell me what you think should happen. My guess is you will defect and abuse or do a FD and just leave the thread.


I've given you my example ... stick to that ...



stop running pippylonglooser .... do you stand by your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST?


when you can answer my question regarding the two plebicite example, I will answer yours.

But we all know you cant do that, ernie. That would require adopting a principle one way or the other. it is the same reason FD is unable to answer it - because it exposes the complete LACK of principle involved in the support or opposition of a majority opinion.

prove me wrong, but that will require you to answer my question. FIRST
Back to top
 
AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51806
At my desk.
Re: mandates in representative democracy
Reply #47 - Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:11pm  
Longy you are having extraordinary difficulty in figuring out what I am saying. It is really quite simple. Try reading and understanding before responding.

Longy opposes election outcomes that reflect the will of the majority and often calls for minority parties to be given power they do not deserve, insisting this is the only 'fair' outcome. He openly promotes the idea that governments should impose unpopular changes on the public against the will of the majority. Yet he is also the one that harps on the most about mandates, despite not being able to define what such a mandate is. He is a hypocrite.

Quote:
???? you support 'the outcome' as long as you dont have the balls to articulate an actual opinion about it.


Longy you have previously argued that my opinion was somehow undemocratic because I dared to voice an opinion that differed from the majority. Hypocrite.

Quote:
it is quite clear FD that you dont really believe in mandates or majority rule despite what you say repeatedly


How is it clear? You have clearly stated that you reject the concept of majority rule. Is that what you mean by clear? Or is it like when you pretend that an election is a referendum on a single issue and that only you know what the voters really want?

Quote:
in the two plebiscite example given the only possibly response from a person who believes in direct democracy and rule of the majority would be to say that the parliament should pass both


As usualy Longy you are confused. I said I would support the outcome. You took this to mean that I agreed with your prediction of what the outcome would be. That is not the same thing. Understand?

Quote:
so the real reason you dont beleive in moral arguments and mandates is that they sorta require you to support IN PRINCIPLE policies you personally oppose.


No they don't Longy. You have some strange views about democracy. Supporting democracy does not mean you cannot have your own opinion.

Quote:
support the outcome which means what? you support the right of people to vote in a plebiscite


No. I think your idea of plebiscites is silly. It certainly isn't some kind of 'right'. There are much better ways to gauge the will of the majority. Of course, you reject them because you cannot comprehend them.
Back to top
 
People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: mandates in representative democracy
Reply #48 - Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:24pm  
freediver wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:11pm:
Longy you are having extraordinary difficulty in figuring out what I am saying. It is really quite simple. Try reading and understanding before responding.

Longy opposes election outcomes that reflect the will of the majority and often calls for minority parties to be given power they do not deserve, insisting this is the only 'fair' outcome. He openly promotes the idea that governments should impose unpopular changes on the public against the will of the majority. Yet he is also the one that harps on the most about mandates, despite not being able to define what such a mandate is. He is a hypocrite.

Quote:
???? you support 'the outcome' as long as you dont have the balls to articulate an actual opinion about it.


Longy you have previously argued that my opinion was somehow undemocratic because I dared to voice an opinion that differed from the majority. Hypocrite.

Quote:
it is quite clear FD that you dont really believe in mandates or majority rule despite what you say repeatedly


How is it clear? You have clearly stated that you reject the concept of majority rule. Is that what you mean by clear? Or is it like when you pretend that an election is a referendum on a single issue and that only you know what the voters really want?

Quote:
in the two plebiscite example given the only possibly response from a person who believes in direct democracy and rule of the majority would be to say that the parliament should pass both


As usualy Longy you are confused. I said I would support the outcome. You took this to mean that I agreed with your prediction of what the outcome would be. That is not the same thing. Understand?

Quote:
so the real reason you dont beleive in moral arguments and mandates is that they sorta require you to support IN PRINCIPLE policies you personally oppose.


No they don't Longy. You have some strange views about democracy. Supporting democracy does not mean you cannot have your own opinion.

Quote:
support the outcome which means what? you support the right of people to vote in a plebiscite


No. I think your idea of plebiscites is silly. It certainly isn't some kind of 'right'. There are much better ways to gauge the will of the majority. Of course, you reject them because you cannot comprehend them.


remarkable.... you are now saying that actually physically asking everyone for their opinion and wishes on a matter is inferior to other ways. it is in fact THE UNDENIABLE best way. Im astonished that it isnt patently clear. I suspect even SOB might understand that. I would say pansi would also accept that everyone being asked their wishes is infinitely superior to any other method of assessing voters wishes.

Let's face it FD. You were faced with a deliciously complex scenario that has tied you up in knots. You believe in direct democracy but somehow reject the idea of a vote. You beliieve in majority rule but then reject a majority's opinion.

For the record, in the two plebiscite example, I would expect the parliament to approve gay marriage despite my well-documented opposition to it. I would likewise expect the parliament to repeal the CT not because I oppose it but because it is RIGHT. It is called democracy - the rule by the majority.

and for the record you have still REFUSED to indicate what you think the parliament should do in the case of these two plebiscites. I can do it, what cant you?
Back to top
 
AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 78293
Gender: male
Re: mandates in representative democracy
Reply #49 - Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:24pm  
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:09pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 6:52pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:34pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:31pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:27pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:24pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:22pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:20pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:18pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:11pm:
A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support.


if that were true you wouldn't need the opponents support now would you!


yeah... because no popular policy has even been denied by parliament...

move along, ernie.


do you even think about what you have written or does it just run out like diarreha?


that would be your problem as evidenced by your inability to argue the point and instead just post your typical abuse. If you disagree with me then show me why and how. Assuming of course that you are capable of such a feat.


your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST despite the majority of Australians voting against it is a clear indication that you have no idea what you are on about.  Do you need some toilet paper to wipe your mouth?


take a look at the two-plebiscite example given earlier and tell me what you think should happen. My guess is you will defect and abuse or do a FD and just leave the thread.


I've given you my example ... stick to that ...



stop running pippylonglooser .... do you stand by your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST?


when you can answer my question regarding the two plebicite example, I will answer yours.

But we all know you cant do that, ernie. That would require adopting a principle one way or the other. it is the same reason FD is unable to answer it - because it exposes the complete LACK of principle involved in the support or opposition of a majority opinion.

prove me wrong, but that will require you to answer my question. FIRST


what are you dumb or stupid? I've made it quite clear what I think ... I've said it a couple of times ...

If I vote for labor on the basis of the carbon tax, I expect them to hold that position win or lose . They cannot say they'll do one thing and then change it after the election.
Back to top
 
Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: mandates in representative democracy
Reply #50 - Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:29pm  
Quote:
it is quite clear FD that you dont really believe in mandates or majority rule despite what you say repeatedly


How is it clear? You have clearly stated that you reject the concept of majority rule. Is that what you mean by clear? Or is it like when you pretend that an election is a referendum on a single issue and that only you know what the voters really want?


having a hissy fit now? resorting to blatant lying and distortion?

you have been cornered and defeated not by a better opponent but by a better argument. Your absolute refusal to either comprehensively accept the mandate from the plebiscite (yes there is that word again) or reject it demonstrates quite clearly that your positions on democracy are guided by convenience and policy, not principle. A true democrat would accept without question that a parliament is bound by honour and duty to support it.
Back to top
 
AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: mandates in representative democracy
Reply #51 - Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:31pm  
freediver wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:11pm:
Longy you are having extraordinary difficulty in figuring out what I am saying. It is really quite simple. Try reading and understanding before responding.

Longy opposes election outcomes that reflect the will of the majority and often calls for minority parties to be given power they do not deserve, insisting this is the only 'fair' outcome. He openly promotes the idea that governments should impose unpopular changes on the public against the will of the majority. Yet he is also the one that harps on the most about mandates, despite not being able to define what such a mandate is. He is a hypocrite.

Quote:
???? you support 'the outcome' as long as you dont have the balls to articulate an actual opinion about it.


Longy you have previously argued that my opinion was somehow undemocratic because I dared to voice an opinion that differed from the majority. Hypocrite.

Quote:
it is quite clear FD that you dont really believe in mandates or majority rule despite what you say repeatedly


How is it clear? You have clearly stated that you reject the concept of majority rule. Is that what you mean by clear? Or is it like when you pretend that an election is a referendum on a single issue and that only you know what the voters really want?

Quote:
in the two plebiscite example given the only possibly response from a person who believes in direct democracy and rule of the majority would be to say that the parliament should pass both


As usualy Longy you are confused. I said I would support the outcome. You took this to mean that I agreed with your prediction of what the outcome would be. That is not the same thing. Understand?

Quote:
so the real reason you dont beleive in moral arguments and mandates is that they sorta require you to support IN PRINCIPLE policies you personally oppose.


No they don't Longy. You have some strange views about democracy. Supporting democracy does not mean you cannot have your own opinion.

Quote:
support the outcome which means what? you support the right of people to vote in a plebiscite


No. I think your idea of plebiscites is silly. It certainly isn't some kind of 'right'. There are much better ways to gauge the will of the majority. Of course, you reject them because you cannot comprehend them.


your opinion is your right to hold. Your opinion is not your right to impose on others. This is a concept that you may wish to get familiar with when you conduct further forays into the concepts of government by the people and for the people.
Back to top
 
AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: mandates in representative democracy
Reply #52 - Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:33pm  
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:24pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:09pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 6:52pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:34pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:31pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:27pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:24pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:22pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:20pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:18pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:11pm:
A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support.


if that were true you wouldn't need the opponents support now would you!


yeah... because no popular policy has even been denied by parliament...

move along, ernie.


do you even think about what you have written or does it just run out like diarreha?


that would be your problem as evidenced by your inability to argue the point and instead just post your typical abuse. If you disagree with me then show me why and how. Assuming of course that you are capable of such a feat.


your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST despite the majority of Australians voting against it is a clear indication that you have no idea what you are on about.  Do you need some toilet paper to wipe your mouth?


take a look at the two-plebiscite example given earlier and tell me what you think should happen. My guess is you will defect and abuse or do a FD and just leave the thread.


I've given you my example ... stick to that ...



stop running pippylonglooser .... do you stand by your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST?


when you can answer my question regarding the two plebicite example, I will answer yours.

But we all know you cant do that, ernie. That would require adopting a principle one way or the other. it is the same reason FD is unable to answer it - because it exposes the complete LACK of principle involved in the support or opposition of a majority opinion.

prove me wrong, but that will require you to answer my question. FIRST


what are you dumb or stupid? I've made it quite clear what I think ... I've said it a couple of times ...

If I vote for labor on the basis of the carbon tax, I expect them to hold that position win or lose . They cannot say they'll do one thing and then change it after the election.


so you dont really believe in democratic will of the people - just getting your own way. How (un)surprising.

and i see you were incapable of answering the two plebiscite question as well. Its the debating version of 'i refuse to answer in case my answer incriminates me'.
Back to top
 
AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: mandates in representative democracy
Reply #53 - Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:34pm  
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:24pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:09pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 6:52pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:34pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:31pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:27pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:24pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:22pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:20pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:18pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:11pm:
A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support.


if that were true you wouldn't need the opponents support now would you!


yeah... because no popular policy has even been denied by parliament...

move along, ernie.


do you even think about what you have written or does it just run out like diarreha?


that would be your problem as evidenced by your inability to argue the point and instead just post your typical abuse. If you disagree with me then show me why and how. Assuming of course that you are capable of such a feat.


your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST despite the majority of Australians voting against it is a clear indication that you have no idea what you are on about.  Do you need some toilet paper to wipe your mouth?


take a look at the two-plebiscite example given earlier and tell me what you think should happen. My guess is you will defect and abuse or do a FD and just leave the thread.


I've given you my example ... stick to that ...



stop running pippylonglooser .... do you stand by your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST?


when you can answer my question regarding the two plebicite example, I will answer yours.

But we all know you cant do that, ernie. That would require adopting a principle one way or the other. it is the same reason FD is unable to answer it - because it exposes the complete LACK of principle involved in the support or opposition of a majority opinion.

prove me wrong, but that will require you to answer my question. FIRST


what are you dumb or stupid? I've made it quite clear what I think ... I've said it a couple of times ...

If I vote for labor on the basis of the carbon tax, I expect them to hold that position win or lose .
They cannot say they'll do one thing and then change it after the election.


my goodness!!! did you actually say that????

Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 
AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
it_is_the_light
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Christ Light

Posts: 41434
The Pyramid of LIGHT
Gender: male
Re: mandates in representative democracy
Reply #54 - Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:37pm  
im sure weekender means government funded

by multi national corporations

major funding to both parties and the cess pit

of lobbyists

these governments implement and enforce

corporate law over the people

courts enforce corporate law unto the people

many stand under common law and are free from

many violations against sovereignty than

other people ignorant of their true inalienable rights

you may hear different from paid stooges that think

governments print money..

these have been put in their relevant place

before with grace and

forgiveness

namaste

- : )
Back to top
 
ॐ May Much LOVE and CHRISTS LIGHT be upon and within us all.... namasté ▲ - : )  ╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯
it_is_the_light it_is_the_light Christ+Light Christ+Light  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51806
At my desk.
Re: mandates in representative democracy
Reply #55 - Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:38pm  
Quote:
remarkable.... you are now saying that actually physically asking everyone for their opinion and wishes on a matter is inferior to other ways.


Actually Longy, you have also made this same argument. Hypocrite.

BTW, by other ways, I mean other ways of doing the same thing. It was your methodology that I think is silly.

Quote:
it is in fact THE UNDENIABLE best way.


No it isn't. Even you have argued against it. You have also argued against a far more efficient way for the public to register their views on specific issues on the grounds that it requires too much effort from the public.

Quote:
You were faced with a deliciously complex scenario that has tied you up in knots. You believe in direct democracy but somehow reject the idea of a vote.


Again you are confused Longy. In fact confusion is the only thing that is consistent in your arguments. I said I would support the outcome, but that your way of obtaining the vote is silly.

Quote:
You beliieve in majority rule but then reject a majority's opinion.


Longy the only one here who has argued against majority rule is you. Hypocrite.

Quote:
and for the record you have still REFUSED to indicate what you think the parliament should do in the case of these two plebiscites. I can do it, what cant you?


You are confused Longy. I gave a straightforward, clear answer. You have enough trouble figuring out what you say yourself, let alone what others say. Go back and read it again if you are still confused.

Quote:
what are you dumb or stupid? I've made it quite clear what I think


Of course, you reject the will of the majority and want the government to impose unpopular changes on people - or at least you did until you jumped on the carbon tax mandate bandwagon. Hypocrite.

Quote:
I've said it a couple of times ...


You have contradicted yourself plenty of times Longy.

Quote:
having a hissy fit now? resorting to blatant lying and distortion?


It is not a lie Longy. There are quotes from you in the opening posts. You rejected majority rule on principle - right up until you jumped on the carbon tax mandate bandwagon. Hypocrite.
Back to top
 
People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: mandates in representative democracy
Reply #56 - Apr 4th, 2013 at 8:41pm  
So a simple question asking you if a parliament should be expected to follow the will of the people thru a direct vote gets this tirade of deflection and abuse?

you've lost a great deal of credibility today FD. for all your words and all you lofty ideals you dont really believe in democracy of the majority at all. If you did you would categorically state that parliament should obey the outcome of a vote. But you dont.

because despite your unfounded protestations that i dont beleive in majority rule, it is you right now who is saying exactly that - that the clearly expressed will of not just a representative sample but of EVERY VOTER carries no weight.  This is why people so despise the greens and why their vote is dropping all across the country. they hate democracy and whiel giving it lip-service do at every point seek to get THEIR way at the expense of the majority and all you have done tonight is prove the point.
Back to top
 
AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 78293
Gender: male
Re: mandates in representative democracy
Reply #57 - Apr 4th, 2013 at 8:46pm  
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:33pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:24pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:09pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 6:52pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:34pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:31pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:27pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:24pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:22pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:20pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:18pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:11pm:
A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support.


if that were true you wouldn't need the opponents support now would you!


yeah... because no popular policy has even been denied by parliament...

move along, ernie.


do you even think about what you have written or does it just run out like diarreha?


that would be your problem as evidenced by your inability to argue the point and instead just post your typical abuse. If you disagree with me then show me why and how. Assuming of course that you are capable of such a feat.


your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST despite the majority of Australians voting against it is a clear indication that you have no idea what you are on about.  Do you need some toilet paper to wipe your mouth?


take a look at the two-plebiscite example given earlier and tell me what you think should happen. My guess is you will defect and abuse or do a FD and just leave the thread.


I've given you my example ... stick to that ...



stop running pippylonglooser .... do you stand by your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST?


when you can answer my question regarding the two plebicite example, I will answer yours.

But we all know you cant do that, ernie. That would require adopting a principle one way or the other. it is the same reason FD is unable to answer it - because it exposes the complete LACK of principle involved in the support or opposition of a majority opinion.

prove me wrong, but that will require you to answer my question. FIRST


what are you dumb or stupid? I've made it quite clear what I think ... I've said it a couple of times ...

If I vote for labor on the basis of the carbon tax, I expect them to hold that position win or lose . They cannot say they'll do one thing and then change it after the election.


so you dont really believe in democratic will of the people - just getting your own way. How (un)surprising.

and i see you were incapable of answering the two plebiscite question as well. Its the debating version of 'i refuse to answer in case my answer incriminates me'.


boy you really are a moron aren't you? I don't care how many examples you put up, be they carbon tax, gay marriage, asylum seekers, changes to superannuation etc etc etc etc ... it doesn't change ...[I'll say it one more time for the dummies, b] If I vote for labor when they take a particular stand , I expect them to hold that position win or lose . They cannot say they'll do one thing and then change it after the election[/b] ... do you need me to repeat it for you? What has majority got to do with it? I don't vote for the majority I vote for me.

And you have the hide to question SOB's intelligence?
Back to top
 
Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 78293
Gender: male
Re: mandates in representative democracy
Reply #58 - Apr 4th, 2013 at 8:51pm  
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:34pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:24pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 7:09pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 6:52pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:34pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:31pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 5:27pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:24pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:22pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:20pm:
John Smith wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:18pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 4:11pm:
A mandate is something that is a moral obligation on opponents of a party or policy to support it in the face of voter support.


if that were true you wouldn't need the opponents support now would you!


yeah... because no popular policy has even been denied by parliament...

move along, ernie.


do you even think about what you have written or does it just run out like diarreha?


that would be your problem as evidenced by your inability to argue the point and instead just post your typical abuse. If you disagree with me then show me why and how. Assuming of course that you are capable of such a feat.


your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST despite the majority of Australians voting against it is a clear indication that you have no idea what you are on about.  Do you need some toilet paper to wipe your mouth?


take a look at the two-plebiscite example given earlier and tell me what you think should happen. My guess is you will defect and abuse or do a FD and just leave the thread.


I've given you my example ... stick to that ...



stop running pippylonglooser .... do you stand by your claim that Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST?


when you can answer my question regarding the two plebicite example, I will answer yours.

But we all know you cant do that, ernie. That would require adopting a principle one way or the other. it is the same reason FD is unable to answer it - because it exposes the complete LACK of principle involved in the support or opposition of a majority opinion.

prove me wrong, but that will require you to answer my question. FIRST


what are you dumb or stupid? I've made it quite clear what I think ... I've said it a couple of times ...

If I vote for labor on the basis of the carbon tax, I expect them to hold that position win or lose .
They cannot say they'll do one thing and then change it after the election.


my goodness!!! did you actually say that????

Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin


my goodness you really are an idiot aren't you?

I know what you are going to say ( I expected you too as soon as I wrote it).......  you want to pretend the carbon tax is a change in position? ...

not in my books nor those of anyone with half a brain and an ounce of integrity, Labor went into the election promising a ETS ... they didn't win majority and had to negotiate to get to an ETS .. they done exactly what they said , I don't care how they get to the ETS as long as they get there, the end result is the same, ..
Back to top
 
Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51806
At my desk.
Re: mandates in representative democracy
Reply #59 - Apr 4th, 2013 at 8:54pm  
Quote:
So a simple question asking you if a parliament should be expected to follow the will of the people thru a direct vote gets this tirade of deflection and abuse?


I am merely pointing out your confusion and your hypocrisy Longy. I answered your question. Let me make this quite clear so that you may understand.

You are confused.

You are a hypocrite.

Quote:
you've lost a great deal of credibility today FD


You say that every time you lose an argument Longy.

Quote:
because despite your unfounded protestations that i dont beleive in majority rule


But you don't Longy. I have quoted you rejecting it quite plainly.

Quote:
it is you right now who is saying exactly that - that the clearly expressed will of not just a representative sample but of EVERY VOTER carries no weight


You are confused Longy. That is the opposite of what I actually said.
Back to top
 
People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Send Topic Print
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
 
 

  « Forum ‹ Board Top of this page

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge