I waited a decent interval. Wanted to let you know your last posting
on this thread went out unaccompanied (by your content).

The Chosen Few wrote:
"•R.L.Measures" <r_@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r_-1510040532360001@192.168.1.101...

In article <416efa42$1_5@127.0.0.1>, "kuff (Isaac Adams)"
kuff_1@hotmail.com> wrote:


•R.L.Measures wrote:

In article <416ea96b$1_2@127.0.0.1>, "kuff (Isaac Adams)"
kuff_1@hotmail.com> wrote:



The Chosen Few wrote:
...


Good point, and yet another good reason for limiting presidents by
law
to
only one
term.

Wouldn't that be undemocratic? You'd be limiting who the people
could
vote for.


• Currently, we can't vote for anyone under a certain age. (35?)


Or for Arnold Schwarzenegger or Bill Clinton or ...

• good point.


Except that the pool of excluded candidates would be nearly everyone in
countries which are more commonly and reasonably considered undemocratic.


So? Aren't we talking about your democracy and not theirs?

"kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff_1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41701be4$1_2@127.0.0.1...

I waited a decent interval. Wanted to let you know your last posting
on this thread went out unaccompanied (by your content).


That would be incorrect... have another looksie..

The Department of Defense wrote:
"kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff_1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41701be4$1_2@127.0.0.1...

I waited a decent interval. Wanted to let you know your last posting
on this thread went out unaccompanied (by your content).


That would be incorrect... have another looksie..


Ah, another forgery.

"kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff_1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:416fe439$1_2@127.0.0.1...

The Chosen Few wrote:

"•R.L.Measures" <r_@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r_-1510040532360001@192.168.1.101...


In article <416efa42$1_5@127.0.0.1>, "kuff (Isaac Adams)"
kuff_1@hotmail.com> wrote:



•R.L.Measures wrote:


In article <416ea96b$1_2@127.0.0.1>, "kuff (Isaac Adams)"
kuff_1@hotmail.com> wrote:




The Chosen Few wrote:
...



Good point, and yet another good reason for limiting presidents by
law
to
only one
term.

Wouldn't that be undemocratic? You'd be limiting who the people
could
vote for.


• Currently, we can't vote for anyone under a certain age. (35?)


Or for Arnold Schwarzenegger or Bill Clinton or ...

• good point.


Except that the pool of excluded candidates would be nearly everyone in
countries which are more commonly and reasonably considered undemocratic.


So? Aren't we talking about your democracy and not theirs?



Depends on whether or not it's merely a coincidence that you've recently
stated in another thread here that "I'm saying one undemocratic authority is
like another undemocratic authority - undemocratic."

And whether or not
someone believes that's merely a coincidence probably depends on the number
of your posts they've ever read.

"kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff_1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41702903$1_2@127.0.0.1...

The Department of Defense wrote:

"kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff_1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41701be4$1_2@127.0.0.1...


I waited a decent interval. Wanted to let you know your last posting
on this thread went out unaccompanied (by your content).


That would be incorrect... have another looksie..


Ah, another forgery. :-)


Still just trying to be helpful )

The Chosen Few wrote:
"kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff_1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:416fe439$1_2@127.0.0.1...

The Chosen Few wrote:

"•R.L.Measures" <r_@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r_-1510040532360001@192.168.1.101...


In article <416efa42$1_5@127.0.0.1>, "kuff (Isaac Adams)"
kuff_1@hotmail.com> wrote:



•R.L.Measures wrote:


In article <416ea96b$1_2@127.0.0.1>, "kuff (Isaac Adams)"
kuff_1@hotmail.com> wrote:




The Chosen Few wrote:
...



Good point, and yet another good reason for limiting presidents by
law
to
only one
term.

Wouldn't that be undemocratic? You'd be limiting who the people
could
vote for.


• Currently, we can't vote for anyone under a certain age. (35?)


Or for Arnold Schwarzenegger or Bill Clinton or ...

• good point.


Except that the pool of excluded candidates would be nearly everyone in
countries which are more commonly and reasonably considered
undemocratic.


So? Aren't we talking about your democracy and not theirs?



Depends on whether or not it's merely a coincidence that you've recently
stated in another thread here that "I'm saying one undemocratic authority
is
like another undemocratic authority - undemocratic."

*another thread* - probably another discussion too.

Would you debate tactic be called a red herring or a dead fish?

And whether or not
someone believes that's merely a coincidence probably depends on the
number
of your posts they've ever read.

Whatever. Bring you back on course, isn't it undemocratic to limit who
the people can vote for?

"kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff_1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41702ab0$1_2@127.0.0.1...

The Chosen Few wrote:

....

Would you debate tactic be called a red herring or a dead fish?



Call it whatever you like, but you're the one who's tried to introduce
something rather smelly and slippery into a thread about the importance of
stemming the tide of illegal immigration.

And whether or not
someone believes that's merely a coincidence probably depends on the
number
of your posts they've ever read.

Whatever. Bring you back on course, isn't it undemocratic to limit who
the people can vote for?



I've already answered that question in this thread, and you simplistically
and predictably took my answer as a "yes." Now, bringing *you* back on
course, do you also suppose it's undemocratic in some non-trivial sense to
limit the definition of "the people" in this particular context to U.S.
citizens?

The Chosen Few wrote:
"kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff_1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41702ab0$1_2@127.0.0.1...

The Chosen Few wrote:

...

Would you debate tactic be called a red herring or a dead fish?



Call it whatever you like, but you're the one who's tried to introduce
something rather smelly and slippery into a thread about the importance
of
stemming the tide of illegal immigration.

Um, er. Okay, I plead "guilty".




And whether or not
someone believes that's merely a coincidence probably depends on the
number
of your posts they've ever read.

Whatever. Bring you back on course, isn't it undemocratic to limit who
the people can vote for?



I've already answered that question in this thread, and you
simplistically
and predictably took my answer as a "yes." Now, bringing *you* back on
course, do you also suppose it's undemocratic in some non-trivial sense
to
limit the definition of "the people" in this particular context to U.S.
citizens?

Since a govern-ment exists by the consent of the governed I suppose it
would be in a sense undemocratic to limit the definition of "the people"
to a smaller subset of souls than were actually being governed.

"kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff_1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4170472a$1_2@127.0.0.1...

The Chosen Few wrote:

"kuff (Isaac Adams)" <kuff_1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41702ab0$1_2@127.0.0.1...


The Chosen Few wrote:


...

Would you debate tactic be called a red herring or a dead fish?



Call it whatever you like, but you're the one who's tried to introduce
something rather smelly and slippery into a thread about the importance
of
stemming the tide of illegal immigration.

Um, er. Okay, I plead "guilty".




And whether or not
someone believes that's merely a coincidence probably depends on the
number
of your posts they've ever read.

Whatever. Bring you back on course, isn't it undemocratic to limit who
the people can vote for?



I've already answered that question in this thread, and you
simplistically
and predictably took my answer as a "yes." Now, bringing *you* back on
course, do you also suppose it's undemocratic in some non-trivial sense
to
limit the definition of "the people" in this particular context to U.S.
citizens?

Since a govern-ment exists by the consent of the governed I suppose it
would be in a sense undemocratic to limit the definition of "the people"
to a smaller subset of souls than were actually being governed.



I think you were wise to drop the "non-trivial" as a modifier of sense,
though you'd have been wiser to only drop the "non," and wiser still to
substitute "spurious." If the very presence of a person in a nation
contravenes its laws, I don't see how such a person is "actually being
governed."