> , Bill Bartlett
>>>> Earth to Charles: a military coup is not direct democracy.
>>
> ^^^^^^^
> CB: When the military is carrying out the demands of millions of
> civilians , it is direct democracy. Evidently , u don't know what
> democracy is.
>
> Democracy is still a _state_. The military , or standing bodies of
> armed men, prisons, the repressive apparatus, is the state. When the
> state is following the direction of the masses that's direct
> democracy.
>
> The state doesn't whither away until communism. Socialism still has a state.
Stop embarrassing yourself Charles. A military coup is still not "direct democracy". Yes, a state ruled by military dictatorship is still a state, no-one would suggest otherwise. But direct democracy implies the seizing of state power by people directly. You know, "direct" as in immediate, not via an intermediate. So there goes the "direct" out of your "direct democracy". And plainly it turns the English language on its head to describe a military dictatorship following the overthrow of an elected government as ANY kind of "democracy"
So, not "direct" and not "democracy" either.
I get it that you approve of this particular military dictatorship. But the fact that you insist on making delusional claims about what it is suggests that you are more than a little embarrassed to find yourself approving such a thing and are desperate to claim it is something it is not. Let me suggest that you would find it less embarrassing to simply state why you prefer a military dictatorship in this case, as against insisting that black is white.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell tas