ID Cards On The Agenda Again 357

Tokyo Rose

Too bad that you didn't demonstrate it. I guess this is a case of Quo Errat Demonstrator (and no, that is not a mistake - I do not mean Quod Erat Demonstrandum).

Besides which, you never said what it DOES mean. So please, enlighten us - what does it mean?

As usual, ridicule and rudeness rather than intelligent debate. Tsk Tsk Tsk.

And THAT is the point - democracy has a particular level of oversight built in, and most democracies have further limitations of power placed upon them. Look at the US, for example - The president can veto any bill pbutted by congress that he doesn't like, but congress can then override the veto. If the bill is pbutted by congress and the president, the judiciary can strike down any law if it is unconsbreastutional, or if there is precedent that overrides the law. It's a system of checks and balances.

However, giving more power to any particular part of government increases the risk of corruption. A good demonstration of that fact can be seen in australian parliament - for the first eight or nine years of Howard's government, the senate has been in the hands of the minor parties and independents. As a result, a fair bit of wheeling and dealing was done, because the minor parties and independents had all the power (egthe democrats and the GST). Then the senate was reclaimed by the coalition, and now Howard has all the power, and you will note what has been happening - laws forced through parliament with too little debate, laws pbutted that the majority of australians are against, reduction of civil liberties, privatisation of essential services, and the list goes on. Power corrupts.

Democracy is inherently the least corruptible system (excluding communism, in theory, although in practice it doesn't work), but that doesn't stop the corruption from happening.

Yep - the electoral system gave too much power to the premier, and Joh, in a corrupt manner, manipulated the system for his own gain. Power corrupts.

Was Askin in power before Bjelke-Peterson was? If so, then the statement is correct - no mention of particular states, just time ("before").

It's not a metaphor (learn to spell, by the way). It is a cliche, and a valid one.

Is he known as Lork Acton now? Then the statement is correct.

When we talk about how Newton created his laws of gravity, we call him Sir Isaac Newton. When he created hjis laws, he had not been knighted, and so the "Sir" did not apply at the time. Nevertheless, we call him Sir Isaac Newton because that is his name NOW.

Oh? Then what, pray tell, was the context? It's easy to make the claim, but much harder to prove it.

Besides, many statements that had a specific context at the time are used as general statements nowadays, as they are found to be accurate in more than just the original context.

Please - don't use terms you don't understand. "QED", or "Quod Erat Demonstrandum", is latin for "Which was to be demonstrated", or in plain english "This is what was to be shown", or "It has been demonstrated". Making a claim is not demonstrating - to use QED, you must use proof and-or evidence. All that you have done, above, is make claims without substantiation.