ah yes, those tough on terrorist republicans.   condi rice told the 9-11 commission, in an answer to member james r. thompson, that any counter military strike against al qaeda for the cole bombing would have been  "counterproductive" and "embolden" the enemy.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/rice.transcript/

This macho prototype Chris is always rambling on about, would lead one to think the Republican candidates are on the streets of Baghdad slaying bad guys with their bare hands.

Sycophant is about the only word that comed to mind. Sissy does too.

But, if I were the liberal equivalent of a scumbag, lying GOP-type Republican, like say Hannity or Coulter, I would hold firm that this Bin Laden video is an endorsement of rock-ribbed, tax-cut conservatism.

How is it that these guys you mention, Hannity et all, are always allowed to take ANY Bin Laden/al Qaida propaganda and twist it to say "Democrats are terrorists" or at best "Bin Laden agress with Democrats"? Why are they rarely called on it?

Can you imagine if things were turned around? Hannity would whine right away that Democrats "politicized the war on terror" (that's what he always seems to say as soon as someone doesn't agree with him).

Bin Laden is obviously well versed in how the media game is played in the US, and knows exactly what reaction he could expect from his tape. So sad that the media is playing along with him, just like he expected.

And about his opinions? Well, he does have some things right. But his means are despicable. That's what terrorism is - it's about the MEANS by which a group or individual is trying to get their will through. It's not about the opinions. There are terrorist group of directly opposite opinions, but their means are the same - that's what terrorism is. Sadly, people think that if they agree with a terrorist's goals, that makes them a terrorist too. It doesn't. I am pretty sure I have many goals in common with both GW Bush and Osama Bin Laden. That doesn't make me a terrorist, and it doesn't make me a neo-conservative either, because we have wildly different ideas on how to carry out these goals.

The only thing missing on the tape was how Cuba provides the best medical care in the world. C'mon Bin-ster, get fully on board with the program and fess'up, did your new doo and dye job cost you $400.00 and who refered you to the barber?

Also, the 'special bundle' from Mr. Hsu is here waiting for you declare a fatquah on it.

May the fleas of 1000 camels infest your turbin.

Alan B. Fabian was, according to an August 9 Associated Press article "charged in a 23-count indictment unsealed Thursday [August 9] with mail fraud, money laundering, bankruptcy fraud, perjury and obstruction of justice,"

And

Former Romney financier] Lichfield is named in a federal lawsuit charging that students of the “behavior modification” schools with ties to WWASPS [Worldwide Association of Specialty Schools, founded by Lichfield] were subjected to “physical abuse, emotional abuse and sexual abuse.” …not much has been heard about this in all the yelling and screaming over Hsu even though [Litchfield]’s been bringing in far more money for Flip Flop than Hsu has brought in for Democrats.

And 

 "red pickup" was a leased campaign prop. Indeed, as Media Matters noted, a March 18 article by TheTennessean described Tom Ingram, who worked on Thompson's campaign, as "the political mastermind who had a hand in revamping Thompson's image by putting him behind the wheel of the truck." The Tennessean reported that "on Aug. 5, 1994" -- just three months prior to a special election for the Senate seat Al Gore had vacated following his election as vice president -- "Senate candidate Fred Thompson parked his black Lincoln Continental and started driving" the truck. The article further noted that the truck was leased by the campaign. (Nashville)

It's so easy to just post negative stories on the other party when you have nothing to say about the current thread.  

The only thing missing from the tape was the pin up poster of Bush in the backround and having him end the tape by saying thanks for the Iraqi GIFT Bushy buddie. GO GOP

Fake video. It's a "photoshopped" version of a previously released 2004 Bin Laden video.

If you look closely at the 2007 video, you can clearly see an outline of the beard that was photoshopped out.

[link to img340.imageshack.us]

Anyone can change the length, width, and outline of their beard.

As well as color.

I also wonder...do you think that Bin laden is really bin laden?  Remember the GI Joe doll that was a supposed captive?  Is that possible...or has Karl Rove found new work?

Do you ever make any sense?

Septical,

I only wanted to do two things, entertain and give this important Media Matter's (very little) story, the Michael Moore angle. 

Okay, now I understand. 

you failed at both.

I think someone needs to remind Proud that Michael Moore is the one winning the awards and he knows how to be truly engaging, just like his right-wing counterparts in film, such as, as..hold on, there must be someone. And likewise, while Jon Stuart wins awards for his humor, you must give the right wing credit for having Dennis Miller, who manages to have his shows canceled faster than Zeus hurls thunderbolts. 

In other words  you want to snivel again that MMFA doesnt ask YOU what is important enough to post and do your troll duty taking the thread off topic. Got it.

I surmise that your own philosophy affects you the same way that drinking a can of Draino does.  It cleans you out, but leaves you hollow inside.  You better get to White Castle before the weirdos show up.  Write that check before your butt gets to the bank.

At least the right wing nut jobs can't turn this into an "Osama endorses Democrats" thing the way they did with the Castro column.

Or maybe I'm speaking too soon.

"Does this help Rudy Giuliani or Republicans in general?"

NEEEEOOOOPPPPPPPPEEE!

I really thought this murderous nutball was quietly evaporated by an airstrike a year ago and Bush knew all along but still kept the legacy alive.

And Matthews is such a back-stabbing political hack trying to spin Usama into an advantage for the republicans. Bin Laden is an heir to a billion dollar fortune, wants to escalate the war and hates democracy - it looks like the GOP found themselves a new presidential candidate.

Well it's not democracy he hates. It's basically the American government in general.

Does this help Rudy? Does this help Republicans?

Hell no it simply shows that when allowed to control all branches of government they could not prevent the attack on 9/11, have not after 6 years found the person responsible for the 9/11 attack and then started a war with the wrong country.

If MSM was doing it's job the question should be, after all of the lives lost and all the money spent why do we as Americans have to listen to a tape on the anniversary of 9/11 from the person responsible for 9/11? What has the "decider" been doing for the last 6 years (besides staring a war with the wrong country)?

HINT: At this point, anything that reminds the American public of terrorists, war, bin Laden, or the Defense Department reminds us that the GOP are TERRIBLE at "keeping America Safe", and are great at getting our soldiers killed and maimed for no good reason.

Hearing from Bin Laden reminds us that Bush promised long ago to "get" bin Laden, "dead or alive", and that he could "run, but he can't hide" ... and other macho bluster that turned out to be LIES.

Sorry, Chris. The GOP is LOUSY at "defense", and anything with a defense topic reminds us that the GOP is LOUSY. Clear enough? 

Chris has lost that lovin' feeling for Dubya and now has a big, old, unseemly, man crush on Rudy.  He has been pushing Rudy since he got into the race.  I really wish someone would call him on it on the show. 

Does it help Giuliani, or for that matter any 9/11-milking GOP candidate, that Bin Laden is still alive, uncaptured and issuing videos, 6 years later?!

The MSM, our own modern-day version of Pravda, relentlessly ridicules and destroys a Democratic presidential candidate for hooting into a microphone, then fails to criticize GOP candidates who proclaim the archetect of 9/11 to be irrelevent and presumably no longer worth the effort it takes for the USA to capture him and bring him to justice.

And they repeat the mantra: The GOP is the party of national security.  They own that issue.  And each time Bin Laden surfaces, it helps the GOP candidates.  It especially helps the candidate who insisted on building his security headquarters smack in the middle of Bin Laden's #1 favorite target, the place he had bombed and tried to destroy before.  Yep, that's the candidate who personally owns the security issue.  The candidate who makes us feel safest.

WTF? Welcome to the “Bizarro-World”!

According to the transcript, Bin Laden is a BIG fan of Noam Chomski and is cheering for the left to end the Iraq war.

Is there anything in the latest UBL transcript that the left can possibly disagree with?

And therefore, in your mind Chomsky=Bin Laden. That is real logical.

But what can I expect from someone who thinks Clinton murdered Vince Foster?  

Osama is a HUGE fan of Bush. Al Queda's stated purpose is to bring Islamic governments to all Islamic countries with secular governments, like Iraq, which they could never have HOPED to do. Bush gave Osama a great big Xmas present along with a recruiting bonanaza. I am sure he thanks Allah for President Gump every night. The CIA analyists came to the conclusion that Osamas 04 tape was  meant to help Bush. Then again as usual you dont NEED facts, you have an ideology.

SOLON:

Don't forget, these jihadists attack us because they "hate our freedoms".

With Bush in the White House, those freedoms are disappearing faster than Viagra pills at Limbaugh's South American "holiday".

The radical Moslems are wanting to destroy our way of life, and Bush has been just the guy to deliver this result. Voting corrupted, the Constitution out the window, no more Geneva Convention, unbridled warrantless spying on American citizens ... Osama could not possibly harm American ideals more that the current Administration has. 

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

Rotten Rudy gets a bump for Bin Laden stil rubbing in our face since the attacks 6 years ago?? Am I the only person offended by the prospect that anyone would make this perverted connection??? Rudy has been the brown nosing butt buddy of this Administration from day one til today, and we stil are undermanned Afghanistan while we are breaking our military, and treasury in Iraq where we never should have gone in the first place!!

The prospect that issues would be put in this kind of context by those whom would presume to be experts in the public square is enough reason on it's own right to NEVER VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN AGAIN!!!!!!!!!

If you want a rational media, and not a corporate media complex feeding us propaganda on every channel! If you want our democracy back, please VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT IN '08, and stand with me to hold the Democrats to restoring democracy!!

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

SAVE OUR REPUBLIC, FOR VOTE REPUBLICAN!

Dan, you are a derranged soul. You think that democracy should be preserved/restored, when, in FACT, America is NOT, never HAS BEEN, and was NEVER intended to be a democracy.

BTW, are you suggesting, through your comments on the media, that the government control the news media? Hmmm......very Castro of you.

Jason,

Please inform all of us ignorant communists what America is and was intended to be then.

Please, I am waiting with baited (baited with what you ask, I'll never tell) breath.

Jason, just so you know, I'll understand if you are too busy to answer my question.

Funnymanpants told me you are working on some kind of Clinton Book, but I hope you do take the time to answer.

Thanks

America is a Constitutional Republic, NOT a democracy. Oh sure, we employ some democratic processes, but very few. A democracy is a system where the majority rules. Whatever the majority wants, the majority gets.

"OK," you say, "so the majority rules in a democracy. How is that different from what we do? We have elections, and the person with the most votes wins. Isn't that a democracy?"

No, it's not. According to the constitution, elections can be considered a democratic process. We vote for our representatives and put them into office. From that point on, those representatives make policy and vote their own opinions, not ours. So much for majority rules.

A good example is the war in Iraq. If the United States were a democracy, you would have been contacted by the federal government and asked to give a yes or no vote on removing Saddam Hussein from power. But we're NOT a democracy, so that didn't happen. The representatives in Congress voted their opinions, and lo and behold, we're at war. If the majority had ruled in that situation, it is doubtful that we would be in Iraq.

Our system is designed around, and protects, the rights and freedoms of the individual. Democracy is a converse notion. Democracy focuses on the rights of the majority, and damn the individual. Democracy relies heavily upon ideological conformity and group-think.

Now, I'm not saying that democracy is all bad. Like the previous example shows, a pure democratic process would have kept us out of Iraq from the start.

And I'm CERTAINLY not saying that a constitutional republic is all good. We put our faith and trust into our elected officials to make choices that are beneficial to the individual states and the country as a whole, but as we have seen time and time again, politicians will make mountains of promises in order to get that seat in Congress, only to bow to party politics when push comes to shove, and we end up getting the shaft.

I personally believe that the elected officials in this country (on both sides) are more interested in party loyalty than doing what is best for their constituents.

Our system of government USED to be a perfect balance of power: the House of Representatives was the voice of the people, the Senate (prior to the 17th Amendment, worst idea EVER) was the voice of state governments, the executive branch protected the interests of the nation as a whole, and the judiciary upheld the rule of law.

Today we have lost that balance thanks to the 17th Amendment and the absence of congressional term limits. This has silenced the voice of state government in Washington, and has turned the federal government into an Imperial entity.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Surely you realize that your definition of "Democracy", in which every person in the country gets asked what they think, is completely bogus.  That's "direct democracy".  "Direct" is a modifier there, which means that there are other forms of democracy, obviously.

Let's check dictionary.com, shall we?  Here's "democracy":

1.government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

2.a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

Now let's check on "Republic":

1.a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. (all bold mine)

So even your defining of America as a Republic still makes it a democracy.  It's just a representative democracy, not a pure, direct one.

You might as well have spent your time saying "that's not a car, that's a sedan!".  It's just as obviously wrong.

Thanks for the explanation, Brabantio.

Now, if you would please, tell me where in the Bill Of Rights, Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or any State of the Union Address for the first 160 years of the country's existence, can you find the word "democracy"?

Now, if you would please, tell me where in the Bill Of Rights, Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or any State of the Union Address for the first 160 years of the country's existence, can you find the word "democracy"?

Why? 

To substantiate the claim that America is, or was ever supposed to be, a democracy. That's why.

To substantiate the claim that America is, or was ever supposed to be, a democracy. That's why.

How would that prove America is Democracy?

He is a troll. He knows he is wrong. We all know the founding fathers were not interested in pure direct democracy. That is IRRELEVANT to the fact that by the standards the term is used today the US is a democracy. If we arent no democracies exist in the entire world. By the dictionary definition of the word we qualify. Jason doesnt care he just wants to argue and provoke. He is completely worthless and should be ignored and banned

The process of electing our representatives is democracy (we vote for someone and the candidate with a majority of the vote wins).  The process of making laws is democracy (the representative vote on a piece of legislation and the majority wins).  We also have direct democracy when the general public votes on referendums.

There is no need for the word "democracy" to appear on any official document in the first one hundred years for US to be a democracy. 

That makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever.

Yes it does. 

Hey j4sonl33,

Does the Bible have to have the word "Bible" in it to be the Bible?

The answer: No.  Good thing, because it doesn't.

By the way, if you don't think the U.S. is a democracy, then would you kindly do your part in the next election and not vote?  We who enjoy making choices in how our government is run would really appreciate having you out of the way.

This is really very simple.  People vote indirectly for President.  They vote directly for their representatives.  That is, by defintion, a form of democracy.

Whether any document ever mentions the actual word "democracy" or not has no bearing on anything whatsoever.  It's a system of government, and the characteristics of it define what it is.  I mean, I can write a 400-page work of original fiction without the word "novel" anywhere in it, and it's still a novel.  I don't have to spray-paint the word "cat" on my cat to define what it is.  It's obvious by definition, so nothing else is needed.

Simply put, your question is utterly irrelevant to my point, and just plain dishonest in my opinion.  I hope that helps.

Ahh, but the people DON'T vote for the President, either directly OR indirectly. Furthermore, there is NO constitutional right to vote. So much for that argument.

Of course we vote indirectly for the President.  What the hell are you talking about?  What's with the millions of people who go to the polls on the first tuesday after the first monday in november of every fourth year?

It doesn't matter if the right to vote is listed or not.  The system allows us to vote, and we do.  The characteristics of the system define what the system is, not anything else.  Did you miss when I wrote that previously, or what?

Now, if for some reason the system changes, and people don't vote anymore, then it wouldn't be a democracy.  Until that happens, you have no point.

Yes, the people do vote for the president indirectly. Once or twice the president got elected who did not win the popular vote, but this is an anomoly in the system, not a feature. That would be like saying that because a computer crashes once a year, it does not run and was not designed to run. 

Presidential candidates court the popular vote. I would like to see a campaign run in which a presidential candidate did not court the popular vote.

While it is true that we don't have a consitutional right to vote, we still do vote. Our voting makes it a democracy as the word is understood.

To further expand on that argument, we have (or should have) a constitutional right to free speech, but in the past this right has been abridged. Look at what would happen if  you were a black and spoke out in the 1940's. Simply because something is or isn't in the constitution does not make it a feature of how our country functions.  

Don't forget that Eugene Debs went to prison for six years for simply giving an anti war speech. Until court decisions got rid of the seditious libel law free speech didnt really exist in this country.

JASON is into semantics, and that's OK for a semi-friendly barroom argument over beer.

PURE "democracy" is, of course, MOB RULE, whereby three foxes and a hen "vote" what's for dinner, majority rules.

In America, we have protection of individual rights from the tyranny of the majority, so we cannot have a "pure" democracy ... and should NOT have. The Bill of Rights restricts what laws the MAJORITY can vote into existence, if that law infringes on the rights of an individual.

Further, we are a "republic" and depend on "representative" governance, rather than direct rule by votes of ALL the people.

So, technically, JASON has a small argument which can be nitpicked into the ground. For all practical purposes, a "DEMOCRACY" is distinguished from rule by tyranny, by elitists, or by monied and powerful interests, landowners, holders of capital, or bloodlines. Such RULE was typical of governance in nations PRIOR to the United States adopting its "impure" form of democracy, whereby THE PEOPLE ultimately are in charge, choose their leaders, and direct what kind of nation we are to be (representatives can regularly GO AGAINST the will of the people, but will soon find themselves out of a job).

Presidents, including BUSH, regularly invoke our being "a democracy" as being both a TRUTH, and being a GOOD THING. So good, in fact, we should strive to spread "democracy" such as we practice around the globe. It's better by far, it's said, than any dictator or tyrant or monarch or "communist/socialist" form of government.

America is a Democracy, for all practical purposes. But our democracy is not "pure", because we are ultimately a CONSTITUTIONAL government, with protections for the minority which "mob rule" cannot override.

Whew. This "definitional" stuff is so very tedious, and ultimately irrelevant. You win, JASON! We Americans DO NOT have a "democracy", in pure form. But the ways in which the purity of our democracy strays from the "pure" form is negligable compared to the difference our "democracy" has from the OTHER major forms of governance in which THE PEOPLE have NO say. 'Nuf said. 

“America is a Constitutional Republic, NOT a democracy.”

-Actually, America is a democracy.  If you want to get technical, it’s a Constitutionally Limited Democratic republic.

“Oh sure, we employ some democratic processes, but very few. A democracy is a system where the majority rules. Whatever the majority wants, the majority gets.”

-What you’re describing is a pure or direct democracy.  These no longer exists [I think].

“No, it's not. According to the constitution, elections can be considered a democratic process. We vote for our representatives and put them into office. From that point on, those representatives make policy and vote their own opinions, not ours. So much for majority rules.”

-Theoretically, representatives are suppose to express the views of their constituents.  Nowadays it has been perverted to your definition.

“A good example is the war in Iraq.  If the United States were a democracy, you would have been contacted by the federal government and asked to give a yes or no vote on removing Saddam Hussein from power.  But we're NOT a democracy, so that didn't happen.  The representatives in Congress voted their opinions, and lo and behold, we're at war.  If the majority had ruled in that situation, it is doubtful that we would be in Iraq.”

-This example is somewhat flawed because the Congress never declared war; Bush declared war.

-What about referendums?

“Our system is designed around, and protects, the rights and freedoms of the individual.”

-Theoretically, it’s suppose to.  But by you given representatives king-like powers, the only opinion that counts is the representative’s.  100 percent of the general public could agree on something and the representatives could tell the public to f—k off (using your definition).

-And why do Bush and the republicans keep saying we’re bringing democracy to Iraq if we’re not obviously doing that (I’m referencing your definition of democracy)?  Why do republicans use the term democracy if democracies no longer exist (I’m referencing your definition of democracy)?

Funny and Loony,

Thank you for all of your biased, subjective research. Now, please, tell me WHERE IN OUR GOVERNMENTAL DOCUMENTS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DESCRIBED, OR DEFINED AS, A DEMOCRACY. I really want you to show me some CONCRETE evidence that I'm wrong. I mean, I've read the Constitution, I've read the Bill of Rights, I've read the Declaration, and I can't find ONE MENTION of the word.

What I DID find, however, is a definition of "democracy" from a 1928 government publication. And I've gotta tell you, it looks NOTHING like the interpretations that you have given.

You really do have to explain how your question is relevant in order to repeat it so many times.

Ok, I'll try to explain this one more time. Many of you believe that the form of government that is exercised in the United States is a democracy.

My position is that the form of government exercised in the United States is a constitutional republic.

I have explained how our system of government is NOT democratic in nature. I did admit that some of the processes (i.e. elections) are, in fact, democratic processes. This does not automatically qualify the United States as a democracy. Just as the Congress operates under parliamentary procedure, we do not qualify ourselves as being a parliamentary system of government.

Even after all of this, some of you STILL maintain that we are a democracy above and beyond anything else (except Loonz, who finally admitted that we are a republic).

So, I ask for some sort of proof that our system was modeled as a democracy. The word does not appear in the founding documents. We rarely heard the word spoken or saw it written for the first 160 years of this country's existence. So, why, if we were supposed to be, or are, a democracy, did this country shy away from the very use of the word for a century and a half?

You are just rehashing your arguments. I both explained why linguistically it is a democracy (words have meaning on how they are used), and posted two studies that show the US is a democracy.

We further gave good reasons why it doesn't matter if the word appears on original documents. (Your contention that it did "We rarely heard the word spoken or saw it written for the first 160 years of this country's existence" seems a stretch. How would  you know that--have you looked at letters, novels, speeches, etc.?)

Repeating the same argument over and over again is not convincing.  

"Ok, I'll try to explain this one more time. Many of you believe that the form of government that is exercised in the United States is a democracy."

Democracy is the right of every [adult] person to participate in a system of government.  Just by electing our representatives, we're a democracy.

"(except Loonz, who finally admitted that we are a republic)."

We are a representative democracy AKA republic. 

"(except Loonz, who finally admitted that we are a republic)"

This was already addressed by my first post.  "Republic" and "Democracy" are not mutually exclusive.  It only means it's not a pure, direct democracy.

The people vote.  The "demo" in "democracy" means "people".  I know you are loathe to address what that biased dictionary says, but here's something else:"Note: Democratic institutions, such as parliaments, may exist in a monarchy. Such constitutional monarchies as Britain, Canada, and Sweden are generally counted as democracies in practice."

Isn't that something?  Even if you have a monarch, if you elect a legislature, then it counts as a democracy.  How about that!

Good post.

I want to further reiterate as someone with an advanced degree in English, that words have meaning in context, exactly as this post points underscores. One person or one idealology or one person cannot redefined a word for its or his purpose.

If everyone in the world agrees that the US, Canada, Germany, etc exhibit the characteristics of a democracy, then those countries are democracies. That is the way language works. 

Corrected for typos (grrr)

Good post.

I want to further reiterate as someone with an advanced degree in English, that words have meaning in context, exactly as this post underscores. One person or one idealology cannot redefine a word for his or its purpose.

If everyone in the world agrees that the US, Canada, Germany, etc exhibit the characteristics of a democracy, then those countries are democracies. That is the way language works. 

Thanks!

"One person or one idealology or one person cannot redefined a word for its or his purpose."

They sure do try, though, don't they?  As well as believing six impossible things before breakfast, some wingnuts seem to have this attitude as well;

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

There's glory for you, indeed!

Okay, I need to read this book. It is one of the ones I haven't read. 

As soon as I get done with Proust, which means, FMP, stop spending so much time on these boards...  

Brilliant! So why do you find it so hard to accept the FACT that this country is a constitutional republic.

Nobody does.  Why do you have so much trouble accepting that a republic is a form of democracy, as has been repeatedly demonstrated?

You're not being biased or anything, are you?

I agree with brabantio below, but I would further add that America's system is even more complicated than that. In the 1960s, Blacks didn't have the right to vote. They got the vote not through any parlimentary procedures, but through peaceful protest, that led to parlimentary procedures. So there are forms of democracy that fall outside the neat system of parties and elections. 

Likewise, as I pointed out above, though the constitution guarantees certain rights, these rights can be violated. Simply looking at the amount of democracy in a country by one document is not adequate.  

Blacks got the right to vote with the passage of the 14th and 15th amendments in the mid 1800s but a lot of southern states found ways to keep them from the polls.  The Voting Rights Act in the 1960s made the practices employed by those states illegal.

No one claimed America was not a republic.  In my first post I stated that we were a Democratic republic.

We'ev already addressed this point. You haven't answered our arguments except by calling them biased. (Really, one of my links was from the economist, a right wing publication, I would think.)

You can't answer our argument so persist on a narrow point. It would be like if I said "In order for a car to be fast, it must be blue. That car is not blue!" And you came back and explained the fallacy of my logic, and I cam back and said "But you are biased! Show me where that car is blue! You can't! You are wrong!"

In short, we addressed your points directly and honestly above.  

"What I DID find, however, is a definition of "democracy" from a 1928 government publication."

I just realized that you earlier talked about how we'ver been saying America is a democracy for the last 60 years.  1928 is more than that amount of time.  So even assuming that the definition you speak of (yet mysteriously fail to provide) was considered legitimate, the meanings of words change over time.  And as was astutely pointed out, many more people have been allowed to vote than there were originally, which is relevant to that point.

So even if it wasn't technically a democracy then, it is now.  I don't think that's really the case, but in any event your citation of that unknown definition proves nothing.

Aren't governments mini democracies?  The representatives in gov't vote on something and the majority wins the day.

Your definition of democracy is needlessly narrow to suit your idealology. Words have meaning on how they are used. If everyone (including professors, our own president and politicians, journalists, etc) define democracy as the type of government that the US, Canada, and Germany have, then that is a democracy. 

Here are two organizations that rank the amount of democracy of countries around the world:

http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm

http://www.economist.com/markets/rankings/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8908438 

The first link gives the US a ranking of 15 out of 180 nations. The second one  ranks the US 17, and defines the US as one of only 27 that is a full democracy. 

I love it when repukians trot out this ridiculous canard upon which their entire party is based: that the U.S. is a republic and not a democracy.

If that's the case, how are we special in any way as opposed to the hundreds of other republics around the world? How is America's governmental system at all revolutionary, original, or innovative, considering that republics have existed at least since SPQR?

And why the heck are we so concerned with spending billions of dollars on fostering democracy in other countries (e.g. Iraq) if our own system is not a democracy?

...Gotcha!

Notice that the only people who get bent of shape when someone refers to the United States as a "Democracy" are Conservatives?  Make the horrible mistake of calling this country a "Democracy" instead of a "Republic" to liberals, and those liberals will ignore the error and go to the substance of your argument.  Do it when a Conservative is nearby, and that Conservative will react as if you just called his mother a crack whore.  

Know why?  Because deep down, Conservatives hate what they quietly refer to as "the mob"- the mass of voters who, in their abysmal ignorance, vote to create and sustain things like Social Security, subsidized Health Care, etc.  It drives them nuts and they wish to hell that the U.S. could just be ruled by a tiny band of Right-Wingers who would lead the mob like a shepherd does his flock.    I can't think of any other explanation for the consistently violent reaction to what is really just a matter of semantics. 

"Politicians use the word "democracy" because for 60 years now we've had this idea pounded into our heads that America is, and was originally supposed to be, a democracy. They are ALL IGNORANT of the FACT that we are NOT a democracy, nor were we ever supposed to be."

They use it because we are a democracy.  A republic is a representative democracy.

You don't need to have that word on an original document to prove this country is a democracy, as has been explained above. In addition, language has meaning on how it is used, not how you think it should be used. For example the word "peruse" originally meant to read carefully. Now people use it to mean to skim. If in 100 years, the only way that people use the word "peruse" is to skim, you can't claim that those people are ignorant of what the word really meant. 

In addition, our country has changed a lot since the founding fathers. During that time, only rich white people could vote.  

I found it incredible when Matthews claimed that "only George W. Bush could have pulled off that amazing bullhorn moment at ground zero."  Oh really?  Nobody else could have rallied our country together after our worst attack in history?  I can think of a couple of thousand other people who might have pulled off that "feat".  Jeeze I swear Chris Matthews is in love with Bush.  "Bleah!"

"I am standing up." Davy Jones.

It's funny.  Every time Bush and the republicans are in trouble Bin Laden comes with a helping hand.  By releasing this video, he is essentially helping republicans.  Why does Bin Laden want republicans to win?

Bin Laden's a sick man, 'tis true,

He's a psychotic murderer, too.

Could the pundits refrain

From attributing gain

For pols of any political hue?