Democracy:

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly <font color=yellow>or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections</font>
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Argue with the dictionary, not me. I'm just using the language, I didn't make it up.

For further clarity, a The American Republic is a democratic system of government, as opposed to the old Soviet Republics, which, though being representative in nature, and having elections (single party) were not based on democratic principles.

The type of Republic America aspires to being, is a representative democracy. Whether or not it suceeds in achieving that ideal is of course open to debate, but all things considered, it's a fair definition, involving the intent of the founders, and the mechanisms of the nation.

Clear? Comprende?

Australia, though being offically in name a Commonwealth: or a constitutional monarchy, it is also for all intents and purposes, a representative democracy in type.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...122678,00.html

Positive review from a Fox News (!) reporter:

Fahrenheit 9/11' Gets Standing Ovations

Tuesday, June 15, 2004

By Roger Friedman

The crowd that gave Michael Moore's controversial "Fahrenheit 9/11" a standing ovation last night at the Ziegfeld Theatre premiere certainly didn't have to be encouraged at all to show their appreciation. From liberal radio host and writer Al Franken to actor/director Tim Robbins, Moore was in his element. But once "F9/11" gets to audiences beyond screenings, it won't be dependent on celebrities for approbation. It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.

As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, "F9/11" — as we saw last night — is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty, and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice. Readers of this column may recall that I had a lot of problems with Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," particularly where I thought he took gratuitous shots at helpless targets like Charlton Heston. "Columbine" too easily succeeded by shooting fish in a barrel, as they used to say. Not so with "F9/11," which instead relies on lots of film footage and actual interviews to make its case against the war in Iraq and tell the story of the intertwining histories of the Bush and Bin Laden families.

First, I know you want to know who came to the Ziegfeld, so here is just a partial list. Besides Franken and Robbins, Al Sharpton, Mike Myers, Tony Bennett, Glenn Close, Gretchen Mol (newly married over the weekend to director Todd Williams), Lori Singer, Tony Kushner, "Angela's Ashes" author Frank McCourt, Jill Krementz and Kurt Vonnegut, Lauren Bacall (chatting up a fully refurbished Lauren Hutton), Richard Gere, John McEnroe and Patti Smythe, former Carter cabinet member and ambassador Richard Holbrooke, Carson Daly, NBC's Jeff Zucker, a very pregnant Rory Kennedy, playwright Israel Horovitz, Macaulay Culkin, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Kyra Sedgwick, Linda Evangelista, Ed Bradley, Tom and Meredith Brokaw, director Barry Levinson, NBC anchor Brian Williams, Vernon Jordan, Eva Mendez, Sandra Bernhard and the always humorous Joy Behar.

If that's not enough, how about Yoko Ono, accompanied by her son, Sean, who's let his hair grow out and is now sporting a bushy beard that makes him look like his late, beloved father John Lennon?

And then, just to show you how much people wanted to see this film, there was Martha Stewart, looking terrific. I mean, talk about eclectic groups!

Now, unless you've been living under a rock you know that this movie has been the cause of a lot of trouble. Miramax and Disney have gone to war over it, and "The Passion of the Christ" seems like "Mary Poppins" in retrospect. Before anyone's even seen it, there have been partisan debates over which way Moore may have spun this or that to get a desired effect.

But, really, in the end, not seeing "F9/11" would be like allowing your first amendment rights to be abrogated, no matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat. The film does Bush no favors, that's for sure, but it also finds an unexpectedly poignant and universal groove in the story of Lila Lipscombe, a Flint, Michigan mother who sends her kids into the Army for the opportunities it can provide — just like the commercials say — and lives to regret it. Lipscombe's story is so powerful, and so completely Middle American, that I think it will take Moore's critics by surprise. She will certainly move to tears everyone who encounters her.

"F9/11" isn't perfect, and of course, there are leaps of logic sometimes. One set piece is about African American congressmen and women voting against the war with Iraq and wondering why there are no Senators to support them. Indeed, those absent senators include John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Kennedy, among others, which Moore does not elaborate upon. At no point are liberals or Democrats taken to task for not speaking out against the war, and I would have liked to have seen that.

On the other hand, there are more than enough moments that seemed to resonate with the huge Ziegfeld audience. The most indelible is President Bush's reaction to hearing on the morning of September 11, 2001, that the first plane has crashed into the World Trade Center. Bush was reading to a grade school class in Florida at that moment. Instead of jumping up and leaving, he instead sat in front of the class, with an unfortunate look of confusion, for nearly 11 minutes. Moore obtained the footage from a teacher at the school who videotaped the morning program. There Bush sits, with no access to his advisers, while New York is being viciously attacked. I guarantee you that no one who sees this film forgets this episode.

More than even "The Passion of the Christ," "F9/11" is going to be a "see it for yourself" movie when it hits theaters on June 25. It simply cannot be missed, and I predict it will be a huge moneymaker. And that's where Disney's Michael Eisner comes in. Not releasing this film will turn out to be the curse of his career. When Eisner came into Disney years ago, the studio was at a low point. He turned it around with a revived animation department and comedy hits like "Pretty Woman" and "Down and Out in Beverly Hills." But Eisner's short-sightedness on many recent matters has been his undoing. And this last misadventure is one that will follow him right out the doors of the Magic Kingdom.

[ 06-16-2004, 05:13 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

OMG MOORE LIES AND DISTORTS TRUTH IN MOVIE ADVERTISEMENTS THAT MANIPULATE PRESIDENT BUSH OMG

http://pandemonium.phpwebhosting.com/moore.jpg

Wow - a credible report from a Faux News reporter you say? What is his name - I will be asking every 2 months from now on whether ole Rupie has sacked him yet ;) .

Very good of you to get this thread back on topic Groj from the places that it had been distracted to. Now who's up for a night at the flicks? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 06-16-2004, 05:55 AM: Message edited by: Davros ]

Well - not going to see Moore's controversial movies never stopped anyone here on Ironworks from bashing them all the same...

Can you hope to get around the statistical phenomena of gun crimes, homicides and violent crime going up after gun control was enacted?

The guns were already on the streets, and they continue to be as such today. All the gun control laws can possibly achieve is to disarm law abiding citizens. Criminals still have guns... Check for the last time a legal CHL holder was convicted of a crime involving their concealed weapon...

As for F 9/11, it's a "documentary", which means several things:

It won't be as good as Once Upon a Time In America, or William Wyler's Ben Hur, nor will it be as humane (and brilliantly made) as a Martin Scorsese film (like Gangs of New York, or Raging Bull) and it won't have the raw edge of my favorite type of film, so I'm not too interested in it. Considering Moore's record at keeping the facts straight, I'm not going to take it too seriously, if I do see it ever.

Can you hope to get around the statistical phenomena of gun crimes, homicides and violent crime going up after gun control was enacted?

The guns were already on the streets, and they continue to be as such today. All the gun control laws can possibly achieve is to disarm law abiding citizens. Criminals still have guns... Check for the last time a legal CHL holder was convicted of a crime involving their concealed weapon...

</font>[/QUOTE]You need to visit the place. So that's two on your list. Australia and New York. Surely you can come and visit New York. It's only a few hours away right? Then you could see for yourself how ineffective those gun laws are.

That's fine, and you're entitled to not seeing it. I don't even mind the occasional condescending remark or cheap dig at Moore's address - after all, it's what we all do if it concerns something that we're really not interested in for strong personal reasons.
What I *do* mind however, is pretending to give indepth criticism of Moore's movie while purely basing that criticism on the very first bash site you come across, because you couldn't be bothered to see it. I find the person of Ann Coulter detestable, but if I've never read one of her books, I'm not going to bother debating one of those books by listing all of its inconsistencies that I just happened to have read on an anti-Coulter site - in that case you're not even slightly interested in judging the novel for what it's worth, but only in using some Internet site to fuel the fire of your own personal vendetta towards Coulter. Sure, you're entitled to do so - but it simply reflects badly on you, and just doesn't make a very convincing case either way; and with Michael Moore, it's the same thing.
Honestly, if you really wish to debate the movie's details in a decent and most importantly convincing manner, at least have the decency to see it at least once. People probably don't even realise how sheepish they look if they base all of their supposedly "rational" hate on what people like Hardy tell them what the truth is, and while they may feel morally superior to "sheepish Moore followers", theoretically they're just as bad, if not worse.

[ 06-17-2004, 07:43 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]