Oh come on Kate he is way too fat to be a weasel. A super stout stoat maybe but definitely not a weasel.

Not bad for a multi-millionaire who lives in Manhattan, sends his kids to private school and charges over $30,000 for speaking gigs.

Who are the idiots that lap up this hypocritical drivel?

It has been stated elsewhere---Michael Moore is a big fat liar.
In his "Roger" movie he claimed that the President of GM would talk to him while in reality Moore had hours of interviews....
Farenheit 911 plays to sold out houses in the ME----in principle he is financed by Al Qaida.....
He's not really worth a bullet,,,,,,,

Gap toothed weasels that who.

"Oh come on Kate he is way too fat to be a weasel. A super stout stoat maybe but definitely not a weasel."

No, I think you mean Hutt, as in Michael-the-Hutt.

Would somebody please harpoon that critter Moby Moore and melt him down for lamp oil? :-)

chip, have you ever visited daily kos, huffington post, or wondered why people like bill maher and jon stewart still have jobs?

There's your answer. Enough sheep and lemmings in the world to make these people millionaires. Somehow the herds of animals lap up their poisonous bile on a daily basis.

More of the same drivel from this self-proclaimed, righteous hypocrite who has done well under this so-called evil system.

Sort of like Hugh Hefner complaining that people are sex maniacs.

A real documentary made by people who studied Mickey Moore and his movies. Two Canadians reveal MM's fabrications in their Documentary; Manufacturing Discent .
Another good Youtube video is Farenhype 9/11 in 8 parts. Well worth the time and really reveals the BS this overstuffed weasel comes out with.

Sorry html coding mistake. Manufacturing Discent .
And for Farenhype 9/11 use Youtube search.

Capitalism is evil.

Tell us, Michael Moore, how did you make your money?

Capitalism is based on voluntary trade for mutual benefit by free individuals. This is obviously not evil; it is consistent with the principles of justice. The system does not "condemn millions to poverty"; it has proved to be the only one that can eradicate poverty. Things may have got worse in recent decades since Big Government started expanding out of control -- but under capitalism, you don't have a Big Government such as we do now.

Socialism is a system of violence against the individual, either by a totalitarian or authoritarian state or by one nation against another in war. It's favoured by power-hungry thugs desperate to pretend they're great human beings without doing anything to earn it.

In short, capitalism is about productive individuals while socialism is about looters.

From the article: "You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy". Let's not forget that odious regimes like North Korea and the former East Germany called themselves "democratic".

Re the "uncomfortably close relationship between banks, politicians and U.S. Treasury officials, meaning that regulation has been changed to favor the few on Wall Street rather than the many on Main Street" in which "by encouraging Americans to borrow against the value of their homes, businesses created the conditions that led to the crisis, and with it homelessness and unemployment": that ain't capitalism. Under capitalism, the government backs off and doesn't "encourage" anyone to do anything. He's blaming capitalism for the sins of its enemies.

As for "Essentially we have a law which says gambling is illegal but we've allowed Wall Street to do this and they've played with people's money and taken it into these crazy areas of derivatives", frankly I kind of wonder about some of that stock market stuff too, but I'll bet you'll find it traces back to the establishment of the Federal Reserve, and that ain't capitalism either. Capitalism should have a gold standard.

I'm not in favour of the massive bailout or "stimulus" -- guess what, that ain't capitalism either.

Bottom line: again, he blames capitalism for the sins of its destroyers -- the regulators and bureaucrats.

The poster boy for obesity doesn't like freedom or justice too much, that's his problem. He's smart and funny, but on the wrong side. Lord only knows why.

Looking forward to the free screening when it opens in my town. (don't mind paying for the popcorn though)

Michael is so right, and so many more of the downtrodden would see his movies if he would release them, free of charge, on youtube.

Just a thought for the corpulent, benevolvent one.

Gunney:

Two tries, and you couldn't spell "dissent" either time?

But really - who doesn't think that Moore was the fat quasi-brainy kid, who, like Martin Prince on the Simpsons, got tormented regularly by his peers? He's married, it's true, but does anyone think his wife regularly has relations with this obese whale? I'd like to indulge in idle speculation about his size, stamina, etc., but that would be stooping to Democrat standards. I think he's enormously frustrated and determined to get back at the people who put him down - which, in a way, kind of describes PET and Cretin, doesn't it?

Sasquatch has it right.

You always run into semi-conservatives who'll admit to a soft spot for Moore's first film, Roger & Me.

Of course, as in Gay Talese's seminal magazine piece "Frank Sinatra Has A Cold," the film's premise is that the director can't get an interview with the movie's main subject.

Except: there are hours of footage of Moore with the head of GM. He asked for an interview early on, and it was granted readily.

But that wouldn't have made much of a movie, right...

So Moore pretended that the GM boss wouldn't talk to him. And he became a millionaire. Heck, his personal net worth must be comparable to that GM fellow's by now...

Condo Vultures?

vultures provide a extremely vital role. they clean up the carcasses of inevitably deceased wildlife. can you imagine billions of dead animals littering the landscape? likewise vacant repos are an invitation to set up a crack house.

until the Condo or perhaps they should say 'Condor' people come along and put the thing back on the market.

OTOH Mr Moore appears to be dead set against the bailout. this is a good thing.

MM reminds me of a gross, unpopular, teenager who is willing to abase himself in any way to get the attention and approval of the "rich cool kids" of lefty Hollywood and New York. If I wanted to make a doc movie, I would start with MM's old high school buddies and fellow workers on the GM Suburban production line. The complete silence of sources others than himself about his early years rivals the Obama iron curtain maintained by the MSM. I wonder if there was a red slut back there someplace who reeled him in like they did for so many other hopeless misfits.

Duuuuh helloooo! How about we watch it before we comment!!

Who are the idiots that lap up this hypocritical drivel?

Posted by: chip at September 7, 2009 12:59 AM

But, but , but, he still wears a ball cap, so he must be legit.

Right?

Posted by: Joe Citizen at September 7, 2009 8:14 AM

Watch a MM flick? I did that once, I still feel slightly dirty.

odd - I thought the financial crises was brought on by US social policy. You know the policy that forced the financial system to lend money to unqualified people.

Joe,

As Mark Twain said, "You don't have to eat an egg to know it's rotten"

Churchill said something something like, "I need not consume the entire cake to know that it's rotten." Who knew he'd been lifting Twain's material all along?

You gotta love the way Moore portrayed Toronto as a crime-free utopian society in Bowling For Columbine.

Can we take all of Michael Moore's money? He doesn't need it because he says money is EVIL!

CHEEEEEEESE!!!!

"How about we watch it before we comment!!"

Thank you, no. I do believe I'd rather climb the Himalayas in clogs.

My uninterest in Moore and anything he represents precludes my wasting a moment on him or his films.

I rather suspect that, lacking the hated Bush-Cheney regime to revile anymore, and his own man in the White House now, Moore will be increasingly marginalized. After all, it's hard to "rage against the machine" when it's your machine.

Moore is effectively trapped in his own parallel "progressive" universe; like Cindy Sheehan, he stands to be spurned and rejected should he earn the disapproval of the Obamatistas who now run the "system".

What Moore is actually railing against is not Capitalism at all. It is corporate fascism. The government and big business in the US have too much of an incestuous relationship and it is evil but it has nothing to do with capitalism. It is just another form of socialism.

Methinks the Left has pretty much made Michael Moore its official propaganda filmmaker.

As for seizing assets, why do I get the feeling that George Soros's assets should be seized? If Soros wasn't a Leftist, the state apparatus would be all over him like they were all over the obviously-innocent Conrad Black for nothing, and they'd be finding all sorts of irregularities particularly vis-a-vis election campaign financing and partisan/ideological communications and so on and so forth. No way in hell is it all above-board... no way.

There is s tribe in New Guinea that would love Michael Moore. However, they said that the meat of white men is quite strong.

What is so astonishing is Moore's statement that capitalism and democracy are polar opposites. This doesn't make sense.

Capitalism is an economic system that is based around private ownership of the production of goods and services. Its opposite is socialism, which promotes collective rather than individual and private ownership.

Democracy is not an economic system but a method of decision-making in a political system; democracy takes as its population base for such decision-making, all of its citizens.

The US is both a capitalist economy, which means its production capacities belong to private citizens rather than the state, and a democracy, which means its decision-making capacities rest with the citizens.

However, for Moore to merge these two, and try to insist that economic decisions in private businesses ought to instead be made by the state or the collective, is ridiculous. I haven't noticed that he allows collective decision-making over his economic activities.

Michael Moore is a HIPPOCRITAMUS.

Does he actually that there is any other system that could produce enough greasy fast food to keep his weight up where he apparently likes it?

I think he sees socialism as a sure fire diet plan for himself and that's it.

ET is right. Capitalism and Democracy go hand in hand - both are strongly rooted in personal freedom and choice.

Dear Michael Moore - who will decide? And if I oppose your decision, how far will you take your coercion and control?

The answers to these questions are far more disturbing than any you have ever bothered to ask.

I once went to a Michael Moore movie (can't recall which, not memorable) because my friend paid my way so as to get my feelings on it. Throughout the show people actually booed whenever George W appeared. There was no attempt whatsoever at fair
comment, nothing that wasn't posed or taken out of context and the audience actually applauded after the viewing. Who were they applauding? Obviously
themselves and their self-righteousness.

Actually a while back, I was pondering Moore's absense with all the leftist noise---he was strangely absent.
I guess he wasn't invited to the AGW or Hope/change parties...in fact likely excluded....
My take is he is now as irrelevant as Cindy Sheehan now.

Match made in Heaven: Michael Moore and Lizzie May.

Both repugnant bags of puss from Idiotville.

Let me correct that: Match made in HELL: Michael Moore and Lizzie May.

To me, socialism looks a lot like an extrapolated tribal system. A collective is much like a tribe, no one has any particular responsibility because there is no 'individual' in the equation. There is usually a very small ruling elite such as a family or a committee who squabble while the proletariat wait in the wings for instructions on how to live and what to do next.

While waiting a lot of graffiti gets published, property gets destroyed, stuff gets stolen, people drink a lot and take drugs. All signs of the hopelessness that sets in once one resigns to the evil and childish ideas of communism/collectivism/tribalism/totalitarianism/secularism/disarmamentism ... add your particular "ism" at will.

There is no incentive do achieve anything or even clean up a mess since you get nothing for it and it's not yours anyway. If you have anything or do anything above, behind or around anyone else you will be envied and hated and reported to the ruling elites of your tribe/collective whatever.

The tribal system is unproductive in large numbers. Collectives come in large numbers or they would be called tribes.

Perhaps that is why all collectives are impoverished as are all tribal cultures such as Middle East without the oil money. Canadian Natives with the current enforced tribal apartheid, the socialist nationalism and tribal tendency of Quebec. The former Soviet Union. Cuba.

The many examples are in high density living color, yet the loons and goons of the left deny, deny, deny. It is pointless to debate it with them when we know they are incapable of making the leap to free thinking, free living, self-reliant human beings. We must run rough shod over them and force them to comply with those of us who truly know what is best for humanity.

That can be summed up in one word. FREEDOM ... and lots of it!

If we must have a human rights commission, it's goal should be to protect achievers from leftist envy. The pursuit of happiness stated in the American constitution (and what that implies) is the only human right we truly need.

MM = asswipe!.

Too bad he and all his followers would not take the walk off the cliff.

In order to watch a Michael Moore film, you have to suspend your "disbelief" mechanism, just like you do at a "Harry Potter" movie.

BUT, it IS essential after the MM flick, that you turn the mechanism back ON, and check out the claims he makes in his propaganda vehicles.

They DO NOT stand up to the least bit of scrutiny, MM's a propagandist and a liar,and a very RICH one at that,nothing more.

When I want to see MM's latest, I'll "borrow" it from the internet and give it my full attention from beginning to end.

I know it's "stealing", something that used to be a great sin but is perfectly acceptable nowadays,but thieves and liars aspire to high positions these days, and succeed in getting there, so I'll not lose any sleep over it.

Not worth a comment as far as a movie goes, but I would only point out that Oliver Stone's movie about how wonderful Chavez is is playing right next door at the festival. This year's Film Festival's Theme seem to be the Anti-Capitalist Radical Leftist Poster Boys for the Decline of the Western World Make Movies glorifying the Socialist Way.

Then like minded lefties pick a winner.

The sad part is they believe what they say and seem unaware of the lessons of history as to the fates of socialist governments and the events unfolding about them.

All Hail our Glorious Leaders who call us their children and who in the name of social equity simply take appoint themselves leaders for life (fixed elections included free of charge) from others to give to us for only the cost of our social and economic freedoms and for some their physical freedam as well.

Comrades Moore and Stone are performing a valuable service in the re-education of the ignorant masses.

The United States was not designed as a democracy. It is supposed to be a republic. The difference being that in a republic there are limits to the power of government and the people that protect the property rights of the minority from the majority. In a democracy the majority can vote away the property of the majority in the name of social justice.

I think this genius is very illuminating, in that, properly rendered, he could fuel a lot of green lamps. May he ever burn brightly in the windows of our mud huts.

kevin - please, please, don't fall into the pop culture trap of misunderstanding the term 'democracy'.

The US is BOTH a republic AND a democracy. The term 'republic' doesn't mean 'limits to the power of government', for constitutional monarchies and parliamentary systems ALSO function within the constraints of 'limits to the power of government'.

The term 'republic' means that there is no hereditary authority; it means that the ultimate political and legal authority is non-hereditary 'the people' or their representatives'.

The term 'democracy' refers to 'how are decisions made'...within a republic or a monarchy or an aristotcracy or...

It simply means that decisions are derived from a majority vote of a SET of the population. This SET can be made up of all citizens, or all landowners, or all Nobles, or all the members of the Senate, or all the members of the House of Commons.

BUT, in all political systems, this democratic vote is CONSTRAINED with a set of rules - which are made up, usually, of a Constitution, and a set of legal jurisprudence.

So, the federal govt in Canada can't make decisions about provincial or municipal affairs. It can't make decisions about a financial cost without understanding that this is a vote of confidence, etc. There are lots of rules that restrict the government - including that it must hold elections every few years, it must 'sit' at least once a year, and so on.

In the US, only the House can pass financial bills, and, all bills must adhere to the criteria of the Constitution. The US has lots of rules constraining government, including that important Amendment 10, which gives all non-stated federal mandates..to the states and the people.

It is only in the degenerate mode of democracy, which doesn't exist in any society-- where NO RULES governing the mandate of the organization exist, and where a simple majority whim, is considered valid. Indeed, I can't think of any such situation where this unconstrained mode of 'democracy', its degenerate mode, would function.

So, please, clear up your understanding of these important terms.

The difference between a republic and a democracy

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_difference_between_a_republic_and_a_democracy

ET,

One need not remove constraints on democracy to create a degenerate mode of democracy. One need only honor the form of the constraints while gutting them of substance or selectively reinterpreting enumerated powers in one arena to nullify the constraints in another. Happens all the time.

Lou

And then there is Oliver Stone. http://tinyurl.com/nupr9l
"Chavez, who landed in Venice for the film's premiere, has earned a reputation for his outspoken criticism of U.S. policy, and in Stone's "South of the Border" he is sympathetically portrayed as a hero of the people who refuses to be bullied."

"Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil"

Oh, we should then let it run wild?

No, apparently he doesn't like that.

He wants to legislate it out of existence?

Is not legislation regulation?

So confused. I guess I don't have the brains to be a Democrat.

Kevin you actually take Wiki as being authoritative?

Oh my. Have you sought professional help for that?

ET; in your description of the US Republic, it may be more clear to mention that the Constitution is Supreme. This theme dominates any Second Amendment debate.
This is supposed to be true in Canada as well. We are a Constitutional Monarchy but in the areas of the Rights of Citizens and the Provinces the Constitution gets short shift. Why?

What no one will seize Fat Mikes assets? Well can you blame them? With all that fat Mikey hasn't seen his assets for decades let alone have them seized.

Oh you were referring to his money! My bad.

Kevin - you don't go to Wiki for answers to serious theoretical questions! All you'll get is ignorant opinions, such as you yourself expressed. And that Wiki answer is nonsense, absolute ignorant rubbish.

Do you realize - and you would if you THOUGHT about it - that the Wiki definition of 'democracy' is actually a totalitarian collectivist regime? Their definition actually fits a communist state far more accurately. Think about it.

The US constitution is focused on individual freedom and equality, and its Bill of Rights or First Ten amendments, guarantees individual freedom and rights.

BUT, the Constitution also clearly outlines how decision-making is to be carried out, by a democratic vote, and it outlines the numbers of votes required, and so on. So, the US is BOTH a republic AND a democracy, for majority vote in its Congress wins the decision. Again, it's a majority vote - that's the democratic process.

I suggest that you take a look at Aristotle's definitions of both terms. You could also read Popper's The open society and its enemies, where he 'gently' mocks the 'naive understanding of democracy as that majority mob rule' and points out is real meaning as the 'institutional control of the rulers by the ruled'.

Again, a republic is a structure of political authority that sets up the political authority as non-hereditary. That's its basic definition. In order to function in this non-hereditary mode, its leadership must be, obviously, elected. Or sent by Zeus in a flash of lighting. When you get the leadership as elected, then, you must set up the notion of 'who is the electorate'..and so on.

A democracy, again - and against that abysmally stupid Wiki, is NOT a state structure. It's a PROCESS of coming to a decision. Please understand the difference between a Structure and a Process.

If you come to a decision by a majority vote..that's a democratic process (as against an authoritarian, no dissent decision). The next question comes..who are the SET of people who make this decision? Is it the elected representatives? And are they bound by a constitution?

There is NO society - I repeat - NO society - that operates by 'mob rule'..i.e., where just the majority make the decisions. There is ALWAYS some form of restraint on decision-making, whether it be a constitution or in very small, pre-industrial societies..the force of tradition.

Please - clear up your understanding, and when you read definitions..think about them and whether they really, have any validity.

Gunny99 - the US Constitution is very detailed and clear. Our Canadian Constitution, if you've ever read it - and I suggest you do - is shocking in its inattention to governance. Essentially, our Constitution simply sets up the governance, the Senate, the House, the Governor-General..and spends most of its time on the Senate and GG- but it actually says very little, almost nothing, about HOW these systems operate, and their limitations etc. And almost nothing about citizens and their rights and the provinces. Read it - it will shock you.

The Trudeau Charter, in my view, was primarily a document to set up bilingualism..and most of the Charter focuses on this. The rights of citizens are defined in a contradictory way - both as 'fundamental' and yet, beholden to disappear if multicultural agendas appear..for these multicultural agendas take precedence to any individual rights.

It is interesting how definitions can be so pervasive and wrong.

There is Michael Moore with his ignorant statement about 'capitalism' and 'democracy'. Moore ignores that the first is a definition of an economic system, while the second is a definition of 'how to come to a decision'. After all, the decisions in a corporation can be made by the single boss, or, by a team of collaborators who vote 'democratically' where the majority vote wins.

Democracy is a process of decision-making where the governors VOTE, with the majority winning..versus governance-by-decree of an autocrat.

And, there's Wiki (and Kevin) who muddle up a republic (which is a structure of governance) with democracy, which is a process of decision-making.

John Adams, one of the Founding Fathers, was very wary of having a society run only by a process, and I point out, that no such society exists for all groups have rules and traditions.

Adams wrote in his important short work 'Thoughts on Government'- which certainly influenced the Constitutional Congress, that: "the very definition of a republic is "an empire of laws, and not of men."

And this means that there cannot be a monarch. The next step, is to delegate decision-making responsibility, for the entire population cannot vote on each decision. This has to be done carefully, to 'mimic' the nature of the population.
Then, Adams rejects ONE assembly; he wants several, and so, the US has the Executive, and the two Legislatures, and the Judiciary. BUT, the process of decision-making in these bodies, is always by democratic vote. Not by decree.

Seeing as we are talking about the United states what the founding fathers had to say at the time should show the contempt they had for a democracy.

John Quincy Adams - "The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."

James Madison - "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

John Adams - "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Clearly they saw a distintion before deciding on a republic.

http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/larson1-5-05.html

"Clearly they saw a distinction before deciding on a republic".

Kevin, very true! You would enjoy David McCullough's "JOHN ADAMS" on that very subject.

"HOW DEMOCRACIES PERISH" by Jean-Francois Revel would be another read that would interest you, I believe.

Cheers.

kevin - try reading some quotes from Jefferson on democracy before coming to your invalid conclusion. And read some more of Adams.

Adams was talking about the PROCESS of coming to decision, and he was worried that the PROCESS, which HAD to be democratic, i.e., by majority vote, had to be embedded in a STRUCTURE that inserted constraints to such a vote. His constraints were - if you'd read his 'Thoughts on Government' - was one which had SEVERAL decision-making levels, not one. The Executive, two Legislatures, and a separate judiciary.

ALL these levels would use the PROCESS of democracy, which is a majority vote, but the constraints on such decisions, which could be by whim and emotion rather than reason, would derive from the number of levels of government by which these decisions had to be reviewed.

As Adams wrote, "the people's rights and liberties, and the democratical mixture in a constitution ,can never be preservied without a strong executive'....and by this he meant that the executive can't be left 'in the hands of an aristocratical or democratical assembly'.. (In his 'A Defence of the Constitutions of Governments of the USA). Please refer to his use of 'democratical mixture'..by which he refers to the PROCESS of decision making..and his insistence that this PROCESS be embedded in multiple and yet separate levels, to prevent either individual (aristocratic) or mob (democratic) decision-making from taking over.

Think about this. There is NO SUCH THING as a society whose decision-making processes are always and only by majority decision. Think. That would mean that whatever whim-of-the-day would predominate. No rules, no laws, no traditional normative habits. Just the daily whim. This would be a totally unstable and unworkable situation.`

There is no society, ever, that has governed itself this way - and that includes the most 'primitive' hunters and gatherers. ALL of them have the daily decision-making process embedded in some form of stability-inducing infrastructure.

What Adams was talking about was his insistence that the democratic process of decision-making MUST be operative within a structure of stability-inducing laws. AND, that, to further reduce the effect of daily emotional agendas, that this structure be divided into three separate parts.

As Adams wrote to Jefferson: "You are afraid of the one; I, the few. We agree perfectly that the many should have full, fair and perfect representation [in the House'"

And as Jefferson wrote/said, in his Inaugural Address: "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression".

That is, the decision-making process is the 'will of the majority IN THAT Legislature..within the RULE OF LAW.

You ignore HOW a Republic makes its decision. How? By democratic vote not by autocratic decree of, for example, the Leader of the Senate. Or the leader of the House. By democratic vote of the majority.

The US is both a republic and a democracy. Please understand the differences and how both structure and process function together.

If government made center of compete with private group it become socialist when you go to next time export show government steal your information
illegal competition, when you allow private to be boss you around they abuse their power hire lawyer to steal all small company information this is bad capitalism

all old conspiracy and using all torts to breach contract to only give big boss more profit by put small company with small excuse out using court in past an present to support big company for benefit of them made more faster profit and give government tax but now this is not any more, now we have compete with socialism and capitalism or make it co-op in certain area this is also new competition, at the end we need to have human right to help all public interest without conflict of interest of white house and big rich people who used race and discrimination to belittle and sell their own good also is unfair completion can be balance life and made it happy again.

why people hate Obama is because he go so fast to benefit government and some time all cut to rich also make them scared to defend him by talk back and find small change to made him do not go so fast to don’t lose what they have
because capitalism and Obama are in competition with each other but public can be benefit to choose who is better.

the only problems here that Bush came using republican to take under conspiracy to help public take under table so much money to his pocket and bankrupt USA and world and now if Democrat also come to bankrupt public using all only talk nice but not deliver then again this is another trick to public so far Republican are lost this game and if Democrat also lost then USA need like Canada new democrat NDP to help Canada because in history Liberal fail us to enter us to Sep 11 and Afghanistan and now conservative did more add to made inside hate among Muslim and No Muslim in Canada then we may need in future NDP to help us or any new party to help us all
now Obama tried to reform the education that is reason Republican are made fun of him
Obama talk with children:

Can someone point out to this little S*** his barefaced hypocrisy and downright lying? He profits immensely through capitalism

new,
Try to write short complete sentences. Start them with a capital letter, and end them with a period. This is standard English style, and it will help your readability. I have a lot of patience, but I can't read the above post. It isn't English. You may know what you mean, nobody else does, I suspect.

Now come on you guys, ease up on Michael Moore.

You're obviously having a deleterious effect on his career!:

"Sep 07, 2009 04:30 AM
Associated Press

After much success at Cannes, Moore premiered the movie yesterday in his first appearance at the Venice Film Festival. It was warmly received at a press showing Saturday evening and won positive reviews. Variety called it one of Moore's "best pics.""

There are so many jokes about this. Where can one begin? When this fat, irrelevant hypocrite is gone for good, I shant miss him.
That's right: I said "fat".

You're afraid of socialism but not facism???? Do you people know the difference?? I didn't think so.

ET,

My research says: 'There is a fundimental difference between a Democracy and a Republic. While the government, in both cases is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules acording to their whims while in a Republic the government rules according to law...law that is framed in a constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to Minorities and individuals.'

You say "the process of democracy"...does this process always lead to democratic government (not the process but the result)?

In my view, there is more "Individual Freedom" in a Democracy vs a Republic...right or wrong? (question is asked for educational purposes).

Cheers

Garry - who are you quoting?

Good evening Black Mamba,

Something I Googled up..these "succinct definitions" were "produced by the US Army in 1928" and were "quietly withdrawn soon after". (albatrus.org)

The 2 questions are mine....building a template to see how the work of the "Founding Fathers" has held up to the passage of time and manipulation....your thoughts are welcome!

Democracy is merely a means of choosing a government. The problem is that the left has an anti-concept called "democratization", which means bringing things under some form of group vote that should not be there. A classic example is the Wheat Board. Farmers' produce should be their own to sell or otherwise dispose of. There should no more be a vote on how to dispose of all their grain than on whether to eat Corn Flakes or Rice Krispies for breakfast. It's an individual decision, one that the CWB violates.

I must take issue with one poster who commented on "the evil and childish ideas of communism / collectivism / tribalism / totalitarianism / secularism / disarmamentism". The first four certainly, and the last one in the current context, but "secularism" doesn't belong in this list. Religion, like collectivism, is a form of mysticism based on faith rather than reason. Socialism substitutes "society" for "God" and demands subservience. They're two sides of the same coin. Many socialists are atheists, but opposing it doesn't require religious belief.

As for disarmament, it's true that while we have socialist governments anywhere, we must be armed in case they choose to export their violence here. But in the event that the fundamental moral principle of a civilized society -- no person has the right to initiate the use of force on any other person -- is accepted and enforced worldwide, we won't have any socialist governments left and there will be no need for militaries.

Finally, here's a fatuous comment: "You're afraid of socialism but not facism???? Do you people know the difference?? I didn't think so."

Yeah, we do know the difference: nothing.

P. S. It's spelled "fascism". You went to public school, right?

Evening Garry - My thoughts? albatrus.org seems to be a very idiosyncratic religious website. ET knows what she's talking about.

Black Mamba,

Could be on both points. As always, things can be in the eye of the beholder....

nv53:

My Christian understanding is one of personal liberation, starting with the concept of God-given free will and going on to use that free will to make positive and productive choices.

For that gift, I am truly grateful.

I honestly feel sorry for you if somebody lied to you and left you with the impression that you are subservient to any other human being.

The Central Committee is nowhere near the top of my list, since I am quite capable of spending my own money and raising my own children.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is to give up your free will to any other human being.

One of the few cases where the majority vote decision making process comes into play would be a plebiscite, but that is generally limited to specific measures etc.

Garry - there is no such thing as a society whose decisions are made by 'whims'. The outline to which you refer is incorrect.
And there is no such things as a 'democracy' vs a 'republic. A republic is a structure of govt, with no hereditary leaders; democracy is a process of coming to decisions.

Just think a bit. Could a population really function where all decisions about the collective are made by whim? Of course not. A society operates within a rubric of stability, which enables continuity, predictive surety and gives the people the ability to live into the future.

So, a people, even without an 'elected Congress' and just a Set of Elders, will develop 'normative codes of behaviour' that everyone is expected to follow.
These normative codes can include any and everything from how much grain to put aside for next year's harvest, to normative behaviour to other people, to marriage rules, to how to deal with illness and so on.
NOTHING about these issues can be decided by 'whim'.

In larger populations, even without a written code of law, there will be rules and regulations about normative behaviour. These are the 'cultural norms'.

In yet larger populations, the rules will be written in laws and a constitution.

Democracy is NOT a structure of political organization, but a particular PROCESS of coming to a decision. This PROCESS is to take the majority vote of a SET of people. That's all it means.

Democracy is NOT 'merely a means of choosing a government'. It is a means of making decisions, and the choice of government members can be one such decision.

ET,

Thanks for the informed and detailed response. My time is distracted tonight but I will reply more fully tomorrow.

As Black Mamba pointed out, the source is questionable but chosen for it's early concept of the difference (defined by the US Army in 1928 and withdrawn shorlty thereafter). Decisions made by "whims" aren't realistic, as you point out. My concern lies with the 'whimsical' politicians that Canada's voters continue to leave us with.

The democratic process doesn't define a country's governance, as you point out. My concern is how easily this process can be hijacked. I feel we see this in Canada and have since, at least, the PET days.

Your response to Gunney99 (Sept 7 @ 4:13pm) re: our "Constitution" and the "Trudeau Charter" is scary (not your response...the lacking in the constitution and what pet's charter really does). I've felt this for many years. And then, of course, is 'our' "Charter of Rights"...what hogwash!!

I left 2 questions, in my post of Sept 7 @ 11:06PM...I look forward to further commentary.

And thanks again.

You like all the benefits socialism brings so why don't you practice what you preach about. Next you get sick or need surgery go to the Mayo clinic and pay for it yourself. Take out private insurance and go to the states to get medical care. You're phonier than a 3 dollar bill. You talk like big shots but I know you're not. I think you just like to hear yourselves talk. You think it makes you better than everyone else. It's like born agains. They think they are so special that a god of some sort talks to them in tongues. Keep talkin I'm a great BSer myself and like a good story.

Garry - you ask, 'does the process of democracy' always lead to 'democratic government'. I'd have to say - No.

After all, you could have a process of electing a leader which is democratic, in that the majority vote wins, BUT, the 'set' of people who are allowed to vote might be restricted to, eg, only landowners, or, only members of a certain family or tribe. And, the nominee might be restricted only to members of a certain tribe.

And, the winner might not have a constitution that restricts him; he might have been, theoretically, democratically elected but that doesn't mean that he'll govern in a democratic manner.

He might govern in an autocratic manner ..cf Chavez..and even Obama, who attempts to ignore Congress by insisting they pass bills based only on trust in obama..and not read and debate the bill.

And, the democratic vote might be really a 'degenerate vote' in that the people who vote might be misinformed, manipulated, bribed and so on.

So, now, a democratic process does necessarily lead to a 'democracy' so to speak. And that's why so many have been cautious about it. Democracy, on its own, is not enough to enable a truly free and responsible society.

Good morning ET,

Eventhough, unlike Black Mamba, I don't have insomnia (or so she claims !!) my recent available hours have been limited.

I agree with your answer.

I'm about to reread David McCullough's "JOHN ADAMS" (you may have heard of it?)...it's been over 5 years and not forefront in the memory nodes but I remember both quite enjoying it and that process of defining the New England Colony's extraction, from British control was not all that harmonious.
Did the "Founding Fathers" choose a Republic vs a Democracy (in your opinion) with any sound reasoning as to the pitfalls of the democratic process or were they just against the British process of government and anti-British to boot?

Cheers.