[worldsgreatest]

who said anything about the british ? if u wernt nick picking before you are definatley nit picking now.

[hullexile]

Originally Posted by Sleuth

Not me.
Nit picking would be criticizing the British democracy because their current PM wasn't actually elected.
Nit picking is taking isolated examples and attempting to tarnish an entirety.

A democracy and a republic are virtually synonomous. Both are power derived from the people, but a republic can not have a monarch or hereditary ruler. The US is a democratic republic, Britain is not.

Ok if we are into nit picking then democracy and republic are not virtually synonomous. A republic does not have to mean democratic (the republic of N.Korea or the PRC?) and a democracy does not have to be a republic. Britain (and Canada, Australia and several others) are constitutional monarchies. The Monarch is not a ruler but Head of State which are quite different things in this context.

[worldsgreatest]

now i dont have a clue what your going on about or what point you are trying to make. democracy , republic -was the empire a a republic or was darth vader a dictator? why dont u invade them just in case they have wmd?

[Sleuth]

Originally Posted by hullexile

Ok if we are into nit picking then democracy and republic are not virtually synonomous. A republic does not have to mean democratic (the republic of N.Korea or the PRC?) and a democracy does not have to be a republic. Britain (and Canada, Australia and several others) are constitutional monarchies. The Monarch is not a ruler but Head of State which are quite different things in this context.

I was giving the British thing as an example of nit picking.
And you are technically correct on the "republic" definition. But most definitions would say that China and North Korea stretch the term. They can be republics because they aren't ruled by a monarch or other hereditary type; North Korea even pushes that to an extreme.

republic - Definitions from Dictionary.com

[DanielandHayley]

This sort of argument/discussion can, and probably will indefinately..ultimately tho, all the politics, religion, history, rhetoric etc aside...'gun to the head decision' you either have to spend the rest of your life living in America with it's self proclaimed great democracy, or in Iran under sharia law (or the UK if the archbishop ever got his way!)... I don't believe that, hand on heart, many could honestly say they would choose the later.

[jonnye]

Originally Posted by Sleuth

Not me.
Nit picking would be criticizing the British democracy because their current PM wasn't actually elected.
Nit picking is taking isolated examples and attempting to tarnish an entirety.

A democracy and a republic are virtually synonomous. Both are power derived from the people, but a republic can not have a monarch or hereditary ruler. The US is a democratic republic, Britain is not.

Yep - a constitutional monarchy I think is the proper definition of the British system. We never directly elect the head of government anyway, which is why he's Prime Minister Gordon Brown and not President Gordon Brown.

It's just a case that the Prime Minister typically is the leader of the party that holds the majority of constituency seats in the House of Commons and is invited by the Head of State to form a government. In theory it should take the personality out of politics. In reality, of course, it does not. And there's every likelihood that Brown will be turfed out at the next election (and I'm deliberately personalising this, as he'll undoubtedly keep his seat ).

[Sleuth]

Originally Posted by DanielandHayley

This sort of argument/discussion can, and probably will indefinately..ultimately tho, all the politics, religion, history, rhetoric etc aside...'gun to the head decision' you either have to spend the rest of your life living in America with it's self proclaimed great democracy, or in Iran under sharia law (or the UK if the archbishop ever got his way!)... I don't believe that, hand on heart, many could honestly say they would choose the later.

Exactly.

jonnye--That's a good explanation. But Gordon Brown didn't run as PM last time; sort of PM in waiting. The election might have been for him but, more than likely, was anti-Tory. So I don't consider him to be "elected", even though PMs are never elected. And we'll see if he survives long enough to get a shot at being "elected" PM.