One of the myths of the left. The US isn't a democracy, its a republic.

Democracies cannot exist in a pluralistic society.

You are ironic wg. You proclaim the evils or the oddities or the inaccuracies of the left in a blanket statement, and in so doing you mimic the dogma of the right. There is little credibility in arguments predicated on broad generalizations. And I might interject that perhaps the left isn't the only body of thoughtful individuals who might be incorrect now and then.

I'm bending a little towards you're stretching a little bit.

In 18th century historical usages, especially when considering the works of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the word "democracy" was associated with radical egalitarianism and was often defined to mean what we today call direct democracy. In the same historical context, the word "republic" was used to refer to what we now call representative democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democra....22Republic.22

Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principles of popular sovereignty by the people's representatives. The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives—i.e., not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances. It is often contrasted with direct democracy, where representatives are absent or are limited in power as proxy representatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

Sorry, this is silly. Being a republic does not exclude a state from being a liberal democracy. The United States is both. If you are appealing to the Madisonian contrast of a republic being a representation of the people and a democracy being direct rule by the people, fair enough. But this description is a little dated or else there would be no democratic states in the entire world and George W. Bush's democratic proliferation policies would sound really daft. Of course it is representative democracy, but none the less a democracy. Otherwise, whether republic, principality, or constitutional monarchy, etc. they're just meaningless titles. I certainly grant that there are speed bumps in the current U.S. style of electoral system that do not make it a perfect democracy (that's exactly what I was getting at in my last post, anyway), and we could start making a list of them, but it does not change the fact that every four years the state asks the public who they want to represent them.

You will have to explain this one, although I suspect that as above, our definitions of democracy are not in agreement.

I think it's one of the tricks of the right to denigrate the left. A Republic is also referred to as a Representative Democracy.

Jefferson called himself and his friends Republicans. Hamilton liked to refer to them as Democrats, which to his mind meant mob rule. Some history books call them "Democratic-Republicans", a term neither side ever used. The actual Democratic party originated with Andrew Jackson.

I only wish more people knew this history. Todays history books are complete garbage that do not teach the correct history of our country because they were a "bunch of slave owning old white dudes" to the PC left of this country. Interesting though how the Dem party started off with a crude president that signed the Indian Removal act into law and committed other crimes against the native americans. I have done a fair bit of reading in my time and I have reached the personal conclusion that Jackson is a president not worthy to be revered or remembered as well as he is and he should not be on the $20 bill.

Political zealots do step back in time. It's kinda humorous. Keep up the reading.