You send me a website that opens up with quotes from the Bible? Whatever you wanted to post did not work -- the link goes directly to their homepage. Any homepage with the discussion about bible study, placing Islam alongside homosexuality, and discussing the one world government does not appear credible.

Also, you need to realize that people define terms differently. During the Cold War, one had to specifically define what was meant by the word "democratic" and what "democracy" actually was. Most people have since come to consider these differences as irrelevant and have adopted the definition "a system of government where political leaders are chosen through free, fair, and competitive elections" (My own words, taken freely from Zakaria, 2003). However, in the past it was necessary to state one's exact position. There were countries like the German Democratic Republic. "Democracy" within this context meant the just, truly democratic distribution of economic goods and the democratic control of the means of production. In short, social equality.

I prefer the following definitions of republic, which keeps things rather simple: "a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state." ; "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" (dictionary.com). In the past Republicanism was opposed by those in government because it meant the dissolution of the establish monarchical systems and their replacement with a non-hereditary executive. This did not imply that it was liberal, or that it was democratic (The Commonwealth under Cromwell, the French revolutionary government after the regicide in 1792).

This definition is still important in places like Canada and Australia, which continue to formally maintain Queen Elizabeth II as their executive. Republicans in these countries would like to sever ties with the British monarchy and introduce a Republican form of government, in that they elect a non-hereditary executive.

That being the case, like I originally said: you can have non-democratic republics, you can have liberal (constitutional) democratic republics, you can have illiberal democratic republicans, and so on and so forth. My major complaint, which I mentioned at the beginning, is the belief that "democracy" means more than the choice of the majority / plurality. It does not. Republicanism does not necessarily mean a democratic or a liberal government either.

This all could go on further, but I think I've basically said all that I can without getting into stupid details which no long matter. On a side note: I see absolutely no reason to respond to your rubbish on the 2000 election, and I know that everything I have written will more than likely be ignored on your part.