Interesting sentiment, Carlton.

Archer, see the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, Article 11, Sections 1 and 2. "The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions."

Technically, Hitler was slightly right wing and extremely authoritarian and Stalin (probably Lenin, too) were very left-wing, but also very authoritarian (this is all according to a political compass). Stalin and Lenin are, in fact, very different from most Progressives, since most Progressives, I think, are left-wing and socially libertarian to varying degrees of extremeness.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof." This seems like a sound law. So why is religion such a big part of politics?

I'm really growing tired of all of these arguments whose entire base is the fallacy of Ad Hominem.

In other words, no matter where I'm from or what I believe, I am a human being and I have rights (like the right to have shelter and the right to not starve). This isn't socialism. This is a fact.

Peaceful, or at least nonviolent, means can be employed to bring freedom.

How do you tamper with someone's thoughts other than by lying to them?

The phrase "Under God" implies that their is a god that we all live under. Since this is a phrase endorsed by the government, the government is in fact endorsing the concept that a god exists. Since the existence of a god cannot be physically proven, the government, by saying "Under God," is endorsing a belief of the broad religious system of theism. This is unconstitutional: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." To separate the churches and the state is not unconstitutional (or unpatriotic... really it's anything but), and it doesn't deprive the majority or the minority of any rights whatsoever.

This doesn't make sense to me. Then again, maybe that's the point. Persecution is pointless.

Which is why we should teach our prospective voters (students) to THINK instead of just memorize information and use it to fill in bubbles on scantrons. Duh!

This is an interesting perspective... very cynical and pessimistic, though. I'm a Progressive (at least I think I am), but I do not seek to force my views down the throats of anyone. Rather, I seek to make sure that no one tries to inflict their personal beliefs on everyone.

Until Obama shows his ID, he's just PRES__ENT.

the rothchilds are the top stockholders of the federal reserve which is a private bank that controls the usa money supply. the rothchilds have been controlling us ever since that dickhead woodow wilson was elected with support of the rockefellers, jp. morgan, and the rothchilds and signed the federal reserve act. the federal reserve act is an illegal and treasonous law that was written by bankers.

In other words, don't be so arrogant as to assume that your views are the only possible answers. Be open minded, tolerant, and accepting, for if your ego exceeds the size to which it's due, all it will end up doing is hurting you. Good advice. Also, part of this means not inflicting your personal beliefs on other people (to a certain extent... I do believe there is an ideal objective morality, but I don't believe it has been discovered yet, and am resigned to the fact that it will probably never be.).

I don't understand "faith." I believe in God, but I have concrete reasons for this belief (which I'm not at liberty to discuss). How can someone believe in something for no reason whatsoever? Or am I just incorrectly defining "faith?" Could someone please clarify?

Yes, this is exactly right. Too often you see this in society, however. If only people would think things through... I wish that, instead of teaching students to memorize facts, our schools taught their students to think.

I'm confused, Hannah... what do you mean by "warming?"

We need more people like this... people who aren't afraid to be individuals.

So idealistic and inspirational. I love optimists. I think Warren's thoughts, while pessimistic, are unfortunately more realistic.

What's wrong with intellectuals?

Joe... seriously, what are the odds of that actually happening?

So is Reaganomics.

Also, I'm aware that Gandhi thought that the disarming of Indians was wrong, and, as Reston pointed out, he was against tyranny. But he did not advocate the use of guns and other such weapons against evil: "I am prepared to die. But there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill."

How is the zero rating totally illogical, since Gandhi, Jesus, and MLK didn't want to enslave people, but rather to liberate them through peace? Also, it seems to me that if the only thing holding up a country is its weapons, not much is being said about the quality of its people. For, as Gandhi said, "Violence is the weapon of the weak; nonviolence is the weapon of the strong."