I would not want to reverse the quote. I would prefer to reinvent humanity.

To break an unconstitutional law is to commit no crime, but it is possible to challenge such an invalid law by organizing a movement against it. Possible, I said. Lately, not easy. And whoever attempts to do so might break his own mental health.

"Because we fear the responsibility for our actions, we have allowed ourselves to develop the mentality of slaves." When we foment revolution, we had better be sure that revolution is what is needed, because otherwise we engage in vain mental acrobatics, while possibly bringing about the results for which we would not choose to be responsible, if we had thought better of it. Have your revolution, if you must, but you will be responsible for the results.

I had a lot of fun for six years, until I realized that the overall condition of the situations I wished to change will not lend itself to change, largely because too many sob's are benefiting from the status quo, while too many others are either paralyzed, apathetic, afraid, or otherwise incapable of supporting change. I also had fun by boldly criticizing and challenging certain parties, thinking that perhaps by provoking them to react a process of change could be encouraged; but none of them were provoked by me and the few who accompany me. They were either confident or cautious. So it is getting to the point where the fun is not fun anymore.

Reston: Isn't it true that in politics men often tend to control the public purse moreso than in other fields of larceny? Megabusinesses artificially control prices, but often have to pay off political officials in order to be able to continue to get away with it. Politicians seem to have a license to steal.

How many Iraqi cirtizens were killed by George W. Bush? Does anyone have the statistics on this? How many were killed by Iraqis from opposing Islamic factions? How many were Kurds killed by Moslems? How many were Moslems killed by Kurds? How many were killed by foreign invaders from countries other than the USA? How many were civilians killed by Iraqi military or paramilitary or security forces or intelligence thugs under orders from Saddam's regime? Or just for the heck of it? Keep flapping your lips if it makes you feel better, Joe. But it is getting ugly.

Clinton is a self-described opponent of citizen's rights, who in his own words stated that our rights need to be curbed. Is that OK with you, Loe? Or do you think it would be a good idea to put a charismatic figure like Clinton in charge of the UN agenda for destroying American ideals? And, Loe, you never answered my question about where you got your figures on this country's war spending, which you stated erroneously took most of the tax revenue. Hyperbole does not increase validity, Loe.

Uh, Mike, uh, I did not ask "Who," Mike. What I did ask, however, was not answered. And it seems that the point of each of my comments was lost. If you spent a couple of months living in North Korea or Cuba or China, I bet you would stop comparing America's situation with that of those countries.

The government we have now is the result of a long chain of abuses going back several millenia with its root in the perversity of human hearts and minds.

Man can't govern justly.

Are you all having a panic attack, combined with a psychotic episode, at the same time? I cannot believe you really believe the comparisons you make.

If this were true, then the best policy should be to hang the winners of each election.

My mother used to say that all mothers should be drowned at birth, so I guess she would agree with this as well.

Archer wrote: "Some believe we are permanently lost and only the end of the world will rid evil from us." I see that as a distortion of the issue. We are not permanently lost. Some people will be permanently lost. God's kingdom will rid the world of evil. The end of the world is not the end of the earth, but the end of the worldly system of rule that perpetuates evil on the earth. That is the biblical explanation, the way it my be read if one took the time and care to read what is actually written. It also takes courage to tell the truth and not to distort reality, even a reality with which you do not sympathize.

The statement stands on its own, with no need of qualification. Nevertheless, when applying the principle to specific cases, it must be remebered that some cases are much more complex than others. The way we apply the principle to a case may be disingenuous, when we use sophism or distortion, even though the principle is clear.

Meaningless.

No need to pray for Armageddon; it's a given.

Pelosi won't be speaker, and Bush won't be impeached. Neither will the Democratic Party have the sweeping victory it toots so much about. The same polsters that deceive you today are the ones who get it wrong election after election.

Gee, I wonder why the legislative branch does not impeach the executive, as per its powers, to correct such a terrible thing...unless they actually approve of it, despite their rhetoric.

There certainly exists no shortage of so-called Christians who do not conform their behavior to the principles in which they claim to believe. You are very right to suspect them of great hypocrisy. But many people, including many Christians, make the mistake of seeing the acts of hypocrites and blaming Christianity for them. In Revelation, Jesus warns the churches of the result of their evil acts. He is warning so-called Christians of the consequences of their disapproved acts. That is a prophetic statement regarding the future behavior of so-called Christians. People like to take things out of context in an attempt to prove or support their own prejudices, but that is only proof of their own disingenuousness, at worst, or inability to reason, at best.

LOL

Archer wrote: "After FDR, no war needed ever be declared by Congress to authorize the president to use military force against a foreign power." When did he change his mind about this, since he had been vehemently arguing the contrary a few days ago?

It is simply irrational to assume that democracy has the unbending definition you apply to it. In real terms, democracy is still an experiment, the development of which depends on us. Not very promising, but true.

The Constitution has been amended on several occasions. Was it unconstitutional to amend it? If so, was it unconstitutional to free the slaves? I support the Constitution, but I also support rational responses to emerging circumstances.

The demented abuse committed by totalitarians and sociopaths is not unlimited power. It is unbridled madness. No one here has abdicated responsibility for dealing with them, but neither have they exaggerated their powers.