I take it you don't remember the 30s do you Ken?. You can call Social Security being treated as children if you like, but it's a lot better than the county homes, or old folks homes, or, actually poorhouses, of those days. As a child I dreaded that I may end up like those poor souls in bare survival conditions, but mainly with no dignity. Social Security practically eliminated such facilities.

There may be differences of scale between the founders' country and ours, Mike, but the principles are the same. We are a hundred times larger than at our founding, so each elected reprentative represents more people. More constituents but not that many more representatives -- that doesn't matter. And we will almost certainly be twice as big at the next century (600 million). That has nothing to do with the principle of representative democracy. It will still demand division of power and openness between divisions. Don't belabor meaningless semantics.

The wisdom of our founders was in the distribution of power. Had it not been for divided government, and a two-party system, there would be much more criminality in governing. But there could be a lot less with more transparency of government. No secrets, except vital national security, with all divisions and parties kept informed ...not all citizens, but representatives of all citizens. The reprentatives could decide what's in the interest of national security or just someone's personal security.

Barry also said; "as a Conservative I am for preserving two natural resources: gold and water."

This shows it isn't only today that tyrants have used the mysticism of religion to suppress their subjects. Otherwise it takes brute force. Of course, some have employed both.

Is can have many meanings, David. You probably used them yourself ...sometimes to describe identical, sometimes to express mere existence of an object, or as an auxiliary to a participle, such as; is taken, or is ready, etc. There are a lot of meanings for such a small word. Check out how many yourself. Think, for a change!

The problem with this blog is that some people get bogged down in semantics and and ideology, miss the meaning of the original quote. This quote by Rudolph Rummel was simply "Nobody can be trusted with unlimited power...". Now look at all the other crap that was brought up having nothing to do with that argument. They are so intent on expressing ideology without knowledge, and beliefs without reason. If everyone were to take time to think, and have a real reason for what he says - not some ideological platitude, there would be opportunity for real knowledge. In other words, stop preaching.

Logan: I think I understand democracy hasn't exested since Sparta experimented with it in ancient Greece. Town meetings come close, but it never existed on a national level. Republics come closer to reality by electing representatives to manage the business of governing. Neither one has anything to do with socialism, which is a type of economy, not govwenment. They are not mutually exclusive. Rule of law has nothing to do with any of them. And what do "rule of law" vs "rule of majorities" have to do with any of them? If it's one or the other, you already said we are based on rule of law: then we are not based on majority rule. Huh? I beg to differ. That's why I told Archer to sort out all that gibberish. It isn't worth my time.

Were you around in depression days Archer? I was. Ever heard of the stock market Crash or '29? That was way before FDR took office, March '33..The Great Depression was caused by mismanagement in 1930-31, after the Crash, before FDR was even running for president. Business ran the country in the "roaring 20s" (not all legal businesses either because of Prohibition). The depression could have been avoided in 1930 had it not been for several things the Republicans did then. The Feds did the exact opposite of what they do now when things slow down. Instead of increasing the money supply, they reduced it by a third. That would have been bad enough but Congress enacted the devastating Smoot-Hawley act of 1930. There were other things, but those were enough. Roosevelt would never have been elected had the country not already been "bankrupt" The Republicans were so entrenched, they could almoey appoiny the president in the '20s. That's how we got Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. They had already wrecked the economy before FDR even ran. So don't go blaming him for the Depression. He tried everything to restore confidence, which was at an all time low. Things like WPA and SSA were immensely successful ...NRA was not, and so it went. It actually took WWII to really get us fully restore the economy, but things kept getting better every year till the war.. I remember it well. Although I was still in school, it was about all people talked about.

I'm glad you understand Logan's maundering dissertation, Archer. I even copied it to Wordpad so I could take it apart and analyse each sentence, but I had to quit. There were so many of his "daffynitions" (odd definitions of his alone), like, "Republics are based on rule of law; in our case, 'the laws of nature, and of nature's God'.", or " Democracy, Socialism, and Fascism are the antithesis to the 'rule of law'.", or "Our Republic was structured that no government official, elected or otherwise, could assume any powers" and on and on like that... After about a dozen of those "pearls of wisdom" I had to give up and let you sort them out, Archer. I can't be bothered anymore.. although a few came close to being true

I used to paraphrase Rummel, up until 2003, that democracies never attack other countries. (actually Rummel said other democracies, but I always felt it should include any sovereign country) I can only conclude now we are no longer a democracy, or my theory is wrong. I am saddened either way.

Hitler knew what he was doing and even bragged about it, explaining it in detail. Our government hasn't yet acknowledge they use the "big lie" too, so who is the bigger liar?

Logan, have you been listening to Rosenthal? You sound like him. You wander off into the wild blue yonder. What do socialism, fascism, liberal-left, big-business-corporations, big-business-government, or any other bogeymen, have to do with the quote? It was about trusting anyone with unlimited power. You didn't even comment on that. To see what unlimited power in the hands of big business can do, look no further than Enron or Halliburton.

Not lose an idol, but greatly enhance him, since no points were scored against him.

OK David. I'll do that; but I still need to know what Democrat is for limiting freedoms. I won't rest until I find out. It's an oxymoron.

Are you saying "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..", by Clinton, says he wants to limit freedoms? What freedoms? Part of a quote says nothing by itself. What rights is he advocating be reduced What else did Clinton say, since you're such an authority on him?

The one thing you said right all evening, David, is: I don't understand your argument. All I get is you want to reform the world, and Clinton advocates limiting personal freedoms. That's the sum total of what I got out of all you said..

I searched hard, David, for the easiest reference you gave and got nowhere. How much time should I spend on a wild goose chase? I have come to one conclusion. You never got very far in a debating club did you? Bluffing works in poker, if you're good at it, and it is vital part of the game. A good bluffer will always win, but not in a debate. You have to have your facts or you'll end up resorting to name calling and lose everything.

I have no idea what you're getting at, David. Just give up the idea of reforming the world, even if you think it badly needs it, and reform thyself. Let others reform themselves Besides a real reform was made, legitimately, last week, so we should all be happy. The people have spoken.

One more thing, David. Kindly give us some references that check out for the claims you make. I am serious about knowing anything Clinton, or any Democrat, said that called for limiting rights of anyone, except those who abuse their freedom - like criminals. The assault on rights I refer to are those on gays, or ethnic groups, or women, or those who would disagree with others but do them no harm, or where Clinton says "some people say..." and attribute it to his opinion.

The question "Who made you boss?" should be directed to you, David, not Archer. You seem to push the idea of putting the world in order I didn't hear Archer say that. He said an individual should not be reforming the world ..the individual reforms himself.

David, do you seriously believe it is the province of America, if it could, to put right a "world that badly needs reform"? ...that "the total value of inept individual sovereignty is more destructive and barbaric than its parts"? (whatever all that means) It sounds a bit like a potential international tyrant forming to me. I hope America never sets on such a course, but I suppose much of the world already thinks it has.

Searching the Bosgon Globe archives for: Clinton press conference, Piscataway, NJ, 3/1/1993 (closest match) between 3/1/1993 znd 3/4/1993 returned no articles. Same for all dates 1979 to present. I was willing to pay but no such article were found. I have to assume you don't have the information right. Can you come up with a better search? How much time or money should I devote to finding a doubtful article? Where did you obtain your reference?

David, I wanted to know where you claimed Clinton "plainly stated his opinion that our rights should be more limited".(your words). The Clinton quote you referred to at: said: because now "there's a lot of irresponsibility", comparing now to the "..radical limitation of the government's rights in the radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly". ...(but now) "a lot of people say (he didn't say he did) there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it." maybe when criminals break the law, abusing their freedom, their rights may have to be curtailed. Any quarrel with that? but Clinton was not for limiting people's rights in any way. That's the way right-wingers spin what Clinton (or Kerry) says to suit their needs I repeat it is Republicans who want to limit rights - including, and especially women's rights, but many, many others - never Democrats. All the freedoms you enjoy are because of liberal Democrats, like Clinton, not Republicans. Incidentally, my comment to the Clinton quote originally was, "Right on! The Bill of Rights was a very radical idea in the 18th century. It was added to the Constitution to limit the power of the government, guaranteeing certain rights of the People. It is sad to see them being eroded today in the name of "Security"."

I am curious, David, where and when Bill Clinton said the rights of the people should be limited. It is not the policy of Democrats to limit rights. That's the province of Republicans, but maybe he had something in mind I am not aware of. I would really like to know. It has been the current government which want to take away women's rights, gay rights, demonstrators' rights, the rights of the incarcerated and anyone else who disagrees with them. When did Clinton do that? As for Menchen, I know he was a cynic and a satirist, so I expect him to speak in hyperbole so that's the way I read his exaggerated quote. It is meant to show the difference between theory and practice of government. He always spoke wisdom in that way.