Remember his "nattering nabobs of negativism" and, "Don't judge us by what we say, judge us by what we do"? I wonder if he'd have suggested that had he known he would end up resigning his office and being found guilty of fraud, tax evasion and bribery.

I go along with that, Mt Holly. The thing I cannot accept is teaching Creation, Intelligent Design, the Ten Commandments, Prayers of any kind, etc. in puplic school , and worse yet, in science class, because they have nothing to do with knowledge, . They belong in Sunday School. My problem with even putting them in social studies or humanities classes is; sure as anything, individuals would use them as a platform or pulpit to preach ...and who's going to stop them?

I fail to see any alignment wirh atheist "foibles" in this country, Mike, indicating a weakness or character flaw of some kind. After all. you realize no atheist could hope to be elected president, or anything else for that matter - so long as it were known, so where's the alignmen? Atheism is not a religion; just.a reasoned conclusion that can't accept magic, superstition, or dogma for the way things are..It doesn't pretend to explain what does, as religions always do. That's why religions exist ...to explain the unexplainable. Atheists are still looking. I do believe religion should be studied, though. I sttill do. I am trying to figure out the conflict between Sunnis and Shias which seem even more deadly than Catholics and Protestants at times.

Since you brought it up, David, where is Heaven? I can't get the concept. With no body and no brain, how does one know when he gets there? Why would anyone want to get there? Describe it...not in detail... just a general idea. I marvel at people who claim to want to go there, but have no idea what or where it is. If Heaven doesn't exist and you can't get there, does that mean you were good for nothing?

I guess, being an atheist, I have no divine help coming at all. I have to do everything for myself, as I always have. (Thank God)

Then don't thank term limit for anything, David. It was a mistake in 1951 and still is today - for anyone of any party to any office. People should have the right to vote for whomever they choose. Number of terms should not exclude them. I like the the remark that the Republicans aimed the 22nd Amendment at the Democrats but hit Eisenhower. So Ike settled on president of Columbia Univ instead as he was no longer qualified to be president of the US. What excuse is there for aterm limit anyhow? Can't people tell if a person is no longer qualified after a certain number of terms? Are they too stupid?

What did term limits have to do with Truman's tenure? He was eligible to run in '52, as the new two-term limit did not apply to him. He was excluded, being the current president at the time of its passage. He could have runn till he died, as FDR did...and win, too. Nobody thought he could win in 48, but he did. I voted agaist him but I know he could have won had he not decided to back Adlai Stevenson who lost..Stevenson couldn't win partly because he was not a Christian.

There never was any convincing evidence against Alger Hiss, and he never admitted anything to his death. I would take his word above McCarthy's or Nixon's, both self-serving political animals who ultimately disgraced themselves. Hiss's alleged Communist connecton was only on the word of Whittaker Chambers, who had been a admitted Communist, not secretly, but later denounced it after seeing the abuses of it by Stalin. You can find lots of conflicting stories on Chambers and Hiss but no proof. The best thing they have going for them in my opinion is the despicable character of their accusers. .

Good advice, Harry. Sounds a lot like some of our posters.

And the two biggest smearers were Sen Joseph McCarthy and Richard M Nixon who built their careers on those charges and consider their scruples. Both ended their careers in disgrace.

Maybe, but still better than invading a country without it.

And I also quit ...repeating my original premise: .Burke is flat wrong. The purpose of government is indeed to check the prosperity of those who would, unfairly, I said, control all property and power if given the chance. You can argue semantics all you want, but I stick by my words. It's happened in countries such as Haiti, Somalia, Sierra Leone, or any other place lacking an effective government, with no agencies such as the FTC, the FDA, FBI, SEC, FCC, etc, to check them. What bothered me most, though, was the immediately reaction to blame the welfare recipients and "Socialists". They arent the ones who need checking, or restraining, or overseeing, or regulating (choose your own participle), as much as the big fish who absolutely need it. As for where I am coming from; I was a conservative Republican, first voting for Dewey in 1948, and losing - even for Nixon in 1960, and losing - also always making well above average salary income and not doing too badly in 20 yers of retirement either, so I would fit the mold of a solid Conservative, but I am a proud Liberal today and my sympathies are with those who are not so fortunate.

I never said it is the government's purpose to deny prosperity to anyone, but the quote says the government should not check, or oversee, the fair and ethical accumulation of wealth, or prosperity. Some readers seem to think it's okay for the most unscrupulous and unethical robber barons to claim it all, even by technically legal means, as they surely would, without government agencies like the SEC, FTC, FCC, FBI, and all the rest, to keep them in check. What bothered me most, besides the ideology of Burke in general, is how some readers immediately think government redistribution of wealth is what he was saying.

II take the quote for what it says, David,"No government ought to exist for the purpose of checking the prosperity of its people" and I say that includes abuses such as I mentioned. Only the government can restrain that class of abusers, which class has the means to keep others in check ...no government help necessary. You interpret it however you wish, but remember; Burke was considered by most historians as the father of Anglo-American conservativism. Almost everything he wrote was what we call extremem right-wing now, so you can expect him to express the most anti-liberal view ...and I still say it is false

It isn't just Ken Lay, Mike There's John Chambers of Cisco Systems, paying himself over $150 million while his company was losing $1 billion; Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco paying himself more than $400 million as his self-serving decisions were wiping out shareholders; Bernard Ebbers of WorldCom and the list goes on. I'll give you lots more if you want them. There are hundreds of examples of CEO greed -- at whose expense? -- The employees, shareholders etc. Where's the outrage? I'm tired of hearing only the poor are greedy. They are pikers. And it's only the government who can crack down on them, so the quote is dead wrong

There is a difference between the privacy of public officials and the privacy of citizens. After all, public officials are public servants and agree to give up a certain amount of privacy to avoid suspicion. If they don't, we get Vice Pres. Cheney. setting up an energy task force and not even revealing who was present. That proves the author's claim,"Everything secret degenerates".

Who knows what's being covered up in a secret? Odds are it isn't good. It breeds deception and should only be employed if disclosure would possitively aid a public enemy, not to permanently hide an embarrassment

Who's looking for handouts, Joe? I simply say JFK had it right. It's that positive effort, rather than every man for himself, that makes Jimmy Carter build houses for the poor in addition to all his work Maybe he asked what he can do for his country.

I agree with D.M, Some are worth repeating but others unimaginative bromides, I might be more generous and raise it to two stars

Sounds good to a strict conservative, or libertarian, but didn't to the voters in 1964. And even those who like the sound of it prefer to hold onto their jobs and keep on borrowing and spending. I prefer the way Kennedy put it: "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." It implies a certain positive effort ...not just the cry of the well-off, "I got mine, to hell with the rest" That's what Goldwater sounded like to average people. He said it in another quote: "I'm a conservative. I want to conserve two vital natural resources; gold and water"

He should know. Mussolini should know. He was founder and head of the Fascist party.

It's hard to argue with il Duce. He should know, having been everything from Marxist Socialist to right-wing Member of Parliament to Fascist Dictator. He was a contradiction, once calling himself an "anti-patriot" pacifist and imprisoned for his propaganda, later.as war leader, arrested for his s failed military campaign. He was firmly on both sides of WWII - depending on which side was winning,

I do respect Macaulay's principles of abolition and anti-bigotry, but I have never experienced a paternal and meddling government telling me "what to read and say, and eat, and drink and wear", so I don't know if mine suddenly did that it would gall me more than one that destroys our standing and respect in the world. I don't think so. We don't get co-operation from other nations anymore, we get defiance. I happen to be more concerned with what happens to the country than to my personal life, as eventually, that will be my personal life.

Thank you Mike. I'll accept that and I understand it. I've written things too, that sounded good ...till I re-read it I think more of you now than I did yesterday

Okay, Mike. Whatever you say. You lost me about half way through. (whew) You should have been a politician yoursself because you can talk around things till nobody knows what you said. I wonder if you really do yourself Is the administration the executive branch alone, or do you consider the other two branches part of it too? Is the chief executive an administrator, besides being commander-in-chief of the military, or not? Don't bother trying to explain it again, Mike, please! Once is enough