True but probably necessary. We usually defend our own group even when they are wrong, be it, party, family, ethnic or national group. It may be part of a subliminal survival instinct. When we are able to see ourselves as part of the entire family of man, we may be able to be honest and candid.

Change might just be another word for "something" or energy as when in the Army they use to tell us, "Don't just stand there do something." Parties get into power and get lazy once they get their positions. Ever wonder why the tenures of Corp Mgt is so short lived. The hardest part of some jobs is just getting it, like politcal campaigns.

Did Twain know Marx? Groucho that is! Groucho's more famous, "I never wanted to be a member of a club or group that would have me as a member." To find yourself as a welcomed and comfortable member of the fraternal majority can be scary especially if one has a misanthropic personality.

Gee, I always thought it was just a matter of whether or not such interference is of personal benefit to you or not. Wall Street, Detroit, Mortgage Bankers all want government interference right now. At the beginning of the WWII I believe conservatives were against foreign interference. This little diddy is fun and seens to have a ring of truth but on closer examination......

That is what I said be an optimal pragmatist. Two wings are optimal. "Wealthy" people get their money from "poor" people.They have simply cornered the market. A tax cut that puts more money into the hands of the middle class (like this summers $600 stimulus) will be spent for products and services supplied by the "wealthy". They will reap profits and dividends. A slight increase in their taxes will off set the reduction but they will get their increase in tax back in spades as the economy improves, profits soar, and dividends roll in.

Neither a liberal or conservative be, these are ideological traps, be an optimal pragmatist.

Don't raise the richs' taxes just return them to where they were before Bush unwisely cut them. Listen George what is the difference between collecting tax or selling bonds. Both methodologies take money out of the private economy. The second method requires the payment of interest. When politicians say that they are going to cut taxes they are really saying "I am going to sell bonds". Most bond issues "municipals" have a date certain to be paid back to the lender. These bond issues are carefully planned and taxes or fees are raised over the life of the bonds in order to pay them off on the date certain. When Uncle Sam sells bonds he never promises to pay them back. That is an error. Sam should plan to pay off his debts just like anyone else or like any other government, local or state. Who or what would you tax George? You have not been listening to the current brouhaha on Wall Street, many commentators say it was caused by greed. People don't always use their money to give people jobs, unless you consider British Rolls Royce workers as the people you are thinking about or Italian Maserrati workers. You get my drift. The fact is the US Government was about $500 billion in debt sometime in the '60's Reagan got in and he and his people said deficits and National Debt does not matter and he gave a big tax cut. Now we are in 9 trillion dollars in debt. Do you think debt does not matter? Any suggestions on how to resolve this problem?

Good job Robert. Palin works for some because their stupidities interlock. Youv'e finally got Archer nailed, good job. I repeat we should stand up for our freedoms and liberty every day like black people did and women suffragettes did etcetera. Politicians never stood up for these people.

Once you give the protection of your liberty and freedom and rights to some one else you have lost your liberty , freedom and rights. If politicians protect our liberty and rights why did black people have to fight so hard for theirs. Okay touche maybe there are just as many politicians willing to take away our rights as there are to protect or enhance our rights. We each should be jealous and ever vigilant of our own rights.(Some many on this site think Bush stepped on their liberty and freedom with The Patriot Act, I dunno knowledgeable people thought it necessary for security.) may have been. To know which are the "good" politicians and which are the "bad" ones, that is the question. Palin desired to muzzle the library, her department heads etc, that is why some people don't like her style.

Buffet (the richest man in the world) is a Democrat, supports Obama and says "tax me". There is only one reason to tax the rich and it is the same reason that Dillinger said that he robbed banks "that is where the money is". When the "rich" get tax breaks they buy US Government Bonds and collect US Government interest. If they create jobs I would suggest they start doing so real soon. My understanding is they employ illegals who they can manipulate and don't have to pay benefits. The rest of their money they invest overseas. In the last eight years with Bush's significant war deficit and tax cut they have gotten a nice war dividend. It is not an "old" chestnut Jim it is as true and new today as it ever was.

Mike you confuse phsical laws wtih social law, how can you possibly think that politics, human legislation has anything to do with natural science. Jim K you are not reading very carefully, as usual, about Ms. Palin. Good people of both parties are worried about her style. She got rid of all people that she calls "good old boys" and she hired all her grade school and junior high school friends.

PS: As of July '05 the National Debt or General Fund owed Social Security $1.7 trillion.

I don't trust politicians to protect my liberty and freedom nor do I trust the NRA to trust my 2d Amendment Rights. Reagan is funny here and as they say good humour has a strong element of truth. To be a pollyanna, liked by many, one must put out, whether it is money, favors, or compliments and hand shakes. Reagan used his considerable wiles to prostrate and f#$% the average American person by lowering income taxes on the wealthy and raising social security taxes on the less wealthy. He used the increase in social security taxes to fund his star wars etcetera and set into motion the deficit spending and national debt we now have. A portion of that debt around a trillion is owed by the general tax fund to the social security fund. He knew something about prostitution. Five for humor!

How timely now that you and I are now in the insurance business whether we like it or not to the tune of 85 billion.

I did not know that politics is the "protecting the exercise of liberty and freedom", I thought it had to do with "how are we going to live around here", "how will common services such as trash collection, street maintenance and police be adminstered", "what laws do we need to enact" etcetera. I heard a quote attributed to Reagan that is very apropos to this, he is reported to have said to Gorbachev, "I wonder if you and I just disappeared would anyone notice or miss us." Palin's since of self importance, firing cops, muzzling department heads scares the heck out of me.

I am not sure that it was the founders intent to establish a Republic that would last a 1000 years, or 100 years. I believe it was their idea to establish one that could make it from day to day one day at a time and take it day, month and year in faith. That is why they gave us the right to amend their fine document, they knew they were not capable of setting down perfection in politics and philosophy. Those that try to arrive at perfection and think that they have done it wind up being tyrants.

Appears Mr. Cooper invites us to have an ad hominem view of arguments. Consider the man he says, and it is so true. Look at the men of the cloth we have been considering lately. Preachers say what ever they think will more closely bind their clients (church members) to them either out of love or fear. Whether it is Rev. Wrights racism or Mrs. Palins preachers claim about Alaska being a last refuge state. When questioned about the last refuge claim that he preached to his local Alaskan congregation the preacher soft pedaled that idea to a more national audience. His attitude so fits the above quote. The fluff and bluff game seems to fit the political class and the clerical class equally. When will the sheep (that is us) ever wake up!

Good Logan but why not just have a draft so all young persons have an equal opportunity to die for us. And why not just have a direct democracy where we vote on issues via the internet. No more politicians needed.

Needs definition of terms. If by conservative he means out of the mainstream or center of thought or policy and by rebel he means antagonism to the mainstream or center of thought or policy I agree with him. Some people (even on this site) will take a position opposiste of the majority or of what they perceive to be the majority every time. That is an "eternal rebel" and I think some type of a misanthrope.

Open mindedness can solve many problems.

Only if there is corruption and fraud. Properly functioning polictical parties have valid purposes or policy goals. Does anyone know of a properly functioning polictical party.

Nice to hear from you Logan. Yeah I often think you have an ad hominem view of anything I post, you know consider the source. I did not only read Time Mag. That was as an 18 year old high school student. I guess I have an active mind, I started college as a Political Sceince major but swithched to Accounting becasue I needed a job. History, PolSci, and Humanities is my first love. The Aristocrat comment was in reference to the quote about corporate influence. It only occurred to me that there is always influence and influential men, always I guess a will to power, that is what makes people run for policy making positions. The will to power and the desire for recognition and approval. You being such a fine student of history I think you know that Washington was considered the richest man in America (he inherited some and married most of it), Jefferson inherited 2,800 acres and some slaves, the other guys were well heeled. I admire, respect and love them all but maybe I don't worship them. There is evidence that they felt compelled to establish a strong central government of law because of movements a foot, under the Articles, by the "rabble" to try to forcefully get out from under "indentured servitude", legal debts etcetera. All I was alluding to was that the founders were maybe the first corporate influence. Jackson is considered the true beginning of the Democratic Party. I partly agree with you that democracy is not truly natural. It is a learned and thus higher level perspective. Natural law is survival of the fittest and eating your neighbor, democracy is more spirtual and "civilized". I apologize for the Nazi reference, I just think we need to read something, anything, and everything. Attacking the media I think is a small minded but big ego exercise which says I know better than everyone else. These attacks on the media remind me of the SNL skit where these two young men push wooden splints undeer their finger nails and complain of the pain by wailing "I hate that" and then push harder and say "Oh I hate that". I mean if you hate it why do you do it, read and watch the media. The other idea dripping from between the lines of these posts and your sneering comment about Time, Inc. is you want everyone else to turn this stuff off that you so dislike. Now that attitude is so totalitarian and dictatorial and speaks volumes about the fact that the posters are not only against the freedom of the press but also against the freedom of the receipients. I have an opinion about the upcoming election as do many, opinion is pretty well split 50/50. While I may have a tendency to sneer or think ignorant those on the opposite side I must allow them their views, their press etcetera, just keep plugging along. Again the National Enquirer which I never read did a good job on exposing Edwars so there ya go. My job Logan was involved in legal work where I had to write up documents which had four sections titled, Issue, Facts, Law and Argument, Opposing Argument, Conclusion. In freshman college history one essay test came back with the professors comment "You try to grasp big issues", I don't know from profundity but I have always treasured the profs words as a compliment. Maybe trying to grasp big ideas has been my donwfall. One idea of mine however was given anonymous recognition in US News and World Reports Magazine.

Got to thinking about all the above posts which state "read this, read that because it is what I read" or "trash this or trash that they are worthless". Then I think about what y'all may think about the "masses" in cities all over America who read their daily papers and watch the varied and competing news sources, from NPR to Fox. I then think of Hitler and Nazi trashing of media and burning books and thought control and well it just scares me how much your sentiments may resemble the Nazi sentiments concerning media. I say more and more media, free market media. Now Logan he is different for if you read his post he creates his own news just by thinking. That sounds really scary to me.

I hate to say when it was that I was devoted to Time, Inc. but it was a few years ago. The best defense of the press is that every one thinks it is biased both leftists and rightists. When every one gangs up on it you can depend on 'ol Waffler to defend it. I hate mob action which y'all are giving into above. Archer complained the other day about having only two choices for President. How short sighted that statement is, there must have been 6 in each major party and 3 or so in fringe parties. The field has been narrowed to two after almost two years of campaiging and electioneering. His expression of regret about there only being two for President is about as ignorant and shallow of y'alls knee jerk opinions of the press.

Look money talks, the foundation of our nation and its politics was started by somewhat benevolent Southern slave holding (Washington, Jefferson, Madison), Northern shipping and smuggling (Adams, Hancock), and New York finance scamming (Hamilton) aristocrats. There was maybe one honest democratically minded man among them, Franklin, and he was a newspaper man, a printer. This corporate eastern and northern hold was somewhat broken by the populist Andrew Jackson with his southern and western politics. Afte the war the Grant gilded age brought corporate power to maybe its highest level of success. Politics is about influence. We need to continue to make politics more transparent but lets admit that their will always be influential people in the endeavor of governance. Corporate grip in America (the worlds first truly middle class country) is probably more analogus to the grip of nobility, fedudalism, and church in Europe. Where they left a vaccuum of influence in this new society corporate influence rushed in.