Mike socialism with a small s and Socialism with a large S may be two different things. People in tribes, villages, and nations have and do many things together. What do you call that? Some call it socialim and some collectivism. Socialism with a big S which may include totalitarianism, dictatorship and lack of freedom, is something different.

To be totally free is to be weird. To build an igloo looking house (even out of cinder block) in Tucson, Az. or a Southern antebellum mansion and decorate it with Magnolias in Nome, Alaska would be both statements of freedom but would be weird. Most of us I bet don't want to be that free.

The key word here is FALSELY and it is a big one. In a since we can never be free, we are a captive to whatever our mind dwells upon. Mike expresses thoughts that indicate that he is a slave to God. It has been said that we become what we fix our minds on or dwell upon. Are you free and open minded to fix your mind on different solutions, styles, decor, public policies. Most people are victims of their environment, thus they are Christian or Muslim based upon where they were born. A few escape their victimization, expand their minds and make a free and independent life for themselves. My wish for you all and me is that we can be one of these types of special and FREE people

The thumbs down boys get a thumbs up for getting this right. Politics is the art and science of determing what "our" or public policy will be. Most people have an interest in "how are things going to be run around here" whether it is their neighborhood, village, town, city, county, state, nation, continent, hemisphere, world or universe. As one of the Greeks said man is a political and social animal. People who see and issue a different way do not have to hate each but they should respect the others right to differ.

I am sorry you feel that way Mike. But thanks for seeing my point. As long as most of the people still believe it is a government of, by and for them, I would suggest that you not turn on or attack them until you get the majority on your side. And if you do that you will have no need to attack, right?

Judith has apparently come to her conclusion that these prisons and things exist and the fact she cannot find really conclusive information about them is proof positive that they are being hidden from her and us. Judith you are a warped logical journey. Welcome to the world of Mike from Norwalk. Oh! I notice a reason for your illogical reasoning, maybe you live near Roswell, isn't that where all the aliens come from. Robert I said "it is not the governent" I said we are the government. The people in Washington change every two, four, or six years depending upon the elected office. The thing that never changes is that it always us the American people who inhabit those offices. So we should quit blaming a non-existant entity liek "the government" and start blaming ourselves or on the other hand taking credit for things we do good and right. Robert what do you mean by elites, I met a man recently who said an elite is anyone with a college degree.

May is a big word. He just as easily could have said "it may not be destroyed by those people". This is a BS quote. D. Rosenthal got it right this is most likely or may be as Benson would safely say demogogery. What does he not stand up like a man and say flag wavers are or are not a danger. This is a McCarthy like slippery slope like saying Democrats are communists or Republicans are Nazis.

Justin can you tell me of a time when it was different than you discribe. Mike likes the quote. Does that mean you are for the learned men wisdom concept and against the "term limits concept". Representative government is the necessary consquence of a large poplulation is all that he is saying.

Church is more than 50% a social club. Church and religion is all about socialism or people living and getting along together. The Republic for which the flag stands is one and the same thing as the Constitution. I mean really guys get a grip. The significant the thing about the original is it did not include a reference to God. It also does not by omitting that exclude God. It is simply silent on that issue. In 1881 God was a part of American life in a greater degeree than maybe today, mentioning Him in this regard would have been unnecessary and probably an offense to most. Just like the Founding Fathers generally left their religion and others religion alone when talking about public and national policy. The Preacher had it right and we should take the Eisenhower era phrase "Under God" out of the pledge. Leaving it out did not make us ungodly and putting it in certainly does not make us godly.

Patiotism in Dr Johnsons's quote means "my country right or wrong". When a person takes that stance he is negating any open and free discussion. Patriots for example can not freely discuss internationalism. Personal relationships (marriage) often interfere with openess and honest. For example usually it is "my wife right or wrong" or it use to be, now when the spouse is wrong you divorce them.

Mike from Norwalk has taken that step

The government simply told us the truth. Was not 1776, 1812, 1861, WWi, and WWII and Korea, and Afghan-Taliban-Al Qaeda, emergencies. McCarthur sounds like Bush during Katrina, the waht-me-worry kid. Okay 'Nam was a blunder caused by make believe fear of communism. We still have make believe fear mongers but it ain't the government. The government and that is us need to wake up to the emergency of the porous borders.

Except this is totally untrue in a government of, by and for the people.To "defend" against the government in such a system is to attack your fellow man or the people, or since you are part of the people, it is to attack your self. Such behaviour should be cause for a sojounn in an insame asylum.

What ever happened to never say never or always. Some men listen to advise and make the best decisions they know how and change it if they feel necesary. Education, experience and background help individuals to do this.

At least we can pay taxes.

True but we should also hold Generals responsible for disastrous decisions.

In my political value system the oratorical skill ranks high. Someone has said "as a man speaks so goes his mind" his ability to think and reason. Thus Lincoln is considered by many to have been our Greatest President, guys like Winston Churchill are also revered for this quality. Obama may be among them. Read and listen to his Philadelphia campaign speech conerning race. Cudos to Archer for some refreshing honesty, and two thumbs down to Cal for his repetition of lines concerning Our Presidents place of birth.

You are entitled to your conscience, yes even you Archer, but you are not entitled to force it on others. On occasion your conscience may be unconscionable to the majority or to the law. Thought and conscience are one thing ACTION is another. Arcer never heard of the concept of nuance.

If he discovered it on his own then he is not at all arrogant, maybe amusing to us worldly wise ones but certainly not arrogant. Judith is correct. And a person can learn all there is about the ocean for example but until he discovers it on his own he will really never know it at all. One can sit around and be a smart ass and think he knows everything witout leaving his easy chair but he really knows nothing. Exiperential knowledge is the best kind. That is the kind Obama has from Harvard Law Review President to the streets of Chicago, and University Law Professor. Obama discoverd much working with the Illinois Senate with issues from down state farmers to urban dwellers etcetera. Quote is shallow it gets a thumbs down. Sounds like the guy is a hater of youth. What he is saying between the lines is that youth should kowtow, bow down and be overly respectful of history, learn your lessons well and do nothing nor discover anthing on your own.

The Constitution allows men, okay a supermajority of men, or from the opposite side, a small minority, to keep from changing the law to suit themselves. I refer of course to the right to Amend the Constitution to say anyting we wish it to. That requires 2/3 of the states, etcetera. We thus may be a conservative democracy, that is not always or even often a 51 percent democracy but we are still a republic of people, men and we have the same inalienable rights as our founders to have views, opinions and the right to make and change law. Not all changes in law require the supermajority rule that only applies to Constitutional Amendments. We are a republic that is a democracy (of sorts).

Good stuff from Archer, real good stuff, I am shocked. Mike went off the deep end on the ruler thingy, I am not shocked. As far as narcissism it is simply an occupatinal trait of putting oneself up for election.

This deserves a thousand stars! But it must be tempered to say that one persons conscience does not make a polity. It may be against ones conscience to vote for a Democrat or a Republican but we still have to live with it. Or like Jim K or whatshisname in Calgary just pick up your guns and start shooting in defense of your conscience.

Time out for some balance here! I think Obama is great! Now I don't generally like his disagreement with the Arizona protocol on illegal immigration but his brilliance, his presence of mind, of knowing where he is and what he is doing at any given time, his communication skills, are so far and above what we have seen in late twentieth century Presidents with the exception of Bill Clinton that he qualifies for an unqualified GREAT classification. As for the admirable George Washington he left office not having all of the admiration that we now give him. Sort of like Harry Truman.

Cal I see no discrepancy, is not "living for the public" the same thing as caring about their social welfare. And when Clinton said "we are going to end welfare as we know it" and brought in private industry to develop methods to hire former non working welfare people was he not "living for the public". That is simply acting in the publics best interest. I think where "liberals" and "conservatives" differ is the one thinks there is a public and the other abhors the idea of there being a public.

Mike at least Archer has progressed (not to be confused with progressive) to the point he admits even if grudgingly that America was founded as a "democratic republic". Then he goes on to betray his weak attemt at progress by saying, "a democratic republic is not a democracy". What total BS Archer generally spews! At least he is trying if only minutely to think for himself but Mike you have not even approached the starting blocks. In fact I think you are walking away from them in the opposite direction, totally afraid of the idea of thinking.