“Being in politics is like being a football coach. You have to be smart enough to understand the game, and dumb enough to think it's important.”

Sad state of affairs when the men entrusted with protecting the exercise of liberty and freedom think of politics as a "game" and ridicule the importance of their position.

In context, it is an accurate reference to the parliamentary management for gain, nuances, strategies, one upping your liberal/conservative opponents, etc. - all being a substantiveless facade and dumb, thinking it important when the representative's true job is to define how best to protect the inalienable rights of their represented We The People sovereigns. Freedom, liberty, truth, law, justice, etc. are all cast out non-participants of their game.

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.

Excellent, doesn't that say it all!

Waffler, your hard core defended naiveties (possible prideful ignorance) make me smile. Codes, rules, statutes, etc. are coefficients to freedom, liberty, order, etc. when law is the base. Man can not make law (I know you think he can but, gravity, physics, etc. prove that wrong). Man can only administer law to protect the rights of the individual - in a 'his rights end at his neighbors nose'. For example: If garbage collects at my home, it creates a health hazard for me as well as my neighbor (natural law - rights are infringed). The same is true of my neighbor. As sovereigns, we hire individuals to best represent the rights of each individual involved to systematically dispose of the refuse so that it does not infringe on the right of another sovereign. Freedom, liberty, order, and the rights of man are now enhanced. Currently, in most political games, even garbage collection is a weapon against the exhibitor of titled possessions. In today's political game, no one represents the sovereign, but rather, the game only.

Waff, You ain't the only one scared of Gov Palin. That whole bunch of loonies on the left are like rabbits with wolves after them. This is why we are seeing the vicious attacks on Gov Palin. As to your reference to her firing cops, this one needed firing in the worst way.

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.

It's catchy -- typical of a politician to make light of a serious situation. Logan and Mike make good points. The 'game' of politics is to get a seat in government with enough power, prestige, and longevity as possible. I can't say I am surprised that Waffler doesn't think that our representative government is supposed to be "protecting the exercise of liberty and freedom" -- for Pete's sake, if that isn't the priority and guiding principle in their decision-making, then they shouldn't be in office -- that oath to obey and defend the Constitution is the basis of their position! Whatever 'solutions' government employees come up with for the administration of the commonwealth must NOT infringe on the rights of the People. Again it is just more 'democratic' nonsense from Waffler -- is there no limit to government's power then? They can just make up rules and statutes ad infinitum and we all are obligated to follow? No, there are rules to the 'game' unfortunately We the People have not set up proper 'referees' to flag violations and penalize players who disregard the Constitution.

I was going to stay out of the political disussion of Palin but I'm tired of hearing the same old misinformation from people who obviously are Democrats desperately trying to find something wrong with Palin who is a helluva lot cleaner than the Clintons and Obama. Palin never fired a librarian or banned any books -- she did have a few conversations with the librarian with whom she is on a first name basis and asked in the abstract what would she think about removing a few books from the library -- her friend said absolutely not, and there was nothing more about the matter. Palin did fire a state trooper -- it is her job to do so, get that right first. From what I have read about Mike Wooten, her ex-brother in-law who admits to tasering his 14-year old step-son, has been found drunk in his police car, has been abusive to his wife and family, why shouldn't Palin want to get this guy off the force? And when his boss refused to fire the guy, Palin fired his boss. Hey, that is what the 'executive' does. And why would liberals care about her cleaning house of 'good ol boys' (i.e. 'big oil' political insiders) and hiring people she grew up with and trusted? Sounds like a good decision to me. It certainly is a far cry from the Bush's and Clinton's who have hired ONLY good ol boys. I'm not a fan of another Republican as president, and Palin would only be vice-president, but I would choose her over Hillary any day who has more skeletons in her closet than Palin. At least Palin actually earned her position through years of dedication -- I may not share all of her principles, but at least she has them and stands up for them. (plus she's pretty hot ;-)

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.

"Once you give the protection of your liberty and freedom and rights to some one else you have lost your liberty , freedom and rights." NO, Waffler, NO! What utter and contemptible bullshit. Then what the hell do we have a Constitution for? Why do we have courts of law? What are the police for? What are we electing representatives for? As far as I can tell, from your perspective, the purpose of government is to use their unlimited power to rob the guys that didn't vote for them. Are our representatives violating the trust of the Americans who put them in office? YES! That doesn't make it right. Stop voting for money -- it is destroying the republic.

We don't have to find something wrong with Palin she is a total Moron and America should be ashamed for even considering such a buffoon. She has no morals, no scruples, no honor, and as for her character well the less said about that the better - I'm not going into a litany of idiotic Palin statements or her action. All I can say is that if she ends up in the White House we are all doomed. You guys make me laugh. McCarthy's statement above is just DUMB and your efforts to critique it are mute. The world is laughing at us as we go through this charade called an election and even more so over McCain's choice of a VP. The news media and its respective commentators are just goons spewing the corporate script - There are a few decent girls and guys out there but they are being drowned in a sea of propaganda, lies, and a total lack of reality. You talk of Socialism and Liberals; well let me tell you this, America is now the biggest socialist state in the western world not only that we rob the system even when it's committed to the people’s welfare and well-being to pay off the rich boys debt(Oh yes, we love socialism when the government can bail us out). Give me a break, we are in our worst economy, the most unsecure, the most intolerant (perhaps Iran beats us there) we have ever been. The McCain/Palin ticket is truly DUMB and if they prevail (God forbid) you will reap your rewards. As usual the liberals and democrats will come in and clean up the mess ready for another GOP debacle - interesting. Oh yes, for McCain to say one minute that the economy is OK then the next say we are in a crisis and for Palin who jus recent got a passport we are really good at choosing world leaders. The problem is simple when you have a dumb electorate your will have dumb leaders. The GOP mantra has always been spend spend and spend when there is no income they change to debt - oh yes that's a great idea too. Why don't deregulate EVERYTHING so we can rob the people under the radar. The "Surge" only worked because the US paid off the Sunni's to keep things quiet which included Al Quaeda - there had also been a massive series of sectarians killings There is also a twelve foot wall running between the districts in Baghdad. Lastly, the media has squashed any news about the daily suicide attacks. Hillary is a thousand times more qualified that Palin. and Archer, just put a bag over you head and think of our country. How you can possible think Palin comes even close to Hillary is beyond me. This has shown a side of you I didn't think existed.

The above diatribe is so stupid that it hardly deserves a reply.Asking the libs and dems to clean up any mess is a joke since these socialists have caused most, if not all of the messes.

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.

I can't help but laugh. ;-) As I have said, I am not for any of the GOP or Demos because they are simply members of the same club. We are faced with a horrible choice -- I have never seen the political divide so deep -- but both sides are clearly anti-liberty, anti-responsibility, completely beholden to their creditors, and simply promising to buy votes with money stolen from the losers. How anyone could defend either party as vehemently as we have seen above shows more prejudice than reason. I say, "None of the above and vote NO CONFIDENCE in either party choices." But it doesn't matter, because we get a CFR/Fed puppet no matter who will win. Watch voting machine tampering again. But know this: the powers that be are following the oldest strategy in history: divide and conquer. While they get us to fight over trivialities, they are raiding the bank, fixing elections, and tightening the noose. Get a grip.

Waffler, lol, you don't understand law and no one nailed Archer except Archer. He spoke well.

Well said Archer, though there may be a time you just have to get off the fence - I have a thought; do you think this emptying of the coffers is to stop any Dem entitlement programs - Yes, this election is dividing us like no other and it may get worse.

I'm not on the fence, Robert. Maybe you mean one day I will have to choose between the lesser of two evils -- well then it isn't really a 'choice,' is it? I know what I stand for and it isn't up for a vote. As long as We the People continue to allow ourselves to be duped just so that we might get something for nothing, we deserve everything we get. "A fool and his money are soon parted." Well, our foolishness has left us with no money at all -- only Monopoly script printed up at interest by a private cartel who has all of us and our government in their pocket -- and they aren't going to give this up short of a revolution. We don't want to pay the price it will cost to get out from under this con, so we fool ourselves and now simply vote for someone who will get us a piece of the action. All the while we and our progeny are robbed of most of our life's blood. Our government has become the tool of those whose intent is to 'rule the world.' And they are succeeding because they keep us bickering with each other over petty nonsense while their tyranny goes unobserved. How many folks lost everything they had this time around? With no money and no power they have no way to fight back. Either you are for freedom or you are for servitude -- I am not on the fence, how about you?

"...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."~Declaration of INDEPENDENCE ----------------------------------------------- Governments are instituted to protect our unalienable/inalienable/natural rights. Our (unalienable/inalienable/natural) rights come directly from our basic needs (food, clothing, etc.). Imagine being one of the first humans on this earth. ------------------------------------------------- We're on this earth (or put on this earth, if you prefer) with nothing except the land. From the land we can get, food, clothing, shelter, we can make weapons to defend ourselves and what we acquire; we can make tools to use, we can communicate freely, passing along ideas, information, and knowledge. To believe what you want and practice what you want. To be with whomever you wish. Plants also have medicinal properties to prevent, treat, cure. (just because we lost/gave up that knowledge about plants doesn't mean we have the right to force another to care for us medically or to force others to pay for that care) ----------------------------------------------------- Look at what I said above then re-read what I quoted from the Declaration, then read the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments to the Constitution). See the relation? This is also one reason why they originally were forbidden to directly tax us. ----------------------------------------------------- In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states and not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens. The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to ■promote the general welfare.■ What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the ■general welfare■ by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals would enjoy ■life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,■ rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence. ------------------------------------------------------------- Writing about the ■general welfare■ clause in 1791, Thomas Jefferson saw the danger of misinterpreting the Constitution. The danger in the hands of Senators and Congressmen was ■that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.■ -------------------------------------------------------------- In Federalist No. 41, James Madison asked rhetorically: ■For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? ■ Madison was replying to anti-Federalist writers who had warned that the ■general welfare■ clause opened the way to unlimited abuse. He haughtily accused those writers of ■labour[ing] for objections■ by ■stooping to such a misconstruction■ of the obvious sense of the passage, as defined and limited by those powers explicitly listed immediately after it. ------------------------------------------- IN Federalist #84 ■For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?■ Such a provision ■would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power■ ■ that is, a power to regulate the press, short of actually shutting it down. We now suffer from the sort of confusion Hamilton foresaw. ------------------------------------------------------- "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. " - James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 _Madison_ 1865, I, page 546 ---------------------------------------------- In many people■s minds, the federal government is entitled to do anything it wasn■t positively forbidden to do, whereas the principle of the Constitution is that the federal government is forbidden to do anything it isn■t positively authorized to do.