“The press must grow day in and day out — it is our Party's sharpest and most powerful weapon.”

History but once again repeats itself. Five stars for accuracy, a thumb's down for an applied loss of freedom. The progressive's press has / is grown / growing to be a most sharp and powerful weapon. The fascist's weapon (the press), though smaller, is alive and well (while not giving much in the way of substantive retort to the communists / progressives). A free press, reporting on actual events in a truthful / non-biased propaganda manner is an extremely rare animal

I have watched them all and found them imperfect. I only turn on Fox News now. Can anyone stand Chris Mathews?

ah' thank God for the free press, Thomas Paine and all of that crowd. That truly was the Amer revolution. Boortz is in that same boring crowd that thinks that a republic is not a democracy, It may not be a fully developed demo but one thing is sure a republic is not a monarchy, Re-public literally means "return to the people", I can think of no better definition of democracy than republic.

Half truth to no truth Waffler - that has ears to hear not and eyes to see not, welcome back. We missed you !

The communists need to control the press for the same reason they need to control the gun -- they are weapons that are to be kept out of the hands of the people and directed at them by the state.

Thank God for the Internet -- the real free press. 'News' is primarily constructed to grab you. Just look at the headlines and subjects of emails designed to get our attention. Because it is contrived, it is always slanted. There is no such thing as an objective press, nor should we ever expect there to be. Instant and 24/7 news broadcasted far and wide is for selling something -- always remember that the media's clients are their advertisers, not their audience. A healthy skepticism should always accompany any 'news.' We have been lied to for generations. The Truth is not broadcast, it is found only through the crucible, through vigilant study with a willingness to be wrong about even our most sacred beliefs. The search for truth means re-examining long held customs -- the truth can withstand scrutiny and does not require anything to prop it up.

The press is a vehicle for disseminating information -- whoever controls information, controls a great deal indeed. None-the-less, we must not always believe everything we read or that is broadcast to us on faith alone -- let it all be put to the test. And let us not give up on reason, discernment, and conscience.

Hey, Waffler, where have you been? Glad to see you have not waffled on your democracy/republic stance. ;-) (I would suggest however, you take out your Funk & Wagnalls and look up the true Latin roots of 'republic' which is 'res publica' meaning a matter of the public, as opposed to a matter of the state, for example.) An unlimited democracy is nothing more than mob rule. A democratic-republic is one in which democracy is limited by the natural born rights of the people themselves as well as the rules set forth in chartering a government of the people. The collective has no more rights than the individuals that comprise it, neither can the rights to life and liberty be voted away. But that is a discussion for another time...

I think Archer and I have said the same thing, strange. Of. By. for the public, or people matter, I guess where we would differ is in how much respect we give to the people versus to the self

" Thank God for the internet-- the real free press." E Archer summed it up in one sentence.

Waffler, there are no 'people' without the individuals that comprise it. The rights of the individual are the foundations of the republic. A lynch mob has no more right than an individual in hanging another. A group has no more right to vote away the property of another than one person has in taking something from his neighbor without his consent. I agree that just because a nation may call itself a republic does not mean that it is one.

As far as the People are concerned, let's face it, even communist dictatorships are run by people -- all governments are made up of people. It is a matter of power -- who has it, who should have it, and who says so. Should I have the power over my own labors and property? Do I? And who says so? Should a committee decide the fate of millions? Who says so? What are the limits to exercising power? Who says so? Personal responsibility is in the end what it is all about.

You say 'how much respect we give to the people versus the self' -- who are the people that are not 'selves'? And who are the 'we' that are 'giving' to the people? I think you mean 'how much power should the group be allowed to force upon an individual without his consent.' The rulers always refer to themselves as 'the people' -- I am Rome, said Caesar, The government is the people, says Obama. It is this distinction that we differ in.