Obama has done nothing yet except inherit the problems and the solutions already started by the last administration. He has extended the unwise tax cuts Bush started 8 years ago. Those who are pouncing on him when he has yet to do anything are just like pavlovian dogs. Mikes sunny optimism and bragging about what he thinks he has done as well as participate in government would appaear to indicate a person who has some hope for the furture. But on this site all he talks about is ":Good bye America" etc. nothing but negativity. Sounds like a schizo to me. As for me Mike I since moving to my town three years ago have been invited to get involved in local affairs by the Mayor, invited to be Commander of the VFW etcetera. I have informed one and all of my retirement travel plans which I feel would not have a salutary effect on these activities. I do speak up on issues and for what I believe in when ever I can. I do volunteer as a docent during our spring festival of antique houses, and attend meetings concerning archietectural preservation. You have spoken many times of your charitable efforts, I think your endeavors fly in the face of your stated hatred for police, military officers, calling Obama, Obamaunist etcetera. These are not charitable, gentlemanly or gracious ways of acting at all. I can only suggest that you grow up.

I guess Warren would then support things like ethnic cleansings, final solutions, etcetera to end the festering of problems. Tolerance is the heart of democracy. Rule of the majority is the rule in a democracy and so is tolerance.

Giving to the Presidential Election fund on your tax return is purely voluntary.

Cute and provocative.

Like I said Archer your freedom of speech includes are freedom to ignore you. Sadly you have never heard of nuance and obviously have not the intelligence for such a thing, thus you grab at weird and far out ideas in the hopes that you may find something on which to hang your demented personality and that your dimming and flickering intellectual star my some how miraculously rise in the opinion of those who apparently you seek to impress. For what reason I know not. As Judith from Correals commented the other day it is refreshing and noble to stand in a field of idiots and innocents and proclaim the truth. That is what I do on this site.

You are free to make your presumtions Archer, you are correct! The fight over constitutionality can come from either side of the argument. I feel certain however that some like maybe you and especially Mike from Norwalk would wish to test every single statute or law with a court fight, hell Mike even complains about driving on the left side of the street or stopping at stop signs. I like my friends and neighbors, villagers, and citizens and enjoying going along with their reasonable requests for an orderly co-existence.

The quopte is substantially BS. Name a group, society or tribe that did not give forthought to its welfare concerning harvests, and secure food supply etcetera. From Joseph and the Egyptians and ever sense group policies conerning these things have existed. If Welch could be so wrong about something as simple as this why read any more of his dribble. As far as public health (catching cold and the like) man and his societies have been interested in this at least since the plague devastated half of the poplulation of Europe and maybe worse in Asia back in 1200 AD. Yea Welch was a major flake.

The question is Mike, what are you going to do about it except wring your hands. If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. You have been nothing but a hand wringer for as long as I have known you.

Wow Mike, we went from heaven on earth in mid January '09 to a disaster of biblical proportions in mid June 09 a period of just 5 moths and it is all the fault of one man. Your naiviety knows no bounds!

Tell this to the Reaganites, and Bushites. An article this AM said the current deficts and lack of means are 37% economy cycle related, 33% caused by Bushes unpaid for wars and Medicare Prescription Drugs, and 20% Bushes tax cuts. It is time for us to buckle down and take care of our past transgressions.

It is a little bit deeper than that Chris. There is a presumption in this land that all laws (including locla and state) must meet the Constitutional muster or test. There is also a presumption that they do until they have been challenged. Thus upholding the Constitution also means abiding by and living by and respecting all law until changed.

Check your facts Archer, the government and the Constitution are one and the same thing. The government was set up and continues by force of the constitution. Attacking the government is attacking THE CONSTITUTION. I wont ask you to get it. I assume it is beyone you.

Those who wish to preach a natural law and who are more than willing to tell us what that law is may be the enemy of the freedom of which Douglas speaks. It would appeat to me that each star less than five is a vote for politcal correctness and agaisnt freedom.

That is why the genius of jazz came from maybe the free-est social environment or social order of all time New Orleans. American freedom was more than just politcal freedom, that is democracry, but it was freedom from the styles and conventions and social order of old Europe.

I agree that we have freedom of conscience to choose this belief system or that etcetrera. I still submit that the conscience is educated from birth. There is no conscience or ability to choose without education and experience.

Nice and uplifting poetry but BS in reality. The gentleman is free to obey or to go to jail. And that is a legitimate choice as the civil rights movement proved. Civil disobedience can change things. I think Ben Gunn is on to something with his comment. On the job once I sided with an outside client against my employer and all of my bosses and management at the risk of major retribution. I was correct and morally responsible in my action and the result turned out perfectly well. It usually pays to do the right thing even against the odds. PS: "If you know the right."

I don't get this one. Crime busters know that generally criminals return to the scene. For an argument against "freedom of conscience" read Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment". Was Cain free from his crime, remember he was the one who slew Able.. Was it his conscience or was it the Lord who said to him, "What hast thou done." Is a person who is free of conscience a psycopath. I think I am taking the word in the wrong meaning. Conscience has two does it not? I am taking the word from "the conscientious person" meaning. That person by definition is not free but is controlled by his conscience. The quote I assume means that we have freedom of choice to choose our beliefs and opinions but I assert that freedom will be directed by our conscience which differs among individuals. I further submit that a new born is a blank slate with no conscience, the conscience must be eduacated and informed, thus the author is if not incorrect at least a bit off track.

I agree. But I have heard as usual conflicting thoughts about this idea of freedom. In Christian circles some talk about the Law of Liberty meaning the Ten Commandments. So they say that keeping law makes us free, huh? Yesterday I read that man is not totally free as long as he is influenced by causal law, in other words laws hem is in, direct us and makes who we are, from parental law or rules. to school rules etcetera. Sometimes we wax eloquent and sentimantal about this spirit of freedom and maybe we don't even know what we are talking about. The founders were not talking about freedom from law but freedom from dictatorship, eg. King George.

Mike the other day you said that Courts and Judges should listen to public opinion. I disagreed, I think they should judge according to the law. However when it comes to non-court issues, or policy issues I believe that the method we have throughout our society from work groups, to Corporate Board Rooms to local, state, and national elections of the rule of the majority is the only way for a free people to go. And Judges can and are often elected, so if their decisions are unsavory to the majority they can also be removed by the 51%.

Sounds like double talk to me Mike, pure and simple double talk. Your avowal of love for the Constitution clears it all up for me. Unless you are the type of guy who will tred upon, abuse or beat up something he loves. If you love it I think it puts you intot the same sentiment expressed by the Rhode Islanders. Warren I have advocated for no one during this quote. You just trying to start a fight with moi?

Just because I am against ad hominem arguments (judging the man rather than what was said) it does not mean I don't try to see what a person really stands for. And Calhoun and his state really stood for slavery in his time and forever. Calhoun was the fighter for slavery throughout the early years of our democracy through the compromises over slavery and Texas admission etcetera. His debates with Webster are part of our great political history. We are not totally free or as free as Archer would like to be. Man has never been totally free once he started associating with others and passing laws, and rules for mutual use. We are sadly enough influenced by causal law, that is laws cause us to act certain ways which are different than total freedom for each man to act anyway he wishes.

PS: Your right to attack the police, the government, the army is not a Constitutional right but a god Given right. And the Constitution has a legal right to defend it self against you and whatever little voice is whispering in your ear. But remember even the Bible tells us that the word of God is not of any private interpretaion.

Who among us believes that the 2d Amendment was put into the Constitution by the framers "so that you may attack us, the Constitution, and the government which we are creating" any time you may desire. If you read the Constitution it and the laws enacted thereunder (The Militia Act of 1904) all men (at least all men under 45 years of age) and their guns in this country come under The Commander In Chief. Tell me of a government that has ever thoght so little of itself that it invites its citizens to arm themselves to attack it.

Sorry about the q and g thing. I don't think it is a bunch of crap at all. To take on your government in a constitutional nation is being a traitor to the Constitution. Like the Bible says to think hate is a little like killing and to think of raising firearms against the Constituion is the same as doing it. I don't think it is crap at all!

Even though it is questionable it is partly true. A correct understanding of Democracy and what I was taught in school is that it also entails a great respect for the freedoms ensconced in the Bill of Rights especially Free Speech. After everone has their say and vote I would much rather have the larger mob rule than the smaller mob. Human nature and common sense being what it is (an assumtion that each individual is equal in their right to have a say) it is only right that the larger number should decide an issue rather than the smaller number. Why is this so difficult to understand.