It's always interesting to hear how each person defines God. From the Deist perspective, the quote is bang on. No source can be found for the quote, however, and it sounds a bit specious.

"[T]oo much is being taken out of the pay packet for someone to spend on their behalf ... It's part of our fundamental belief giving the people more choice to spend their own money in their own way." Indeed.

My sentiments exactly -- a far cry from the likes of Bill & Hillary.

I've been hungry, I try not to get too hungry, 'because a hungry man is dangerous.' What's truly rotten is 'losing the privilege of speaking the truth as I see it.'

Maybe, but proper jurisdictional limits must be observed. The individual has certain inalienable rights that a group, no matter how well meaning, may not abrogate. Collective solutions can be helpful, but only when the collective does not overreach into areas in which individuals have not agreed. The Girl Scouts are a fine organization, but their rules only apply to the members who have agreed, not the rest of us. As long as we are free to buy or not to buy their cookies, and they do not trample upon my individual rights, then we are all being respectful of each other.

A free market is an engine of growth, that's why there are so many schemes to take a cut of every transaction. Eventually, that gunks up the engine making it cough and sputter -- that's how the powers-that-be like it.

Absolutely. Supply and demand. Competition challenges producers to be innovative. I want the best labor for the lowest cost, but I have to chose from what the market delivers, and weigh the costs with the value of the services rendered. My own labor is very expensive because the results have high value -- for the most part, the value of my services/products to the buyers is higher than the labor cost. I am able to charge high prices because the quality and value is equivalent or higher than their cost.

When what I 'ought' to do is determined by my principles and my agreements, I have already chosen to do what I ought -- I am bound by my promises.

But if what I 'ought' to do is compelled upon me against my will, or imposed by intimidation or threat, then I am not free to act at all yet will have to bear the consequences none-the-less.

If what I like is in harmony with what I ought, it doesn't get any better than that, does it? Well, it depends on the consequences -- sometimes we 'ought' what we really shouldn't, but making the mistake is the way to learn. Ought we not to allow others to do what they oughtn't so that they might learn the error of their ways? It depends on the severity of the consequences, I suppose.

I am free to act or abstain from acting, but I am never free from the consequences. Conscience is the ruler of the freeman, and the Golden Rule is still golden. ;-)

It's a tall order, but right to the heart of the matter. Courage!

Chinese communism needs capitalist consumers, or it's lights out. World communism can never happen, but perpetual war can and does happen as long as there is someone who has their eyes on someone else's property. Communism/socialism/fascism is the perfection of organized crime.

Those with the power know the game. What power does a president and a congress have if they are beholden to the banking cartel? The common people know little to nothing about how it all really works.

A treasure trove! Every single sentence can stand on its own. Absolutely telling it like it is.

The politician's code.

The lesson for the crab is the same for all of us: stay away from buckets!

Waffler states, "Is that what competition is all about helping SELF and hurting others." The creatures of the Earth survive on the produce of the Earth. Left to its own, life on Earth is self-regulating, and those creatures that live in balance with what comes in its season will thrive, while those that live in discord, consuming more than their fill, set in motion their own destruction. Living in harmony with the Earth resonates -- all are empowered. Prosperity is built into the system -- but it does require mutual respect and compassion in the daily exercise of our lives. It is the gift we give ourselves that makes us prosper.

Statism created the Colosseum -- many were compelled to fight with the support of the populace (i.e. simple majority opinion). It was not republican principles that fomented death sports; however, centralized power loves such games.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit... ;-)

I can think of other ways I'd like to be honored -- a greater honor it would be to not be silenced but acknowledged for one's words.

The only way for a foreign ideology to take over America is for Americans to embrace it. The front-lines of freedom are within Americans themselves. If we would rather be wards of the state than free people, then we will have our bondage by hook or by crook. Don't blame the communists or fascists, blame ourselves for buying into the lies and making ourselves dependent upon a system of servitude. Alternatively, we are as free as we are because of those of us who would NOT sell their souls -- they are the true patriots. Live Free or Die -- really.

Mencken nails it, once again. As power becomes more centralized, the State is empowered at the expense of the individuals that chartered it. It takes on a life of its own, an insatiable Leviathan that consumes all. This is the road to authoritarianism in whatever form.

A republican form of government was considered to be the best protection against centralized power since its very practice keeps personal power in the hands of the person. Personal responsibility should be the core pillar of Americanism.

Freedom of the press gives the socialists the hold they need to condition the masses. Gradually the press becomes merely an instrument for social control and is regulated heavily. Social networks are proving to be the next step in cultivating attitudes and opinions that promote the authoritarian state to regulate 'hate speech' etc. The promises of socialism are lies -- exposing the lies is suicide, propping them up is, well, socialism.

Ah, yes, high principles indeed -- except in an emergency. Somehow, during an emergency, all power needs to roll up to the commander in chief (who declares the emergency). That's how fascism made such headway in the 20th century.

SCSURFR, Democracy is a form of war. Mob rule is democracy. "Name two democratic countries that went to war with each other?" Firstly, two countries don't go to war with each other -- one country either attacks another or one country tries to free itself from the control of the other -- they don't say, 'hey, let's go to war.'

I stick with the general rule, "Wars are caused by undefended wealth." Switzerland -- never at war, not a democracy -- their wealth is well protected.

So have democratic countries attacked other countries? Yes! Have other democratic countries had to defend the attacks of another democratic country? Yes. Hitler was democratically elected. Has a defeated democratic country ever freed itself via democracy? Hmm - No, I can't think of one.

The misplacement of responsibility is the common trait among 'democrats' who are no less prone to desires for wealth and power (i.e. greed) than those who have it and still want more. A republican form of government is a better protection against the wiles of designing men who can wield their wealth to sway the opinion of the masses.

Taking responsibility is hard work -- with no promise of success, the pleasures in life are either found in the work itself or not at all. ;-) The worse thing that can happen is that I will have lived a relatively happy and fulfilling life -- having it all work out as planned would be a bonus, but nothing really compares to the serendipitous fruit that seems to fall ripened into my hand. And for that I am thankful and my cup runneth over -- I am truly rich with what can never be taken from me but what I can truly give, the giving of which fulfills me. This dynamic of prosperity is what powers responsible people who give of themselves as their modus operandi. This is a completely different approach than democracy.

The Clinton's have taken 'global graft' to a whole new level making hundreds of millions of dollars. Obama has acquired nearly $40 million in cash and property during his tenure as president. Gore stands to make billions in carbon credits and fluorescent bulbs. Disgusting, really...

Collectivist thought spoken in collectivist jargon.

Is it now clear that the battle for the world is a battle of definitions? Make a law, then redefine the terms used in the statute. That's how the Federal Reserve Act stole the nation's entire money supply and traded it for commercial interest-bearing promissory notes. 'Civil Rights' now include transgenderism, pedophilia, and 'cake wars' in which political messages are compelled to be delivered by those that disagree with them or lose their businesses.

When was the course in Integrity taught in public school? Why isn't this obligatory for the education of citizens in a 'democracy'? Without integrity, all the great causes hard-fought and won become the tools of the power-hungry to mold and twist to their advantage. Thank the American Bar Association for the army of lawyers that do nothing but redefine words to suit their argument -- all the way up to the Supreme Court where statism is still protected above the rights of the individual.

"Congress shall make no law..." -- sheesh, just take a look at how Congress breaks this rule DAILY. On and on...

It was true then and now. If only Americans could reject their programming that the US is a democracy and thus everything is subject to vote. Woodrow Wilson can be credited with the phrase, and it has been put into every text book in the US. I know that when I first started reading Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and other founders' arguments against democracy I was totally confused. Isn't the US a democracy, and not only that, but the model of democracy for the rest of the world? It's been a long road indeed. It's not easy getting out from under the propaganda when it is so comfortably rooted in our outlook. And there is a fundamental difference between the consciousness of someone who believes they are subject to the dictates of a group or authority and someone who considers himself personally responsible and acts in accordance with his/her own conscience and principles. The former is a subject/slave, the latter a 'noble sovereign.' Who are you? ;-)

The very fact that we war upon each other is the reason for a republican form of government. People cannot be trusted -- no matter what position of authority. That is why the government is distributed across thousands of counties and to keep state and federal jurisdictions in their proper spheres. Remember that humans are wild animals - predators at the top of the food chain. For some, the purpose of their lives is to civilize themselves, for others, it is to dominate. The form of government is thus an extension of the motivations of the people at large.