Is it reasonable to require a permit to have children? And we should sterilize undesirables? Oh my god, worse than socialist, it's Nazi. Reston, to end "baby factories" you end welfare and their incentive (free $) is gone.

Congress, senators, judges, and other officials are examples of "hungry for power." They want you to "have not" what they can "have."

We lose freedom and autonomy with each new law passed. Even if you are not immediately affected, eventually you will be.

Sign me up for congress!

Activist judges promote social agendas for the "greater good" and public welfare.

Had the subject been gays instead of the Amish, the result would likely have been condemnation.

I just don't understand how he was elected president the first time, let alone the second. Public speaking, as with this quote, demonstrate he looks down on ordinary Americans. He also said "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..." That's you and me! He, on the other hand, is "special" and his rights are still preserved. Look at how he surrounds himself with armed guards, yet doesn't want "ordinary Americans" to own the means to defend themselves.

What about protection FROM government, i.e. the IRS?

Driving is not a right, but an entitlement. Being under the influence is a victimless crime. It becomes a crime when the drunk individual violates another's right, such as driving over someone on the sidewalk.

A right is a privilege to which one is justly entitled. By definition it cannot be unjust. Archer's arrow found its mark.

... or gender, or sexual orientation, or ...

Change the focus from free speech to arms ... "I may not agree with carrying a handgun, but to my death I will defend your right to carry it." It's almost comical that liberals and socialists agree with the statement in the context of First Amendment rights, but are adamantly opposed to it as self-defense Second Amendment rights.

To deny any speech in favor of "balance" obviously "denies" someone's right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is a liberal-socialist attack on our rights to propose "balanced" free speech.

I HATE this quote! Hmmm, is this an abusive comment? I don't find it abusive to say being gay is immoral, though this regulation may say otherwise. Prohibiting abusive comment is certainly censorship. And who is to decide what is abusive? If I get to decide, great! But if you decide...

Equality forces, such as the ACLU may succeed where Russia failed, in creating a socialist country.

Our institutions are all about bringing uniformity. Then in true liberal-social fashion, he changes the subject to liberty.

Well stated Rosenthal.

Prisons are for those who are a danger to others. Yet they hold many whose crime was harmful only to themselves, like smoking marijuana.

Viktor chose dignity, even as those around him were being murdered.

I'd like to see statements shown to have no merit withdrawn with the same fanfare they are publicized. I'd settle for a simple announcement the statement is wrong.

Our complacency is allowing our government to destroy us. Now they are reaching out to control the rest of the world through the United Nations. Is it any wonder extremists resist our socialist offers? They are less than complacent and are resisting our "help". If our government left the Middle East to its own control, most extremists (terrorists) would have little reason to bring their anger to our soil. BTW, if terrorists (foreign or domestic) come to your home to kill you, will you remain die complacent or fight back to live?

Force of evidence. Not force of emotion.

You asked, "Conform to what?" I gave examples how our government expects you to conform without question. Assessing you are a socialist (and liberal) is based on your remarks to this and previous quotes. Ex: You think anyone is entitled to welfare and expect everyone else to pay for it. That's socialism! No one is "entitled" to welfare, yet our liberal-socialist government pays anyway. Am I mad, as in crazy? No. You mean angry with the abuses of our government (i.e. the Patriot Act, taxes, illegal phone tapping and surveillance, war on drugs, war in Iraq, etc.)? Definitely. Are you NOT outraged?

Liberal-socialists prefer you emote (show emotion) rather than think, so you don't notice their flawed thinking.

In the case of liberal-socialists (politicians, democrats, most republicans, Reston, Rosenthal, etc.) their intent is to misdirect, so you don't notice they have no facts to back their outrageous conclusions.