That's funny! 

So, the Constitutionality of an issue takes a back seat to her perception of population limits? She was not on that court back then, but it says a lot about her thought process.

My faith is that the only soul a man CAN save is his own. Although it only comes from Christ. But that being said, once that happens how can he not spread the good news?

How funny, I have always thought of governments as highly organized gangs.

Based on the quote, why should I believe the Buddha?

God, I miss him...

Wait, this was said by a slave owner? I love all that he did for us an hold him in very high esteem, but it’s hard to hear that quote and not see irony.

Madison hits it again. By the looks of these comments, we are not the nation envisioned.

Correct Mike. I might expand the thought to most people, not just the young.

After reading several biographies of our founding fathers, I am amazed at their foresight. Issues they fought are forever arising again and again. But they saw them as the nature of man that must be restrained and they devised a system that at least creates a battlefield so that these issues don't just slip in without notice.

Oh how we have strayed.

Speaking of Hillary?

Name two democratic countries that went to war with each other.

Is that his opinion?

I would agree in theory, but we have transformed society in such a way as to have created barriers to ever returning to this libertarian tenet.

1) Society does not let a person who has brought pain and suffering and illnesses upon himself pay his own consequences. The drug user who is dying in the street as a result of his addition can expect (even if he does not want it) that the government will take him into a hospital at taxpayer expense. He will be given a place to live and some income during “recovery” time.

2) This same addict may also fall into crime to maintain his addiction. This pushes the cost of crime onto the victim. Then society may put the person in jail for his criminal behavior and again, taxpayers are responsible to house, feed, and take care of this person medically while paying prison guards and doctors.

The list of societal costs goes on and on depending on the nature of the “sin” being examined. Many are really quite far from “only hurting himself” as often portrayed. In the bigger picture we cannot go back to considering these things victimless crimes when there is in fact spill over into societal costs. I would prefer that we have fewer crimes against “sin” but don’t see a way to actually implement them or that they are truly victimless in many cases.

I'd like to add to it: "No representation without taxation." 45% of our country pays no income tax but is happy to say tax the rich more! If you don't have skin in the game you shouldn't be voting on any tax for someone else.

How funny, I always heard it was Thomas Jefferson who said that.

The way things have changed and the manner in which the left has taken up leaves me to wonder how far away we are from being “punished by boring through the tongue with a red-hot poker” for espousing Christianly (or anything not in line with the PC world)?

I can have faith the tooth fairy will come. But that faith would prove false. Someone else came with the quarter under the pillow. What you put your faith in is critical. I have faith my wife will support me if I can’t work. That may prove false, but I base my faith on a history of facts where we have supported each other in the past. I have reasonable evidence that our bond will continue. Historically and logically Christianity has stood up very well to reason and evidence. (See Lee Strobel for a short but well organized apologetic discussion.) After establishing a reliable history and foundation to build faith on, it becomes reasonable to extrapolate with faith in the other claims. Without a base (tooth fairy) there is no logic to continue with that belief. Faith and reason go hand in hand.

Got that tin foil hat on too tight?

I have heard before that merchants were considered lower class back in the Middle Ages. However the so called “cheating” that is known as commerce has resulted in economic growth and the betterment of human kind. Commerce provides a way (like money) to engage in trade where a value can be transferred without actually giving my neighbor a chicken in exchange for his corn. The “middle-man” plays an important role in that without him the farmer must provide this service himself. But he could never expand his enterprise beyond self-sustenance without someone to transport and trade for him with multiple customers. This has resulted in allowing the growth of villages and cities as places to conduct business that the farmer could never achieve on his own. The new wealth allowed advances we all benefit from today. Far from cheating, commerce has been a liberator.

Someone needs to tell Kerry/Obama about Churchill’s quote in their dealings with Iran.

Sounds like he is advocating damaging the environment…

Twain was always good for an ironic laugh. I could have hung out with someone like him.

If I wasn’t so busy eating food bought with my food stamps and watching the Kardashian’s I might have time to analyze this quote. But whatever…