Logan; The assertion: '... is like saying, "we need a democracy in order for us to vote".' is a red herring. The two issues are not in the least alike. The fact remains that most of us could not lead our privileged lives had 'public' funds from taxation not been applied to build roads, bridges, dams, rural electrification projects, 'public' schools, railroads (the Transcontinental Railroad, despite the money-grabs by the tycoons, would not have been built without government funding), etc. The list of things we take for granted today is nearly endless. It is the height of hubris to stand on the mountain of 'social-ist' institutions and decry the very foundations holding one up. As for the statement: "Building roads, generating power for the masses, providing water and electricty (electricity), etc. - these are not commodities that can only be provided in a Socialist setting ..." - did anyone assert that they were? My assertion was that these and many other aspects of ANY society are generally beyond the means of individuals, that they are 'social-istic' in their nature, and that only a zealot's perspective would allow one to attempt to assert otherwise. I don't exactly know whether it's useful to talk of 'socialist principles' because that appears to be a reference to an ideology. Ideologies are not generally very helpful in deciding practical matters (like the war in Iraq for instance). It might be useful to ask what sorts of institutions actually 'DELIVER the goods' in the most sensible manner to the population they are purportedly designed to 'serve'. An ideological stance on either side of this fiction is good for fractiousness but as useful as, well, you can take it from here. It's 'get-a-grip' time. There's no such thing as a successful 'society' without 'social-istic' aspects.

When exactly was this NOT true? Banking and Insurance/Financial institutions have written their own laws via their power in Washington. Who's running this show?

It seems this subject has dichotomized the issue and the views of the issue into 'pure socialism' versus 'pure absence of socialism'. I submit there can be no such 'purity' of community or national structure. There is 'socialism' of one degree or another in every social aggregation (population). The current fad of pursuing a total absence of 'socialistic' aspects in a society is strangely reminiscent of a 'Hitlerian' pursuit of a 'pure' racial population insofar as it can't be achieved because the idea itself is flawed. Its only charm is the same charm that religion has: It's simple enough to sell to simpletons with a zealot's temperament. There just is no 'social' group perfectly devoid of 'social-istic' aspects in its constitution (no, NOT the document - its 'makeup' or 'structure'). It's almost a tautology that being 'anti-socialistic' in a PURIST sense equates to being 'anti-social'. I'd go so far as to say that not one person reading this can say they DON'T rely (that's RELY) on many aspects of our society that are 'socialistic' while doing the best they can to appear to be 'perfectly self-sufficient'. If you're so 'self-sufficient', why aren't you generating your own power with your own fuel? I hope everyone has built their own roads on which to drive. We've made a paper dragon to rail against and are marching it down Main Street USA.

Er, ... That would be the 'Gilded Age' - sorry - There's a BIG difference.

Can anyone say 'religion'? Whoops, too insinuated?

Kudos, MK for pointing out the general lack of awareness of economic principles. I suggest to all they read a bit about the age of 'laissez-faire' or 'Golden Age' in our country.

Sounds like Benjamine's A. Ruse.

What on EARTH does 'socialism' have to do with this quote? Maybe SOME thought is STILL better than NO thought. I mean, what exactly does "I'd rather be murdered by this police state than to surrender even one right" mean anyway? Helo-oo, anybody home?

What? That's Sunday then is it? I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for answering.

Oh Lord, I understand you frown on those who do work on the sabbath: Exodus 31:15 - Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall be put to death. - - I have a question about that. The next time I see my neighbor mowing his lawn on a Saturday, must I kill him myself or may I just hire someone to do the untidy deed for me so long as I don't have it done on a Saturday?

Perhaps Bill Gates declined to dance nude around the firepit as local legend has GWB doing when they meet just up the road from here at their periodic Armstrong Woods/Monte Rio Hoe-down. It's an image, to be sure. LOL

Yeah, prayer has staved off so many catastrophies in the past. You should rely on that. Oh yeah, there's that 'hail and fire' and brimstone and, alternately, 27 virgins if you pray. (What do the women get? - 27 uh, ... 18 year old studs? Nine IS a 'magic' number, after all.) PREACH Brother!

FUBAR ALERT: Well, duhh, any references to this quote would, of course, rely on the Koch book now wouldn't they? - brainfart!

DS9, - apropos for a 'nom de plume' for someone who regards Herr Koch "an outstanding source for information on spiritual topics". Nice work.

This quote is from a diatribe about the Baha’i faith ("World-embracing faith") in a book by Kurt E. Koch (parapsychology and Occultism expert) titled 'Occult ABC'. - http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/occult_abc_koch.htm - Herr Koch (the book is a translation from the original German) is extolling Christianity and defending it against evils of all sorts in this book. While airing the 'supernatural' aspects of all non-Christian practices or traditions, Herr Koch extolls Christianity for its lack of superstitious foundations. Make what you like of that tiny quirk. || I defy anyone to unearth more than three or four other references to this quote on the web which don't rely on the Koch book.

"Speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992. Bilderburgers meeting. Unbeknownst to Kissinger, his speech was taped by a Swiss delegate to the meeting." - - Which delegate? Has anyone made a copy of this 'tape'? Is it available to the public? If not, why not. I mean, the quote is there. Why not the voice file? Brian may be sensing the same whif of a rat that I think I may be sensing. - - PICKETT, GREAT and ORIGINAL THINKING!!! (and great spelling) - Hmmmmm - Mwahahahaha. Ok, it IS funnier than the morning NEWS. Thanks for that. Yes, we know. It's a WHITE country (which uses Arabian mathematical symbols).

I have only been able to find 5 sites with this quote on the web (besides this site). None of them provides any source data (date, location, event, document, etc.) other than the attribution to Morgenthau. Each is in the category of 'conspiracy theories'. Morgenthau may well have said this. It's not an unheard of sentiment or idea. I am just suspicious when the most comprehensive text I found is from: The John Birch Society - Post Office Box 8040 - Appleton, Wisconsin 54913 - (414) 749-3780 - http://www.etext.org/Politics/Conspiracy/LWB/Global.Tyranny/GLBLTYRN.05

Do I detect a sense of humor? - LOL

E. Archer; You can also get handy tips as to the proper way to sell your daughter in the Bible. - Exodus 21:7 - "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do." - KJV || So don't let her out with the 'dudes' when you sell her. See how easy that is?

It would be handy if an assertion from the Bible were attended by the chapter, verse, and text, if possible. There's a site where you can read and search both the KJV and the RSV of the Bible: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html - or - http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html

Logan; "In a Republic, law is absolute and exists independent of government as "natural" law - the people are born naturally inherit, individually, with unalienable rights. These rights are theirs regardless of government." I have one word - ROT! That's why the laws of different republics differ and why the BOUNDS of our law are spelled out in our Constitution. The application of this sort of idea IN POLITICS wasn't even on the horizon of human awareness until the time of the Magna Charta and afterwards during the 'Age of Enlightenment' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Enlightenment). The idea of 'Natural Law' is a movable feast referred to in the Bible. EVERY promotion of the idea of 'Natural Law' I've ever come across has ultimately returned to Biblical scripture for its 'logical support'. I recently read that GW doesn't want to 'violate a law of nature'. Hello-o, you CAN'T violate a 'law of nature'. That's WHY it's a 'law of nature'. It defies violation. Alchemists have tried and are still trying. No dice! You CAN however, violate a 'law of man'. It's made up - without substance - valid ONLY by virtue of the agreement of its subjects. RE: "laws of nature and of nature's God" and the assertion that " - these laws, which are physically eternal, existed before man and government ever got around to defining them - they exist regardless of government or the majority." Clearly there appear to be 'laws' (it's a shame we only have one word for two different ideas) or 'properties' of physics (Newtonian mechanics in the 'macro' world and quantum mechanics in the sub-atomic world) and chemistry which defy violation. These are the 'laws' I would refer to as 'natural'. These 'laws' are, however, not the 'laws' we appear to be talking about here. We seem to gleefully conflate the two ideas as if they were one. They're not. They're separate and distinct. So - Uh, don't look now but your parrot instinct is showing. Nature's God? Is that the one who protects nature or is it the one that punishes nature for not holding up to the onslaught of mankind? I suggest further reading outside of religion oriented materials and the subsequent wrestling with the resolution of the attendant dissonance. You've clearly begun.

Robert, the 'story' was 'told' (it's a metaphor as far as I can determine) by a non-Jewish person in Germany: 'They came for the Jews. But I was not a Jew, so I said nothing... Then They came for the Communists and the Dissidents. but, I was not a Communist or a Dissident, so I said nothing... Then They came for the Labor Unionists. but, I was not a unionist, so I said nothing . . . Then, one day, They came for me. No one said a word against Them. and it was too late, because no one said anything...' -- There's more than rhetoric to observation.

This dictionary/reference checking thing may be headed for some standing - LOL. Of course, there's that 'reading and comprehension' speedbump ... LMFAO

Ken, thanks for the rosy prognosis. I agree. I remember watching Federico Fellini's Satyricon (See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyricon_%28film%29 for some insight) and recall walking out of the theater saying to myself "I've just seen the definitive metaphor of our society!" We're not in a 'political condition'. We're in a 'human condition' and history CAN be a teacher - of how to survive the inevitable and the unthinkable.

E. Archer: BINGO! - As for socialism being an indicator of "a desire to get something for nothing", what's all of that 'Lotto' mania about? Is 'Publisher's Clearing House' socialist? Is a national highway system 'socialist-ic'? Is a community water system 'communistic'? Are the London sewers 'socialistic' (just because they're in London)? Are your sewers 'socialistic'? Is your water supply 'socialistic'? It seems to me that we, being a 'social' species, instinctively incorporate 'socialist' aspects into our lives in innumerable ways which we don't bother to call 'socialist-ic'. I think the paradigm is more complex than a simple ('simple' has an illuminating definition) factionalization into pro-(whatever) or con-(whatever) is capable of addressing. It strikes me that there will always be some blend of 'socialism' and 'individualism' incorporated into human societies (or families, for that matter). It seems to me that the battles will always be as to what PORTION of the 'social' compact certain functions of the society will be delegated to. It also strikes me that the framers of our Constitution had a profound understanding of this sort of balance and how easily it can be subverted by the whim of 'interest groups' or 'factions' of any stripe.