This is hard to rate. I agree and disagree. I like the stay outa my business part of the statement. If you read it to mean that Property can be a lot of things other than the physical, it works well.

Good explanation Mike.

Sorry Jim but there is no scientific evidence supporting evolution. It is just a theory. Sounds good. Sounds believable. But still no evidence. The only reason it is pushed is because of the belief that if true it would in some way disprove God. In our world people rarely get to sit down before the facts because the facts are removed from the equation before hand to avoid jeopardizing the intended conclusion.

Seems to me if you want more rights you need to become a criminal.

Obama is fixing that problem for us. He is going to prevent err by removing the choice where ever he can.

Good one Anonymous. Bernard Madoff another one.

Waffler you vote for socialism, or more accurately, progressivism every time you go to the polls.

Waffler as always you are clueless. The corporations in this country pay the highest or second highest taxes (depending on which state it is in) in the industrialized world. When you add to that the high cost of labor and benefits (in other countries the taxpayer picks up much of the benefit tab) along with the demonizing coming from the left, there is no incentive for a company to stay here.

Good Justin. War can be the result of many things. Peace often is only obtainable through victory. "Understanding" often is seen as weakness by some, and actually can and does lead to war. The best way to avoid war is to have superior fire power. Diplomacy can only work when you have and are willing to use force when necessary

False. Those that suppress freedom use any excuse available to them. True for the current administration in particular. Any time that we feel our security is at risk we expect to be protected and the outcome will always be less liberty. As our founders knew, our form of government is only fit to govern a moral populace. Our increasing movement towards a police state is due, in part, to our steady march away from being a moral society. The liberty lost due to foreign threats work the same way. We cry that our liberty is lost to things like the patriot act but we expect to be defended. Does any one think that the president has a magic wand and can stop all of this crap with out taking any action that would affect us? I am amazed that the patriot act was as successful as it was with as little loss of freedom as it cost us. This quote sounds good but simply is not true. Law and order is only one of many excuses used by leaders. Currently the excuses are "change", "economic justice", "redistributive rights", "fairness", etc. Our freedom is under attack and the last thing Obama is actually concerned about is law and order.

Waffler will never see any problem with anything Obama does.

I guess Obama would fit as a great influence. He is doing everything mentioned in the quote. To bad his intention is to destroy not to build or improve. The quote lacks an important premise. It does not care whether the influence is for good or bad.

Guess we can say goodbye to genius. Where would one go to buy free air nowadays anyway?

It's the philosophy stupid! If we all had this political philosophy we would have none of what is going on today. The government would be in the black. Poverty would be at minimum and not a political football. The economy would have much more boom and much less bust. Freedom and liberty would be the solution not the problem like it is portrayed to be today. Real solutions to problems are found not because of what government controls but what it doesn’t. If you want the problem to get really bad sick the government on it.

Having tolerance means to disapprove but either be willing or forced to put up with something. He that goes around hollering 'tolerance, tolerance!" does not seek equality, understanding or harmony. He instead seeks ownership of a political issue. That issue would be useless to him if it was actually solved. Tolerance does not solve the problem it only allows it to fester.

Gee does he mean matching government funds for candidates? How about union dues that are funneled to politicians with out the workers consent?

Waffler, you are a big advocate of Obama who openly seeks to destroy the constitution. He made his intensions clear even before elected.

He is behind the times. The fundamentalist right is now only screaming to be heard. The left is the one that looks at big brother with love. The right abhors him. Even George Orwell knew that long ago. The tactic of the left has always been to shout down and drown out their opponents so as to prevent them from being heard. The ideas of the left can not hold up to open debate so preventing other opinions from being heard is fundamental to their success.

Sad, I suppose he is the one qualified to modify them.

Very good defense of the idea that all need representation. Innocent people would get railroaded because of popular opinion. Not that that does not happen on occasion but we need all the protection against it we can get in order to be able to call ourselves free.

Well Joe that would make me admire him even more. This country is way to short of liberals (current day type) that think logically. If they all did we would have very few of them. Then if they were informed we would loose the rest of them. Then the word liberal would come to mean - defender of liberty instead of purveyor of propaganda for the destruction of freedom.

Jim an "extreme religious hate group" is any two people that do not agree with waffler. Waffler can not see any rights infringements when it is his opponents that are being stomped on.

RBESRQ you do not sound like a defender of rights but an oppressor of them.

What about the constitution being set aside by the Supreme Court? I am sure the idea of that happening was totally alien and unthinkable to him. After all what personal gain does a justice have for ignoring the constitution? Only one thing and that is the pursuit of an agenda contrary to that of the founders of this country.

Clearly the south did not fight for the right of their people to self govern. It fought for the right for their elite to govern and or own the many.