“Liberty is the most jealous and exacting mistress that can beguile the brain and soul of man. From him who will not give her all, she will have nothing. She knows that his pretended love serves but to betray. But when once the fierce heat of her quenchless, lustrous eyes have burned into the victim's heart, he will know no other smile but hers.”

It is sad indeed that so few know, or want to know her. The majority fights the mistress with their compelled compliance, license, victimless crimes, larceny, unlawful doctrines of god/atheistic theologies and overall disdain for the nobility of man.

That is beautiful - definitely one for my favorites - Thanks E. (Eric, the Editor)

LOL Mike. The French and other middle aged types could not know her so they built statutes in order to personify her. Mike from Norwalk obviously does not know her because he is locked into some kind of Manchurian chant as can be seen from his oft repeated and boring mantra about victimless crime etc. and his view that America has to many opinions, together with his opposition or dislike for majority rule. Just the opposite of love for liberty.

Beautiful. "Giving her all" is what Waffler does not seem to understand. Liberty means responsibility FOR ONESELF and the choice to offer support to those causes that one admires. Majority rule has a 'limited jurisdiction' in a consitutional republic, for what is liberty but the ability to rule oneself while respecting the rights of others. If the majority were to always rule unlimitedly, that would be the end of Liberty for the minority. The majority needs no protection -- that is why we hear more from the minority about the abuse of their rights than the majority.

Awesome!

Right on, Mike,Norwalk. Well said, very well said.

People whose thoughts are locked into sloganeering like "compelled compliance, vitimeless crimes" or "republic not a democracy" do not themselves have intellectual freedom or liberty but are controlled by an agenda not unlike one party dictatorial regimes.

Funny, Waffler, how you've stated that you do not wish to be talked to directly on an issue, but yet you're the one who keeps bringing the issue up. How childish are you? Well said, Mike. People whose thoughts are locked into ignorant idealogy that rejects historical significance are controlled by the "wikiality" of the "truthiness" around them. So long as enough people agree with you, you must be right -- eh, Waffy-boy? All these types of ignorance jack asses jump on the bandwagon of some authority figure's usage of words and definitions to redefine history of their own terms (Waffy's use of McCain, Bush, and others who promote "Democracy" in a previous post). Idiots all. Ironically, Waffler has yet to provide a quote from a founding father who promoted "Democracy" -- but I digress. These modern day tories are traitors to lady liberty -- they seek to license and regulate freedom into existence, because they do not realize that liberty, freedom, and agency eternally exist in a state of nature and that it is man that skrews this all up with his mob mentality of majority morality. Liberty, freedom, and agency existed before government. The great American Experience was not about a democratic movement, but upon the trust of the individual to be individually decent to another human being without being coerced, and to establish a government to keep it's damn grubby fingers out of the people's lives in matters that didn't pertain to the furthering of life, liberty, or property of the individual (not the masses) -- and that government stayed the hell out of our lives in all cases wherein the individual's rights were not infringed. While Waffler always talks about how great, grand, and trustworthy his neighbors are -- it is Waffler that purports regulating, licensing, and coercing his neighbors by joining his mob majority in agreeing to enact laws against the inalienable liberty OF his neighbor. Idiot. Of all people, it is Mike who has given the greatest amount of trust to the people, while holding the grubby politician's feet to the fire of our Constitutional Republic that operates on natural law. While some people trust the people while curtailing the government (Mike and Archer), some people trust the government and despise the individual liberty of the individual citizens (Waffler).

I did not address you by name Sir.

Funny, Kind Mr. Logan did not comment on the other quotes in this listing. Just the one in which I mentioned his pet mantra "republic not a democracy". Seems to prove my point that he is a one issue Manchuerian pit bull that is pre-programmed to salivate almost upon command but is not free to intellectually comment on anything else. Damn shame it is, a damn shame, that on a site dedicated to Liberty some people are so locked up in mental chains and appear to do what they are bidden to do by who knows whom. And these mentally chained up people run in a crowd and hang together, damn shame! At least Mr. Archer admits that he is simply anti-Washington, anti-masses (which of course he is part and parcel of just like the rest of us) and is shallow enough to believe that the word Democracy refers to the Democrat Party which it does not or that it simply means a two party system which it does not. He also has stated that he and his friends whom ever they are are going to take over the politcal world by changing the vocabulary. Manchurians is the best word I can come up with for them.

..laughs.. Waffler, your verbal fallacies know no bounds, do they? There is perhaps no greater ignorant fallacy than to use a scarecrow argument to try to promote your side. You continually try to pigeon-hole everyone who shows your philosophy as an ignorant sham into some socially deplorable niche. Nice try though. You don't need my permission to have your liberty to make ignorant and unfounded comments (which you take the liberty of making daily), because that is your right naturally as a creature of nature. I have battled your stupidity from day one, because your philosophy is flawed, convoluted, and void of historical fact. Archer has only ever talked about returning to the previously held verbiage of our founders, and has rejected -- as have I -- the currently defined definitions of words and their meanings. Why do we reject the current definitions and seek to adhere to our foundations? Because we seek for ways to let liberty and freedom naturally work in society and have actually read the words of those who have gone before us that have used logic, reasoning, and history to establish a "predictable pattern" (the goal of all social sciences) of government and social behavior. Waffler, instead, is caught up in the modern day sophistry of his contemporaries who are either ignorant of their predecessors or have devilishly turned a blind eye to them to establish their own schemes. It is a shame to repeat the stupidity of history if we can possibly avoid it -- and there are blatant examples of history wherein the authorities of philosophy (Machiavelli and our founders, for instance) rejected and vocally despised many forms of government (Democracies and Monarchies, for example) while promoting others (Constitutional Republics, for yet another example). Their words on the matter are nearly endless and cannot be written away. In our age of the written word, aside from book burning and total censorship, there is no way to etch away the words of our founder's ideas -- but there IS a way to redefine these words through government endorsed education towards a government endorsed end of political understanding (the fear of a freeman in receiving government sponsored education). Out of reason and logic, tested and tried by the blood and sacrifice of patriots, we were given a government that could transcend mobocracy and monarchy rule, while maintaining a government as constituted by the people in and through natural and de jure laws. If such adherence to the masterful philosophy of our founders makes me a Manchurian, steeped in the language and brainwashing of their ideas, learning, and acceptances -- then, yes, I am guilty and stand honored to be such an American.

It seems to me that it is Waffler that can't let go of a losing argument. Every day he rates the current daily quote but comments on old arguments he just cannot win. And he wants people to quit addressing him so that he can keep saying the same old thing without rebuttal. How about speaking to the current issue/quote/point? He has already suggested we drop the whole 'republic vs. democracy' semantic game because we supposedly agree on the meaning but use different words -- so why not let people use whatever words they use to describe what they mean? Trying to have it both ways and all ways just ain't gonna work. How dare we use words like 'republic,' 'victimless crimes,' 'compelled compliance,' 'natural law,' 'individualism,' 'Constitution,' etc.? They are all common facets of the fight for Liberty throughout American history. And I am sorry, but Waffler is the poster-boy of the brainwashed -- if anyone exhibits the traits of the Manchurian Candidate, it's him. If he truly held dear his argument, he would make his case more intelligently than that. I think he just likes to talk -- particularly if it gets others riled up. But who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool that argues with him?

Couldn't agree more E Archer.