In response to:

Obama's Definition of 'Liberty'

petroleum engineer Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 12:43 PM
Yes, including those who did not vote because Paul was not the nominee or for Johnson of the Libertarian Party. They also got what they deserved. However, so did those who did vote Republican. A couple million of those votes coul d have changed the elction results.
Roy323 Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 3:47 PM
And I don't mean Chris, Mr C.
Roy323 Wrote: Jan 24, 2013 3:47 PM
Couldn't agree MORE! Mr C--where's your rebuttal?
M444ss Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 1:54 PM
Right on, PetrolEngr, and shame on those people that "couldn't stomach" voting for Romney as being too moderate and allowing the leftist to be re-elected. If anyone is to blame, it's them.
petroleum engineer Wrote: Jan 23, 2013 12:45 PM
Wrong wording - so did those who did vote Republican get the same thing which they do not deserve.

Oh, how far-removed we are from what now seems like the "innocent" Bill Clinton days when all we had to worry about was the various definitions of the word "is". And now, after watching President Obama's second term inaugural address, it is clear we have a president who calls into question the meaning of the word "liberty."

It is incomprehensible that this former constitutional lawyer would argue during his speech that America has evolved to the extent "our founding documents" no longer require us to "define liberty in exactly the same way." But then again, it's not so far-fetched considering what...