About Me

Name:cavalier973
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Blog Roll

 

Celebrate Independence

Posted by cavalier973 on Friday, July 04, 2008 3:03:53 PM
Praise and Thanks to God for our country! Happy Birthday, America! Happy Independence Day, everyone!
 
Yeah, I know that some (including Founding Father John Adams) say that July 2, 1776 should be considered the real date of America's Independence, since that was the day the Vote occurred.  However, if you examine the Document closely, you will see that it was enscribed with the date July 4, 1776.
 
Anyway, if you haven't done so recently, now is a good day to re-read the Declaration of Independence.  http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
 
 
If you have the time, you might find it amusing to watch the old "Schoolhouse Rock" cartoons on American History.  My two favorites are "No More Kings" and "Fireworks".  You can find them on Youtube.  www.youtube.com  Search for "No More Kings".
 
If you would like to listen to music that the Founders might have listened to, I recommend John Mock's music CD "Revolution".
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00005O0PY/ref=dp_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=all  There are a few "fife-and-drum" pieces, along with other types of music, including a beautiful tribute to George Washington (track 3).
 
For other music, there are, of course, the standards: Star-Spangled Banner, Stars and Stripes Forever; I also think it's appropriate to listen to Aaron Copeland's "Appalachian Spring" which evokes the feeling of America's natural beauty, and Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue", which reminds one of the exciting, optimistic, thriving American City.
 
 
 
 
cavalier973
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rush Limbaugh can be so infuriating sometimes

Posted by cavalier973 on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 2:39:58 PM
Today, Rush blamed Huckabee voters for McCain being our nominee, specifically mentioning the "tag-team" manuever in West Virginia.  I fired off an email, and since I doubt he will read it, I also will post it here:
 
Subject: I'm glad to see you're still mad about Huckabee
 
I voted for him (in Florida), and I'd do it again without hesitation.  Especially since I see the idea of my voting for someone who is: Pro-life, pro-family, pro-guns, pro-tax reform, pro-War on Terror, pro-War in Iraq, etc., etc. gets you so angry.  Really, your calling Huckabee a liberal (when such a charge is so obviously untrue) clinched my voting for him. 
 
You've said recently that Huckabee didn't have a chance at winning the nomination.  Allow me to introduce you to someone who REALLY didn't have a chance: Fred Thompson.
 
You claim that West Virginia was the arena where McCain began to win the nomination.  I see South Carolina, rather, as where McCain clinched it; when your golden boy Thompson woke up long enough to make a couple of cheap shots at Huckabee, thus splitting the vote in SC and allowing McCain to pull out a win.  Had McCain lost SC, then he (by his own admission) would have dropped out of the race.  Then it would have been the fight it should have been all along: Huckabee vs. Romney.
 
While everyone knew that Thompson was your guy (probably from the tongue-baths you kept giving him), when Thompson finally did the inevitable and dropped out, you became a Mittwit.
Now, seriously, can you name one original and exciting idea that Romney proposed in the whole campaign (other than giving Federal Subsidies to the Auto Industry?).  And brilliant Romnic oratory such as this: "Government is broken."  WOW!! How does he do it?  Only a genuine genius could have come up with "Government is broken"!!  Meanwhile, Huckabee had made the Fair Tax one of his chief policy objectives.
 
You said on your program that there was "no chance in Hell" for the Fair Tax to pass.  Well, we could have used your backing on that, but if we have to leave you behind on this issue, then we will, and we will win passage of this important measure of tax revolution.
 
Really, Rush, you've stabbed us real conservatives in the back, hard.  Thanks for nothing.
You Mittwit.
 
 
Update:  Here are the actual quotes from the transcript of Rush's show today:
" Why should I have to change?  Why should I have to sweep my principles aside or under the desk, why is that up to me to do that?  I know you don't like it when I say "you people."  You know who you are.  You should have thought about all this when you're out there voting for Huckabee.  You should have thought about all this when you saw McCain and Huckabee teaming up to screw all the other nominees in our party."
 
Well, Rush, it appears that you swept all your principles aside to focus on the one and only principle you apparently care about: Tax Cuts.  In fact, the main reason you kept saying that Huckabee was "not conservative" was that he raised taxes.  But you never mention that he lowered taxes first, and that he raised them only because of a state constitutional requirement for a balanced budget.  I know, I know; I heard you say that the way to balance the budget is to cut spending, not raise taxes.  But you showed yourself to be a contemptible buffoon by saying that.  I doubt that you had or have any idea of what the Arkansas Budget was like.  I barely know myself; only I know that over 40% of the budget was going toward education.  There's not a lot of fat in small state budgets, like there is in the larger states or the Federal Government.
 
The big point here is, that you are happy with the current tax situation.  We lower the taxes, they raise them back up.  We simplify the tax code, they give it more complexity.  The Fair Tax cuts all that nonsense out, and gives us a flat rate on consumption.  Haven't you read anything about this?  The only definitive thing that I've heard you say about the Fair Tax was that there was "no way in Hell" it would pass.  I think the only reason you really didn't plug the Fair Tax was that it would have given credibility to Huckabee, and you, being a staunch Mittwit, couldn't allow that to happen.  Romney wasn't for the Fair Tax; he wasn't even for a Flat Tax.  All Romney did throught the whole campaign was to spout generic, non-offensive conservative platitudes ("The Government is broken!").  And you Mittwits fawned all over him like he's the second coming of Reagan.  I'd rather have a real conservative like Huckabee any day.
 
For God and Free Trade
cavalier973
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Huckabee vs Romney

Posted by cavalier973 on Friday, June 13, 2008 12:02:50 AM
Byron York is the Whitehouse correspondent for National Review.  He wrote these two articles, and I think they explain the Huckabee/Romney rift better than any other analysis I've read.
 
The first is about Huckabee:
 
 
 
And this is his article on Romney:
 
 
The reason I'm still rehashing this old argument (I mean, come on! McCain's the nominee, already!) is that 1.) I spend a lot of time on the blogs at Townhall, and the Huckabee vs. Romney debate still comes up quite often 2.) either man could be chosen as McCain's VP nominee (although Huckabee is out of the running for that spot--he's even signed on as a commentator for Fox News) and 3.) Both men will be back to run for President again, especially if McCain fails to win the Presidency.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A good article explaining Christian Libertarianism

Posted by cavalier973 on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 9:35:43 PM
By Vox Day:
 
 
 
cavalier973
For God and Free Trade
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Excellent interview by Hugh Hewitt

Posted by cavalier973 on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 9:02:01 PM
 
I highly recommend everyone listen to it.  It explains why popcorn costs so much at the movie theater.
Tags: economics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Fair Tax Postings

Posted by cavalier973 on Monday, June 09, 2008 2:16:51 PM
On one of the blog posts (http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/2df4fc63-4d6f-4310-bb8f-8b3fac7638b5?comments=true#comments) discussing who should be McCain's VP, I mentioned the Fair Tax.  Another poster, named "Dan in SC" responded thus:
 
 
Dan in SC writes: Sunday, June, 08, 2008 10:08 AM
Cav, I know about the fair tax...
I listen to Bortz. Eliminate the income tax, impose a consumption tax - yada yada yada. Theory is that the income tax punishes good behavior (working for a living) and that the "fair" tax would reward good behavior by allowing people to pocket all of their income and only being taxed on their purchases.

I have several problems with this.

First of all, what guarantees would we have that we would actually get to keep all of our income? How do we know that the companies we work for would not just keep it for themselves?

Second of all, I have yet to hear any fair tax supporter explain how anyone would be able to afford a new home when the taxes would be 20-30%. People who want to sell their house would not lower the price and take a loss to off-set the increase in the sales tax. Even automobiles would likely become out of reach.

Lastly, suppose we eliminate the income tax in lieu of the fair tax. What guarantee would we have that the government would not eventually impose another income tax in the future so that we end up with both the fair tax and income tax?

I would much rather see the government cut taxes and cut spending first, then we can talk about tax reform. Right now, we do not need to trade one tax system for another one just to keep feeding the monster.

"A government that is big enough to give you everything you need is powerful enough to take everything you have" - Gerald Ford
 
Here is my response:
 
cavalier973 writes: Sunday, June, 08, 2008 2:04 PM
Great questions, Dan in SC
Your first question: "First of all, what guarantees would we have that we would actually get to keep all of our income? How do we know that the companies we work for would not just keep it for themselves?"

The statement "You will be able to keep all of your income" refers to the government's practice of automatically deducting it's "share" of your income from your paycheck. It doesn't have anything to do with your employer (aside from the fact that he is the agent who collects the taxes for the government by deducting them from your paycheck).

Now, I am interpreting your question to mean, what safeguards do we have that the companies we work for will not simply lower our pay to the point where our paychecks after the Fair Tax is enacted are the same amount as our net pay (after taxes) is today.

While salaries could go down after the Fair Tax, it would not be because of Corporations. It will be because of Workers.
Email It  |  Print It |  Flag as Offensive
cavalier973 writes: Sunday, June, 08, 2008 2:07 PM
Great questions, Dan in SC Part 2
I don't think that it's likely that companies will be able to say, "Since we no longer have to deduct taxes from your paycheck, we are going to cut your pay." Really, since the company is already paying you a certain salary, it doesn't behoove them to lower your salary simply because their costs go down. If a company found some new way to cut costs, the tendency is for salaries to go up, to try to woo better workers from the market.

Your worry stems from the fact that workers who are able to keep 100% of their paychecks might be willing and able to do your job for less money than you.

For example, if I work at a job for $100,000 a year. I pay around $30,000 in taxes, which brings my take-home pay to $70,000. After the Fair Tax, I would bring home all $100,000. At the same time, say that you are currently working at a job making $70,000 and paying $21,000 in taxes, with a take-home pay of $49,000. You could go to my employer and offer to do my job for $70,000. You would get pay raise of $21,000, and my employer would be cutting its costs by $30,000. So the boss comes to me to see if I would be willing to take a cut in pay. If so, I would negotiate a lower pay, as long as I'm making at least $70,000.
Email It  |  Print It |  Flag as Offensive
cavalier973 writes: Sunday, June, 08, 2008 2:26 PM
Great questions, Dan in SC Part 3
Of course, even if I negotiate to a lower salary, I can expect to get a big raise soon afterward, because the Fair Tax would result in rapid economic growth. By lowering expenses, the Fair Tax would increase the amount of capital money that corporations could use to expand their businesses, which means more jobs.
Email It  |  Print It |  Flag as Offensive
cavalier973 writes: Sunday, June, 08, 2008 2:31 PM
Great questions, Dan in SC Part 4
The answer to your second question is tied to my answer to your first question.
Your second question is: "Second of all, I have yet to hear any fair tax supporter explain how anyone would be able to afford a new home when the taxes would be 20-30%. People who want to sell their house would not lower the price and take a loss to off-set the increase in the sales tax. Even automobiles would likely become out of reach."

The cruel, callous answer is "Simply shop for a less expensive home."

But since I don't feel cruel or callous right now, I will elaborate on how the Fair Tax doesn't punish homebuyers.
First, The Fair Tax would only apply to newly built homes, not to previously-owned homes.

Second, the cost of building new homes would decrease by the amount that the contractor's expenses are lowered from not having to do all the Income Tax work (filing taxes every month or quarter, messing with payroll, etc.).

Third, the cost of mortgages will decrease, because the banks are no longer having to deal with income tax issues.

Fourth, when you sell your house, you will not have to pay capital gains taxes, so you could accept a lower price and still come out with more money than you would under the current tax system. This would put downward pressure on the prices of previously owned homes, which would in turn put downward pressure on new construction homes.
Email It  |  Print It |  Flag as Offensive
cavalier973 writes: Sunday, June, 08, 2008 2:43 PM
Great questions, Dan in SC Part 5
My last post reminded me of something else about salaries. Going back to my post at 2:11 (part 2), let's say that I negotiate my salary down from $100,000 to $80,000. The company sees me getting a pay cut of $20,000, but I see my take-home pay increasing by $10,000.

Now your last question is this: "Lastly, suppose we eliminate the income tax in lieu of the fair tax. What guarantee would we have that the government would not eventually impose another income tax in the future so that we end up with both the fair tax and income tax?"

I like this question because the answer is so poignant: WE ARE ALREADY PAYING BOTH AN INCOME TAX AND A SALES TAX. The sales tax is hidden in the higher prices of everything we buy. It's impossible for corporations to pay taxes--their fictional entities. Oh, I know that I can look at GE's income statement, and see a line there for taxes. But GE doesn't pay those. The customers do through higher prices. If GE decided that customers shouldn't be paying those taxes, it can lower salaries, making the GE employees pay for the taxes. If GE didn't want either its customers or its employees to pay its taxes, it could accept lower profits, which means that the shareholders of GE are paying its taxes.

Since the shareholders are its primary concern, and it needs to keep its employees relatively happy, then GE will most likely pass the taxes off to the customers, by charging more for lightbulbs, etc. And it's not just passing on the cost of its own taxes; GE is also passing along the taxes of every one of its suppliers as well.

With the Fair Tax; the Income Tax, Corporate Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Estate Tax, and the FICA/Medicare Tax are all eliminated, and the Sales Tax, which we are already secretly paying, is brought out into the open and relied upon exclusively by the Federal Government for its financing (along with borrowing, of course).
Email It  |  Print It |  Flag as Offensive
cavalier973 writes: Sunday, June, 08, 2008 2:54 PM
Great questions, Dan in SC Part 6
Your last comment was: "I would much rather see the government cut taxes and cut spending first, then we can talk about tax reform. Right now, we do not need to trade one tax system for another one just to keep feeding the monster."

The Fair Tax would help tremendously with your goal, which I heartily share, of not only cutting government spending, but reducing the size and scope of government. By making the tax rate transparent and universally applied, the Fair Tax eliminates politicians' ability to monkey with the tax code to favor this lobbyist or that constituent. It would make everyone, not just the rich who are currently paying most of the taxes, aware of the intrusion into our personal economic lives by the government.

And eliminating the IRS is always a worthy goal for those wanting to limit the power of Government.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Huckabee saves lives

Posted by cavalier973 on Saturday, June 07, 2008 11:53:57 PM
Here's a good article from the Palmetto Scoop (website: http://www.palmettoscoop.com/2008/06/07/huckabee-knows-how-to-save-a-life/)
 
 

FORMER ARKANSAS GUV PERFORMS HEIMLICH ON NC LT. GOV. CANDIDATE

The North Carolina State Republican Convention got quite exciting today — and it had nothing to do with politics.

During a pre-event hospitality breakfast, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who was in attendance as the convention’s keynote speaker, was sitting next to North Carolina Lt. Gov. candidate Robert Pittenger when the state senator began choking. Huckabee reportedly noticed Pittenger having difficulty breathing and immediately began performing the Heimlich maneuver.

“I’m glad that Mike was in the right place at the right time and continued to lead by example,” Former South Carolina Lt. Gov. candidate Mike Campbell told The Palmetto Scoop. “We all know that [Huckabee] is pro-life, and once again he has lived up to it.”

Pittenger, whose company Bahakel Communications owns WOLO-TV in Columbia, apparently suffers from acid reflux, which likely caused the incident to occur.

Huckabee was trained as an EMT in college and has been in similar situations before, his daughter Sarah said, noting that he “instinctively reacted.”

Reports are that Pittenger is doing fine and is already back on the campaign trail.
 
Way to go, Governor!
 
cavalier973
For God and Free Trade
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Arguments for a young earth

Posted by cavalier973 on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:50:19 PM
One of my favorite sites, answersingenesis.org , has this very interesting article:
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A good article explaining why Huckabee should be VP

Posted by cavalier973 on Friday, May 09, 2008 9:44:09 PM
 
Great stuff.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Answering John Derbyshire on "Expelled" movie

Posted by cavalier973 on Tuesday, May 06, 2008 12:06:39 AM
John Derbyshire, the resident Darwinist at National Review Online, wrote a scathing attack on the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" by Ben Stein.
 
 
One important thing to remember is that the Intelligent Design Movement is not Creationism; I am a Creationist, and I can tell the difference.  For a full treatment of scientific inquiry from a Creationist perspective, go here:  www.answersingenesis.org
These are the guys who founded the Creation Museum.
 
 
 
For God and Free Trade
cavalier973
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

To Ban or Not to Ban

Posted by cavalier973 on Sunday, May 04, 2008 11:21:47 AM
If you go here you can read the wikipedia article on Grand Theft Auto 4:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTA4
 
And here is the Baptist Press article on the game: http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0%2C1703%2CA%25253D167602%252526M%25253D200727%2C00.html?
 
From the description, there are elements to the game that actually sound fun.  Exploring an environment that detailed seems interesting.  There is open gameplay, which means you are not tied down to the "missions" that are necessary to complete the game.  If it's anything like the earlier games, you can do things like steal taxi cabs and drive around collecting fares; steal a police car and you can go vigilante, pulling over speeders, etc.  It's escapist fantasy.
The plot involves you taking the role of an ex-Serbian soldier who comes to America.  You quickly become involved in criminal activity, stealing cars, murdering people; you know, fun stuff.
 
So should GTA4 be banned?  Social Libertarians have a solid argument against banning the game:  that the government should not be interfering in our personal lives.  But aren't there some activities that should be banned even if they do no direct harm to others?  Say, smoking marijuana?  Of course all Libertarians give a resounding "NO!" to this question.  They say that while government should protect its citizens from each other, it has no business protecting us from ourselves.  Following this philosophy to its logical conclusion, the Libertarians will say that suicide should not be illegal (especially for those, say, dying of cancer).  But in holding to this philosophy, Libertarians don't seem to understand that we are social creatures; it is possible for me to engage in behavior that, while "harming" no one directly, can still be hurting others, violating their rights. 
 
Libertarians will also apparently consider no evidence that media can influence behavior.  If someone continually subjects themselves to violent fantasies, he will eventually become a violent person. This is especially true of children. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_effects_theory  , http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20050610/media-violence-may-affect-childrens-minds , http://www2.focusonthefamily.com/press/pressreleases/a000001034.cfm , http://actagainstviolence.apa.org/mediaviolence/index.html ) 
 
Mentioned in the earlier wikipedia article is a provision in the law against "public nuisance", which applies to loud music, loitering, etc.  A game in which you assasinate real people, like the President, might be banned under this provision of the law.  A lawyer in Florida sued to stop distribution of the GTA4 game based on this premise.  The case was settled out of court, and the game will continue to be distributed in Florida, so it looks like the game won't be banned under this premise.
 
The only solid argument that might convince a Libertarian that a video game should be banned, is if it can be directly tied to acts of violence, rapine, and other criminal activities; something that would be almost impossible to do.
 
So what about Tropico?  If I am going to ban a game for violence, why not a game that allows you to torture political prisoners and cheat at elections?  The difference is that you are not shown graphic depictions of people being "tortured".  Also, in order to win at Tropico, you are not required to engage in the corrupt behavior.  You can win by being squeaky clean just as well as being a Fidel Castro. 
 
In GTA4, you are not given that option.  You must be a criminal to win the game.  It's almost humorous that Libertarians defend people's "right" to play a video game in which the whole purpose seems to be violating people's rights. You are required to think like a criminal, act like a criminal, to the very end.  You cannot join the police force and arrest the main bad guy.  You are not allowed to take the role of the prosecuting attorney, digging up evidence to bring down the criminal syndicate.  You don't get to start a local chapter of the Guardian Angels.  No, it's all stealing cars and killing cops, all the while seeking "revenge" against, get this, people who did bad stuff to you. 
 
There are levels to acceptability, and reasonable people can see what's acceptable and what's not.  Some people accuse me of trying to be a "dictator", forcing "my views" on everyone else.  But it's not just me, myself.  A lot of people; reasonable and responsible people; conservative people;  people who believe in limited government; that are distressed by this descent into immorality.  At some point, a video game will become so offensive that overwhelmingly these people will say that it should be banned by the government.  And they will be right, and they will succeed in their endeavor.  As I mentioned in the earlier post, what if a company published a game where you played as a member of the KKK? or if you were the leader of a terrorist group planning and executing acts of terrorism?  What if the game had you continually assault, molest, and murder children (virtual, of course)?  What if the game allowed you to paste pictures of your neighbor's children onto the avatar?  Social Libertarians might still defend the "right" to play such games, but people who will have to deal with the consequences of game players that are inured to the idea of social destruction will not.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The curse of Libertarianism and Grand Theft Auto 4

Posted by cavalier973 on Sunday, May 04, 2008 11:08:45 AM
I recently got into a scuffle with a social libertarian over the game "Grand Theft Auto 4". 

Here's my first salvo:
So, if Rockstar Games' next effort
is a game called "KKK Hero", where you play a character who routinely assaults, lynches, murders and otherwise harrasses black people, Jews, etc., all the while taking orders from the "Grand Wizard" to take out a rival group, then I can count on all you GTA proponents to say "it's just a game", right?

You don't seem to believe the power of thought. If I think about something enough, like making cookies, eventually I'm going to do it. I would never have considered the possibility of pulling someone out of their car and running them over with it until I played this game (GTA Vice City was the one I played. My brothers loved it and tried desperately to get me into it. I thought it was boring, actually.)
 
At some point, some other poster (named American Mom) mentioned that laws against murder are a form of legislating morality.
One Vindex responded thus:
 
American Mom writes:
"A society deems murder immoral, so it makes laws against murder."

It doesn't have ANYTHING to do with morality. Murder is an infringement on a persons pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. No "moral code" needed. Just another BS justification for liberal and fascist policies from the self-described 'socons' who love to pray publically and loudly so other men can see them and be impressed and love to wear religion on their brown-shirt sleeves.

"I would not want to relinquish all of my decision-making to government, particularly since no government ever completely had the good of the little people as its highest priority."

Of course you don't. You only want them to restrict the freedom of everyone else. You don't want them to touch YOUR vices, but have no problem with them cracking the skulls of those YOU determine to be 'filthy' according to your own subjective 'moral code.'
 
I asked him a question:

Vindex
You write: "It doesn't have ANYTHING to do with morality. Murder is an infringement on a persons pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness."

What standard do you use to say it is wrong to infringe on a person's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?
 
Vindex returned:
 
cavalier973 writes:
"What standard do you use to say it is wrong to infringe on a person's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?"

The constitution of the U.S. and the declaration of independence.

You?

=================

Some of you people are so irrational, it drives me insane. About as insane as I get trying to talk to liberals. Just another example of how you socons are BARELY ideologically removed.

American Mom, I am not even going to engage you any further in discussion. You are apparently mentally and intellectually handicapped and your self-boasting righteousness is EXACTLY that which I referred to when I said people that "pray loudly and publicly." Go look it up in your bible. Jesus warned us about those people.
 
And here is my full response to this inanity:



You say that laws against murder is not legislating morality.  You say that laws against murder are there because it's wrong to infringe on a person's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Now you say that the basis for murder being a violation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is "the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution."  Is that the only basis?  Because if it is, what did people do before these documents were written?  What about people not living in the U.S.A.?  Any law against violating someone else's "rights" is by definition a legislation of morality.

And, by the way, you imply that a person has a right to play mature video games;  what about our right to live in a society that does not have these games?  Which right is more important?

I have not advocated any banning of anything, video game or otherwise, by the way (although it's getting closer to the point where I will be writing my congressman urging him to "ban it now");  I am addressing this philosophy summed up in the phrase "it's only a game."  I'm asking if there is a line drawn somewhere for libertarian philosophy.  Is there any game, in your wildest imagination, that should not be produced or played?  If there is, then we are really arguing over where that line should be.  If there is no game concept that a libertarian finds so offensive that he would want to ban it, then I really don't have any confidence at all in his ability to think clearly about morality and social policy.

The unfettered ability to do whatever you like is not the same as liberty.  If you have no self-control then you are as much a slave as any unfortunate prole in a communist tyranny.  What's more, if you have no self-control, the Government eventually catches on and provides control for you.  It doesn't matter if the government is a theocracy or an atheistic communist government.

In my mind, you social libertarians who are calling for the absolute abolition of "government control over our lives" are, in a roundabout way, the ones who most guarantee its existence.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A new video from Answers in Genesis

Posted by cavalier973 on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 10:25:03 PM
Wow.  The anti-intelligence Darwinists are in a fury about Ben Stein's new movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".  It seems they can't just leave well enough alone, but must suppress even honest inquiries into the philosophical underpinnings of Darwinism.
 
In the spirit of Ben Stein, I offer this web link:  http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/beginning-was-information/beginning-was-information  It's a video discussing information theory.  All their webcasts are free of charge.   The site also has a plethora of information about Creation Science and the problems with Darwinism.
 
Now, Answers in Genesis is Creationist, not Intelligent Design (There is a difference, despite the Darwinist naysaying), so it's information will be a little more forthright than the Discovery Institute's website (www.discovery.org)
 
 
 
For God and Free Trade
cavalier973
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A post I wrote that I liked so much I had to put it here

Posted by cavalier973 on Saturday, April 19, 2008 4:27:37 PM
what's so inspiring about Huckabee
Is that nobody gave him a chance. Hewitt wouldn't even talk about him before Iowa. I remember one caller to Hewitt's show saying he was going to vote for Huckabee; Hewitt's response was "I hope you're not throwing away your vote!"

And so it went for all the other chatterati, except Medved. Huckabee was a nice guy, a good talker/debater, but he didn't have a chance. Look at all the money that Romney poured into Iowa! Romney's getting his message out! Nobody can really compete with Romney, because he's put so much money into the race!

Of course, Huckabee went on to win big in Iowa. Then, the talking points were that Huckabee was a one-trick pony; that Iowa would be his only win.

Super Tuesday: Huckabe swept the South, McCain pretty much got everything else. Mitt's millions that he invested in the Prez campaign got an anemic return. So Mitt became Mitter the Quitter, and even then he couldn't quit honestly--he "suspended his campaign," hoping, I guess, that Huckabee would do well enough to allow him to sweep in on convention day to play kingmaker or bid for VP or something.

And now, all the Mittwits are spitting mad that Huckabee still has supporters. Didn't they prove that Huckabee was a bigot by saying he was? Didn't they prove that Huckabee was a dishonorable skunk by showing us the news articles written by Huck's political opponents? Didn't the Club for Growth, one of whose members was a political adversary of Huckabee, prove that Huckabee was a fiscal liberal?

Nope, Nope, and Nope.

Huckabee is an honorable man, who is both socially and fiscally conservative. And he has proven he can win elections with just a fraction of the money Romney has to have to win.


 
 
 
 
[Editor's note:  In the original post, the last sentence was changed from "...Romney needs." to "...Romney has to have to win."]
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

For a good time, click here

Posted by cavalier973 on Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:50:25 PM
That is, if you consider learning about economics a good time.  It's certainly time well spent.
 
 
I especially like this essay, found in their "Library" section:
 
 
For God and Free Trade
cavalier973
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »