I have to disagree with you that libertarians are not concerned about virtue. Libertarians believe that human beings have natural rights, which cannot be abridged and that is fundamental to a virtuous society. The first of such principle is liberty and non-agression. If one assumes that the person is free and own's his body, than laws that violates this principle are most immoral because they violate the person's natural rights.
Secondly, libertarians are not necessarily not concerned about vices but rather believe that government, as a coercive monopolist, ought not to regulate such matters. Under libertarian principles, I can freely submit myself to the rigid dictates of Catholic canon law just as you can freely choose not to submit yourself. But state power offers no such options. Under the state, we are subject to things, like blue laws whether we want to or not.
Of course, there are libertarians on both sides abortion debate. I would be happy to comment on that if you like.
Peace in Christ,
Irrefragable BLACK and UNREAD Negroe, means impossible to refute:
[T]he legality of the 14th amendment. ... The argument that it was improperly ratified is historically irrefragable...
Martin Luther King will never rouse a rabble; in fact, I doubt very much if he could keep a rabble awake... past its bedtime...
Martin Luther King... [his] lecture... delivered with all the force and fervor of the five-year-old who nightly recites: "Our Father, Who art in New Haven, Harold be Thy name"...
The central question... is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes.... National Review believes that the South's premises are correct...
The axiom... was Universal Suffrage. Everyone in
William F Buckley, National Review
Your IgNence conservative Negroe am incontestable, no undeniable.
Latin irrefragabilis , from Latin in- , "not" + refragari , "to oppose."
If either of those two options were avaliable then I don't understand the issue because the class was a study on human sexuality after all.
I love these political theory discussions. I agree that the so-called progressive ideas are not new with a few exceptions such as same-sex marriage. Their idea of income redistribution by big government/forced equality of result is an old, Marxist idea that was put in place in the old
Dennis Prager was so right when he said that everything with the left is backwards. They are the ones truly stuck in the 1960's "past." Every foreign conflict is the Vietnam War (Persian Gulf War, Iraq War, Afghanistan, Kosovo); still fighting racism against blacks and sexism whether it exists to day on that scale or not; still fighting corporate greed with today's version of the "Great Society" and its war on poverty such as the stimulus package and the Community Reinvestment Act; still for reverse racism known as affirmative action etc.
I look forward to many more of your insights.
Great job, people. The power of hatred.
I can't tell you how refreshing it is to have Black and Red back. And after all the recent events in my personal life, it is wonderful to take a peaceful moment to read your writing and insight about what's happening to our beloved country. I say all this because I really, truly love this analysis. You told me a condensed version of this before but this article illuminates a point that's so true.
I am very disturbed by the left-wing direction that our country has been moving towards, with Obamacare being the greatest example. However, I am even more sick and disturbed about how left-leaning the Republican Party has become. As much as I love President Bush, he had some left-leanings fiscally and in terms of expanding the size of government. Plus the nomination of McCain seemed to almost nail the title of "Democrat-lite" to the Republican Party.
This is why it is imperative that the next nominee be a solid, true conservative that's unapologetic,as you pointed out. As Prager said, I would rather lose narrowly with a true conservative (Rick Perry, Herman Cain) nominee rather than win with a half-ass conservative (McCain, Romney). We may differ here, but I'm not as focused on just winning but producing that conservative. What good is winning if what we have a watered down Democrat in our Party? Then we really will have unity in the wrong way: all leftward.
If the Republicans do nominate Romney or one of these Democrat-lite, I think we conservatives need to leave the GOP and form a different, true conservative party since it's clear that we true conservatives cannot take over the GOP. It would sink us in the short term, but the current liberal-instinct Republicans (a la Mark Kirk) being in the GOP is slowly bleeding us to death anyways. That's why I'm thankful for the Tea Party, bringing the debates right-wards.
And so this is my way of agreeing with you and that's why I'm so happy that Rick Perry entered the race. There's all this criticism against him now and that's fine. I didn't see the latest debates where people say he did so awful. But I don't understand how people can be so short-sighted. Perry cannot have done that bad, making Palin-like mistakes. If he really does suck, fine. He shouldn't be our nominee. But I don't see that he has. And in this critical time where we need an electable, all around conservative, Perry is it. There is no one else that fits the bill. So his stance on illegal immigration sucks and he maybe sucked in the debates. Fine. Let's build him up and help fix him. I want to ask many Republicans, why pile-drive on him as if he is a Democrat opponent? Romney is self-amputating himself with his stubborn, ego-laced response to Romneycare. That really does disqualify him from being the nominee, not to mention his belief in global warming and former pro-choice stance. He has NEVER explained why Romeneycare was necessary for
I first disliked the Tea Party since I'm not a fan of big protesting people anyways. But over time, I've come to LOVE this movement and even consider myself to be one of them. Bring primarily a fiscally conservative issue movement, they have changed the basic tone of the national discussion after the left-ward movement of our country thanks to Obama. I think they'll end up saving this country. This is how a democracy/republic was meant to work; the people rising up and giving orders to its government. Daniel Hannan said that the reason the British has no Tea Party is that they don't have direct primaries. Thank God for that and may God continue to bless our country.
The Nigerian Leaders will soon experience the greatest terrorist attack, if there is no provision for the unemployed Nigerian YOUTHS. This youths has plan to eliminate the lives and properties of Nigerian leaders, if they refuse to pass a bill that will allow each unemployed youths to live on #40,0000 per month. This request must take effects from 1st of december,2011.
Failure to pass the bill will make us to bomb the house assembly complex, defence headquarter and all the government in each state.
Employ us or give us something to live on. Failure to do this.............will cause chaos.
I wouldn't think that anything Chris Matthews says is true these days. What does that mean? That we are all some Nazi troopers listening and falling in line to our Hitler king maker Rush Limbaugh? I cannot stand Matthews. He is intellectually vapid, a bully, and a man-child who rarely gets challenged like he should.
Anyways, the only way this two stage voting could work is if you held all the primaries at the same time rather than this long, drawn out primary season. I think this timing thing is everything. The reason why you and I did not get to vote for Giuliani is that the earlier states such as
I like both of your ideas. With the debates earlier in the year and the national two stage primary held around April or May, that would produce the most qualified and electable candidate to beat our opponents. What do you think?
I'm confused. Isn't it fairly apparent that the majority of primary voters want, above all, to win the general election? If I'm correct, then, the current system does seem to produce the primary voters' preferred choices. They chose McCain in 2008, e.g., because they thought he had the best chance to become President. They'll make the same calculation this time and likely end up with Romney or Perry.
I was clapping as I read your blog. THIS IS SO TRUE AND NEEDED!! It's frustrating to see the MSNBC idiots and the rest of the liberal media trying to ignite a fire for ratings and for their bias of the candidates stumbling. I LOVE the idea of think tanks and conservative organizations holding the debates. The only thing is to make sure that there are fair and substantive challenges so that the public doesn't see and think that these are scripted and planned softballs being thrown at the candidates. I'm not so hot on the idea of the one on one since it would to too difficult to coordinate and would take too long to digest. (You and I would love it, but not the public. I don't think they can stomach 2 hours of Ron Paul and Huntsman) I also heard that Heritage lecture about Reagan vs. Buckley debate about the
Your post seems like a great illustration of the difference between advocacy and argument. Most Democrats believe that congressional deadlock (in this current Congress) exists, not because of a divide in core convictions, but because the Republicans don't want to take actions that would be likely to substantially improve the national economy in advance of the 2012 elections. A conservative acting as an advocate for his side would not address this (fairly wide-spread) belief. A conservative intending to engage in argument would.