1 - 10 Next
What America society needs to regain are the virtues of laissez-faire capitalism not religion. Once upon a time Americans prided themselves on being independent, self-reliant and self-sufficient and supporting their lives with their personal effort. Having to rely on charity (private or public) to feed themselves was a mark of failure and a source of shame. Things changed. Progressives harnessed government to confiscate wealth from producers and redistribute it to non-producers and crony capitalists. Progressives educate recipients of government largess to think they are entitled to it. Religion philosophically abetted this corrupt transformation to welfare statism with their self-sacrificial morality of altruism. Yes, religion is “costly political baggage” if you want to promote individualism.
In response to:

Mistakes of the Past Are Back

Buzz42 Wrote: Sep 26, 2014 12:17 AM
The Judge has a very confused view on what has happened in the past and what is happening now in the Middle East. His column creates the impression of a man who purposely misrepresents thirteen years of history in order to deny the cause and effect between Islam and war with the West, which contradicts his subjective feelings that America would be better off playing ostrich with barbaric Islamists. The Judge’s opinion is illustrative of why Libertarians are unqualified to be president when it comes to national security. Their attitude mirrors Obama’s and would reap the same chaos and insecurity.
In response to:

Mistakes of the Past Are Back

Buzz42 Wrote: Sep 26, 2014 12:17 AM
The Judge has a very confused view on what has happened in the past and what is happening now in the Middle East. His column creates the impression of a man who purposely misrepresents thirteen years of history in order to deny the cause and effect between Islam and war with the West, which contradicts his subjective feelings that America would be better off playing ostrich with barbaric Islamists. The Judge’s opinion is illustrative of why Libertarians are unqualified to be president when it comes to national security. Their attitude mirrors Obama’s and would reap the same chaos and insecurity.
What Todd Akin and Amanda Curtis have in common is a lack of respect for and commitment to individual rights and personal liberty. They both are comfortable in denying individuals the freedom to think for themselves and to act on their own best judgment in certain areas of their personal lives. Legally denying someone the right to an abortion is no different than legally denying someone the right to defend themselves with a firearm. Intrinsic to both issues is the concept of inalienable rights. Republicans need to be more consistent and intellectually honest in acknowledging and protecting properly defined rights rather than competing with Democrats to deny them.
The essential issue of gun control is the individual’s unalienable right to self-defense. There are no better means to that end than firearms. Therefore, the basic standard by which to judge an actual or proposed gun law is whether it promotes or infringes that right. All the proposals generated by the Sandy Hook shooting are self-evident infringements. It’s a dangerous mindset to accept that the politicians advocating them are just ignorant of the facts and have no ulterior motives.
“A basic principle cannot be compromised without rejecting the principle altogether.” ( Ayn Rand) Boehner’s tiny tax increase on 1% of tax payers, in effect, rejected 100% the principle of no new taxes to support more spending. And the irony – Boehner immediately helped the Democrats spend nearly all of the new revenue on a wasteful, pork laden bill in the name of Super Storm Sandy by passing it in the House with a majority of Democrat votes. Casting Boehner as a conservative leader who has positioned himself to beat Obama on spending issues is a bigger stretch than a yapping Chihuahua winning a fight with a pit bull.
In response to:

Jensen and Flynn

Buzz42 Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 11:06 PM
Carl – The point is you can’t know a specific individual’s inherited (or nurtured) IQ based on a group’s average test score. You would have to test that person individually to find out. Arbitrarily assigning an individual an intellectual status based on race is the classic definition of racism. Treating people as individuals is the antidote.
In response to:

Jensen and Flynn

Buzz42 Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 9:08 PM
The debate over racial and ethnic group IQs ignores the fact that we are individuals. Being associated with a group that tests high or low for IQ doesn’t tell us anything about you as an individual. If you’re a genius, you’re a genius regardless of your skin color or ethnicity. Likewise, if you land on the other end of the bell curve, you are still a moron regardless of your racial group’s “superior” test scores.
Tell your child - black or white - it's a great day for America. Obama is an individual. His lack of character and merit doesn't reflect on anyone but himself. Finally, Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream is reality. Obama was elected in 2008 based on the color of his skin, highlighted with mindless platitudes. He was unelected in 2012 entirely for the content of his mind as reflected in his anti-capitalist, collectivist economic policies and his anti-American foreign policy. His treatment by voters was equal to that of a white peanut farmer by the name of Jimmy Carter who pursued a similar agenda.
In response to:

The Republican Rape Dilemma

Buzz42 Wrote: Oct 27, 2012 3:48 PM
The moral bankruptcy on the abortion issue accrues to those who believe in sacrificing a living woman to her fetus. Denying a woman access to an abortion is a hard stance to reconcile with her inalienable natural rights - among others life, liberty and the pursuit of her own happiness. Religionists have a constitutional right to practice their myths and superstitions, but only in their own lives. It's tyranny when they try to impose them on others with the sanction of the state.
1 - 10 Next