1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Faulty Ideas About Marriage

MoreFreedom Wrote: Aug 19, 2014 11:48 AM
Schlafly uses a libertarian economist to claim "There is simply no basis for that notion [to get government out of marriage] in the works of classic libertarian writers." She would prefer that we ignore the large body of libertarian text that discusses exactly that and which is easy to find: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_LGBT_rights Plus there are many more - just google "libertarians on marriage". Or the Libertarian party platform which states: "Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships." Schlafly, and social conservatives believe government has the right to jail/fine/penalize those who offend, but do not physically harm, them. For example, doesn't the tax law reward married couples where one stays at home? And doesn't it also reward those who can and do have children at the expense of others? Unfortunately, giving that power to government, also means that liberals can use government to jail/fine/penalize those who offend them, including social conservatives who say, don't want to bake a cake for a wedding of racists or homosexuals. Schlafly, social conservatives, and liberals have a flawed view of government. One in which they want to use government to harm people who aren't like them.
In response to:

Faulty Ideas About Marriage

MoreFreedom Wrote: Aug 19, 2014 11:38 AM
"Libertarian and Liberal are synonymous." Obviously not. Libertarians consistently support freedom. The NYT does not. Neither do Republicans who defend the redistribution of welfare (including corporate welfare - which the Democrats defend even more), the war against drugs, or treating people unequally before the law depending if they are married (where tax breaks apply) or if they have children (where tax breaks apply, and where government forces people without children to pay for the education of other's children).
Human desire for things is practically unlimited. It will be a long time before robots can do things like cut your hair, do a manicure, operate on you (without a surgeon guiding it), guide you on a rafting trip, weed your garden, cook a fine meal, or compete on Chopped.
In response to:

He's a Conservative! Get the Noose!

MoreFreedom Wrote: Aug 19, 2014 9:51 AM
"progressives chose poor heroes" Rosemary Lehmberg isn't even close to being a hero. She endangered citizens by driving drunk with a blood alcohol level of 0.23, almost three times the legal limit. Then she abused the police. I'd say, progressives choose and support criminals and those unfit for office, provided they support the Democrats. That's more important to them, than actually doing their job of defending our lives, property, liberty and pursuit of happiness. But that's not the job they want to do either. The job they want to do, is to take taxpayer money and put it in their wallets.
In response to:

Random Thoughts

MoreFreedom Wrote: Aug 19, 2014 9:45 AM
"Too many people in Washington are full of themselves, among other things that they are full of. " When Sowell makes such a statement, it lets us know what citizens think of the politicians in power. It's no wonder polls of Obama and Congress are so low. But hey, we get what we vote for, good and hard. People voting based on political rhetoric or party affiliation, fail in knowing what they are voting for. They should examine a politician's record first. Most of them are liars. Thus, Democrats voted for the "peace" president, and have elected someone who went to war in Libya without congressional approval, tried to go to war in Syria (and did surrepetitiously arming groups whereby ISIS got the arms), and now is going back to Iraq. And Obama claims it wasn't he who pulled the troops out of Iraq. And Republicans also elected the "humble foreign policy" of Bush that led to war with Iraq, and war with the Taliban. Neither Iraq or the Taliban attacked the US.
In response to:

What Have we Accomplished in Iraq?

MoreFreedom Wrote: Aug 19, 2014 9:29 AM
What a dull comment.
In response to:

What Have we Accomplished in Iraq?

MoreFreedom Wrote: Aug 19, 2014 9:29 AM
"A man develops cancer." How so? You mean the government oppressed it's citizens, so we invaded to protect them? If that's the case then perhaps China should invade the US to protect the citizens in Ferguson? Or perhaps you mean Saddam invaded Kuwait? Didn't April Glasbie let Saddam know that his dispute with Kuwait wasn't the US's business? So Saddam invaded 1 week later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie Were not the cancers of Iraq and Iran fighting each other, which is no longer the case? So now the Iraquis blame the US for dead Iraquis since the US destabilized Iraq. And we've lost an ally against Iran. Didn't we create cancers in the puppets we installed in Iraq? Couldn't we have avoided all this cancer by not getting involved?
In response to:

What Have we Accomplished in Iraq?

MoreFreedom Wrote: Aug 19, 2014 9:18 AM
Our politicians are heavily invested in the military industrial complex (anybody remember Cheny and Haliburton?). And they make bets in the stock market based on their inside knowledge of their war plans. War increases the power of the State, and reduces our freedom and prosperity. Our politicians wouldn't be doing this if our military wasn't so powerful, because then they'd be risking their own lives. They sure aren't applying the Golden Rule to our foreign policy. Whenever we involve ourselves in another country's civil war, we will make enemies of both sides, and usually end up making enemies of both sides. Which is about how Iraqis feel towards the USA thanks to our military involvement in Iraq, where one out of every 30 people have been killed.
In response to:

What Have we Accomplished in Iraq?

MoreFreedom Wrote: Aug 19, 2014 9:07 AM
You should ask our soldiers, who know what's really happening over there, what they believe we should do. Because if you did, you'd find out they overwhelmingly agree with Ron Paul. But I see you'd rather believe our politicians and their propaganda. Our troops overwhelming gave their cash to Ron Paul while he was still a presidential candidate, so much so that those donations were more than the donations to all other candidates of both parties. Why don't you support our troops, rather than support the policies of Obama and Bush? Our troops have been telling us, that our involvement is just helping Al Quaeda to recruit more terrorists.
In response to:

What Have we Accomplished in Iraq?

MoreFreedom Wrote: Aug 19, 2014 9:02 AM
"20 years of good will" You are mistaken about good will. Iraqi opinion of the US has continually declined since our involvement there. A million lost lives, that wouldn't have been lost, has a lot to do with it.
1 - 10 Next