1 - 10 Next
Sorry Ransom, moving to San Diego near the harbor seals is hardly moving "to the sound of the guns." As to non-interventionist libertarians being unwilling to fight, tell it to George Washington who famously remarked: "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities." Thomas Jefferson said: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Meanwhile, big government "progressives" like Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, and LBJ were all (not surprisingly) ardent interventionists. Libertarians prefer the Founders.
Joycey -- So your principle is that it's okay to force others to pay for medical procedures as long as a baby isn't involved? Sure.
Look at Herb London's TH column today, which reports that "the governing board for America’s 2.8 million Presbyterians narrowly voted to punish Israel with a boycott over its purported “occupation” of “Palestinian territory.”
Schlichter and most posting here are way off-base. It is an easily confirmable fact that the overwhelming majority of establishment churches are quite liberal, if not leftist. The new pope and his predecessor have repeatedly condemned capitalism, and even called for the "equal distribution of goods." The establishment Protestant churches are so leftist that some conservatives have splintered away from them. Ever seen the voting patterns of Jews, religious blacks, and Hispanics? Need we even talk about Muslims? The World Council of Churches is leftist, and "liberation theology" is frankly Marxist. It may be true that most religious leftists cherish their collectivist politics more than religion, but it also appears that many religious conservatives cherish their conservative politics more than religion – how many make the slightest attempt to live like Jesus? The essential problem with Hobby Lobby litigation is the premise that the government should be involved in individual health issues. An atheist should be just as free as a Catholic to refuse to pay for someone else's abortion, contraception, earache, or what have you. You have corns on your feet, you pay to have them removed. Don't expect to force others to pay for it. Religious beliefs are utterly irrelevant to the real issue.
It's not a zero sum game. The premiums obviously have to be set higher to cover contraceptive/abortion costs than if those costs were not covered.
Chapman's understanding is at a child's level. "If an institution objects to providing the coverage, its insurance company has to provide it separately to employees, at no extra cost." Really! Where did they get the magic wands that conjure drugs, equipment, and medical personnel at no cost! And why stop there -- why not "devise alternatives" provide everything "at no extra cost"? Unbelievable as this is, what makes it worse is that our "wise leaders" in the Supreme Court also endorse this absurd mythology. Here's a wild scheme: you need medical care, you buy exactly what you are willing and able to pay for -- without any need for permission, approval, government scheme, or government-inflated costs.
In response to:

A God-Given Right To Break the Law

Tacitus X Wrote: Jul 02, 2014 2:30 PM
Confused thinking in this article due to a failure to think in terms of basic principles. The government should not be deciding whose religious beliefs count and whose don't. No one should be forced to pay for anyone else's medical expenses (other than their family dependents or if they caused the problem), regardless of religion, which is utterly irrelevant. It only becomes difficult when you accept the false premise that it's permissible to force some to pay for others' benefits.
James 64 -- Hoover was neither a humanitarian nor emotional -- he was a rabid technocrat and believed in massive government intervention in the economy by "technical experts" rather than free markets. As Secretary of Commerce during the Harding/Coolidge administrations, Hoover was an avid supporter of increased government intervention in the economy. When he was elected President, he immediately put his technocratic notions into practice. In the name of stimulating the economy, Hoover increased marginal tax rates to 63%, increasing government spending from $3.1 billion to $4.7 billion. Despite inheriting a large budget surplus, by the end of his term the deficit had reached $2.7 billion. Real per capita federal expenditures increased by 88% during the Hoover administration years of 1929-1933. By contrast, the increase was "only" 74% during the 1933-1940 pre-war years of the activist Roosevelt administration. In percentage terms, Hoover increased federal expenditures more in just four years than FDR did during his first seven years. Cutting federal spending is precisely the opposite of the disastrous Hoover/Roosevelt policy of big government spending, which has the economy-killing net effect of transferring wealth from productive market-based uses to non-productive political uses.
In the words of the hilarious Ann Coulter, that haircut is all the birth control Sandra Fluke will ever need.
In response to:

Playing a Name Game with the Redskins

Tacitus X Wrote: Jun 25, 2014 9:40 AM
Why hasn't the Patent & Trademark Office gone after the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? Are the Obamas guilty of hate crime for living in the "White" House? Obviously, these terms are blatantly offensive and intended to disparage citizens of African heritage.
1 - 10 Next