Disgusting
Ted Cruz, though he claims to be a Rand fan, is sending his e-mail list a letter urging, repeatedly, "sacrifice." (Copy on request, if you e-mail me: handwritingrepair@gmail.com — I get e-mail from most candidates for Federal office.)
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
We know that is not what the word really means, but I am more than willing to give up something I want to get something I want even more. I have done it many times in my life. I give up TV time to get more reading/study time to learn something new. I am not sacrificing my TV time, but making a choice.
To most people that would be sacrificing TV time.
Applying our definitions to others who do not view the word the same way never makes much sense.
I know you are not religious at all and I hope this is taken in the intended light.
Words do have meaning, and in the case of the term sacrifice it has been hijacks by the connotation you suggest, and i think much for the reason you suggest.
My religion (LDS) does not have professional ministers and other than a few (those engaged in full time leadership without the means to support themselves) our leadership does not receive anything monetary from the church. This changes much of what you suggest.
In my church its not about the money, in fact were you to attend no plate would passed around and no one would ask you to donate a dime just cause your there.
However the miss-perception of what sacrifice is is still very prevalent. I teach what is called the Gospel Doctrine class on Sunday. When I talk about Christ I do not use the word sacrifice, but rather the achievements that he worked towards and accomplished.
Not every church is the same, but connotation that sacrifice is a good thing is well entrenched due to those that used that term to gain not money but power over others. I detest that use of the term, and agree that context needs to change. I do what I can to change it.
-XR
I learned the most about LDS when I lived in San Diego and they built a beautiful cathedral just a few blocks away from my condo. They had, as I recall, a 1 or 2 day open house on its completion and I spoke to several of the young men who were acting as guides or docents.
I found that LDS had much more integrity and honesty than most religions that I'm familiar with. I won't insult you by pointing out what makes me shun all religions, including yours. My various contributions to the Gulch make these quite clear. I am amazed at how many persons contribute to the Gulch who are religious. I keep encountering them, much to my surprise. I guess that Rand's ideas are so powerful that people are attracted to them in spite of their religious beliefs.
Thank you for your carefully worded response.
The Rand community uses several words ("sacrifice", "selfishness", etc.) very differently than the rest of the world. To apply Objectivist definitions to non-Objectivist speakers and comments is disingenuous.
sac·ri·fice (s²k“r…-fºs”) n. 1.a. The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or homage, especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or a person. b. A victim offered in this way. 2.a. Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim. b. Something so forfeited. 3.a. Relinquishment of something at less than its presumed value. b. Something so relinquished. c. A loss so sustained.
Since we don't have a perfect language (again according to my wife English is probably the most bastardized language in existence), we have the tendency to try to use the existing words to mean other things - either similar to or differing greatly from existing definitions.
But even in (1) above, the true purpose behind the offering itself was that of giving up something now in anticipation of something greater at some later juncture. The word was just used to focus on the thing being given up rather than on the purpose for the action in the first place.
We already know that many definitions have been re-manufactured to serve certain points of view. I generally go with pre-1980 publishing dates and then cross check with some as old as turn of two centuries ago;i.e. 1900 and 2000.
make sense to speak of a possible "perfect" lan-
guage. This is because a living language neces-
sarily changes over time.
---Still, it would be better if people use more pre-
cision within the language. But this is a philo-
sophical rather than a linguistic problem.
Sure. But it would add words to the vocabulary - not alter existing ones as English has done.
"But this is a philosophical rather than a linguistic problem."
Philosophical because it is intellectual laziness? I tend to agree. Linguistically, we see new words pop up regularly. See "bling".
means "deserving of pity"; there was a time when
it mean "capable of or susceptible to feeling pity";
"Momentarily" properly means "lasting for a mo-
ment"; now it is used (probably by people who like to flaunt their polysyllabic vocabulary rather
than pay attention to verbal precision, and like to
hear themselves talk) to mean "soon" or "after a
moment"; most likely this will continue until
usage will just make the word have both mean-
ings, or the older one will be replaced by the
newer one.
The "philosophical problem" to which I re-
ferred could come from intellectual laziness;
then again, it could be downright intellectual
dishonesty.
I pity the notion of a legacy for such as pitiful performance.
The word always had both meanings because they are two different words.
pityless is a third.
The pityless aspects of the current administration's pityful efforts deserve no more pity than one would show any similar pitiable behavior. Just to over load a sentence as an example. Four different meanings. Wants a Thesaurus
Yes, they do it all the time. Its part of the strategy that was laid out by Wilson way back when the progressives called themselves the American Communist Association.
Control the words and the meaning = control the outcome.
We have to work to stop it, but the reality is getting in a pissing match about if sacrifice is bad is not going to help. Especially when what we call sacrifice and what most people call sacrifice are not the same thing.
slur the language so un-mercifully these days. -- j
.
I keep telling people, his constitutionalism was when acting as the Texas solicitor general, and acting on behalf of the Texas Governor and at that person's behest & direction. Is that Ted's views or someone else's? It's always impossible to know.
https://www.tedcruz.org/issues/religi...
He has also argued the Second Amendment before the Supreme Court - and won.
He's not a perfect candidate, but of those still in the race, he's the only one who can quote and properly apply the Constitution of the United States. To me, that's the most important thing I look for in a President.
The whole monument thing is so ridiculous it isn't even funny. Most of the monuments pay homage to history - from the Ten Commandments to the crosses on cemeteries. Those who are so incredibly offended by those items really need to take a chill pill and ask themselves why it bugs them so much. These people are choosing to be offended to justify their emotional childishness and insecurity.
The "public official refusing service" is also a result of Federal overreach. The Federal government has no business or Constitutional authority to interfere in marriage, and this is Cruz' stance here as well. (You do realize that the whole notion of a marriage license stems from racists in the South who were trying to prevent inter-racial marriages, right? Then the whole thing morphed into a money-making scheme for the state governments, so they hung onto it. There shouldn't be marriage licenses in the first place!)
Remember, it also goes the other way. If you allow the Federal government to set the standards for what constitutes "marriage", that is in very fact an establishment of religion, as the definition of marriage is core to every belief set. If they are allowed to set the standards and establish morality, they act beyond their Constitutional authority and if that is left to stand, you quickly devolve into the ultra-powerful central authority central to the downfall in Atlas Shrugged.
The first fallacy in the whole "gay marriage" debate is that there is an equality between the unions. There isn't. A union of a man and a woman is different from the union between a man and a man and neither of those is equivalent to the union of a woman and a woman. We can even extend that to a union between one man and multiple women, one woman and multiple men, a woman and a horse, a man and a pig, a man and a dead body, or any number of others. Discrimination is treating something different differently because it is inherently different. It is not only logically consistent but logically mandatory to recognize when things are different and act accordingly rather than attempt to deny the reality of the situation. We give each of these situations a different name: in order marriage, homosexuality, lesbianism, polygamy (or just sleeping around), polyamory (prostitution or sleeping around), bestiality, bestiality (again), necrophilia, etc. Why? Because they are separate and distinct relationships based on who (or what) is participating.
The second fallacy is one you have already agreed with me on: that marriage licenses shouldn't exist in the first place.
The third is based on the first: that the State (or its representatives) must recognize any or all of these as having equal virtue in society. Sociologists have long verified that the most stable and most productive children come from a home in which their biological parents are their caretakers, and are completely loyal to each other and their offspring. It isn't religious, it's simply fact. To argue that any relationship other than traditional marriage holds the same virtue is specifically rejected by the studies on the matter. Criminal justice studies have long cited that the single most common factor among the incarcerated is the lack of a father in the home - not race. It just so happens that the black community has the highest incidences of out-of-wedlock childbirth and the incidence rate of young blacks growing up without a father is much higher than in Asian, Caucasian, and Latino cultures. Facts.
I must conclude, therefore that I am a fool not to recognize and act on the distinctions and relative values involved in these relationships. I am in fact denying the reality before me - not embracing it.
--
A great man once said that a man who chooses to take offense when none was intended is a fool and that a man who chooses to take offense when it is intended is an even greater fool. Why? Because they allow that other person to manipulate and control them.
If someone chooses to get offended and up in arms about a Ten Commandments display on the grounds of a State Capitol, they are being childish. I make no apologies for such a statement. Maturity means being able to disagree with someone rationally and reasonably. Childishness is not being able to think of any point of view but one's own. The only people who get worked up over this issue are atheists. Not Buddhists, Wiccans, Rastafarians, or anyone else. Only atheists. Why is that?
Maturity means being able to disagree with someone rationally and reasonably, rather than resorting to name-calling when people object to having their tax money spent on erecting and maintaining a monument on public land promoting the dogma of a particular religious creed.
That's not the issue at all. The issue is about the recognition of those units within society - either socially or legally. And in those respects, their comparative virtues matter greatly.
"And where is there anything in Objectivist philosophy that says governments have the right to determine which unions are more “virtuous” than others and legislate accordingly?"
Reality is all about seeing a thing for what it is. It is also about choices between different things based on their inherent values or virtues. I would think that Objectivism rather argues against your point of view - not for it.
"rather than resorting to name-calling when people object to having their tax money spent on erecting and maintaining a monument on public land promoting the dogma of a particular religious creed."
And which particular religious creed is being represented? And where? That is key. Establishment of religion has to be the government actively promoting a particular religion - not merely the ideals. The other issue is that of harm - what harm are such representations to you? Do you feel that somehow they proscribe what belief set you or anyone else must adhere to? Or that they designate some proscription upon those in government to favor one belief set over another? That is what I just don't see happening.
This “intrinsic” theory of the good is often used to justify “society’s” right to define “virtue” and to legislate accordingly. It is totally incompatible with a philosophy such as Objectivism that upholds individual rights.
As to the 10 Commandments monument, it is not the government’s place to promote any religious “ideals”, implicitly or explicitly. When governments do so, it is not necessary to prove harm, it is sufficient to point out that such activity does not fall within the domain of the proper function of government, which is to protect individual rights. Would you consider it okay for there to be a monument on public land promoting the “ideals” of a religion that worships Satan, or perhaps of one that promotes racism or cannibalism?
When I used the word inherent, it was in reference to the conclusion that the very nature of the relationship pointed to an efficacy of outcome. It is the undeniable association of choice and consequence. The consequence is inherent in the choice and the consequence has certain value or virtue. Therefore I see it as no mean stretch or logical fallacy to associate inherent value with certain choices. Rand's argument here is that some argue a course of action regardless of the outcome. I propose no such thing.
"This “intrinsic” theory of the good is often used to justify “society’s” right to define “virtue”"
Society does not have the capacity or power to define reality (assign choice and consequence). All it can do is choose to recognize and adopt reality - or not. And since neither you nor I have any power to define reality neither can we delegate such power to a governmental entity.
"it is sufficient to point out that such activity does not fall within the domain of the proper function of government, which is to protect individual rights."
First, I fail to see an abridgment of rights. Your rights to believe as you choose are not being infringed by a monument recognizing the ideals (and theoretical primary source for those ideals) adopted by government. Until the government starts pushing a specific religious sect, they are only acting on ideals and principles! What you are arguing is that you disagree not with the principles themselves but rather the claims involving how the principles were derived! Good grief! [shakes head] There is no way to resolve that dilemma without the total destruction of one side or the other. Are you in favor of such a course of action?
"it is not the government’s place to promote any religious “ideals”, implicitly or explicitly."
But for the government to promote anti-religious ideals is somehow okay? Again, you're devolving into a position advocating the adoption of atheism as the established religion of the United States. You're focusing again on how the ideals came to be (purportedly) - not the ideals themselves!
And actually, it is the government's place to not only promote, but enforce ideals. That is government's purpose. We have a legislative that identifies and forms laws around ideals, an executive which enforces those ideals, and a judiciary which adjudicates based on the violation (or innocence) of those ideals. To claim otherwise is to take the stance of anarchy - that no government is lawful.
" Would you consider it okay for there to be a monument on public land promoting the “ideals” of a religion that worships Satan, or perhaps of one that promotes racism or cannibalism?"
We wouldn't have to worry about the Constitution being around if these principles actually underpinned the government, now would we?
And by the way, one of the principles underpinning the original Constitution was that slavery was lawful and should remain so. Would you consider it okay for there to be a monument on public land promoting the re-introduction of slavery?
That's a false dichotomy. Governments (ideally) are created to protect the rights of their peoples, but they do so according to codification around a set of common values. Why do we argue against a socialist government? Not because it is a government but because the ideals of it discourage equality and justify the theft of property from some to materially support others, not the least of which is a ruling class of elites. Why do we argue against a monarchy? Again, not because it is a government, but because again it discourages the notion of equality and overtly sets up a ruler with special privileges which must again be propped up via the taxation of property. Go through the list and you'll find the same thing with fascists, communists, dictatorships, religious theocracies, etc. until you come to democracy or representative government. It is only in a representative government where equality of opportunity (an ideal) is placed at a premium. I emphasize premium because the issue is the relative value of various ideals.
Equality has an asterisk, however: it induces a very fine balancing act when we begin dealing with societal ideals and their justifications. If we do truly value the freedom of the mind, we must be willing to allow to some degree for disagreement, but that disagreement must have bounds and must eventually coalesce around resolution. Unlimited disagreement defeats the very purpose of society. There must be decisions made at some point as to what ideas are acceptable in society and what are not. If we choose to recognize reality, we must admit that not all ideas have equitable merit. Society must - in order to continue - weigh the individual merits of the ideas being proposed and evaluate which provide the most value. A society which encourages or promotes the ideas of lesser merit as either superior to or even equal to those of greater merit only deludes itself. (Note that I do not promote it being the idea that a society's benefit may come at an individual's loss. To the contrary, what I allude to with the use of "society" is the accepted practice in representative government of electing leaders to act on one's behalf.)
So when evaluating the ideals of society and which ideals will be "officially" promulgated/enforced/promoted, it absolutely does behoove us to examine the relative merits of those ideals. Right to life is an ideal society currently recognizes. Those who argue otherwise and murder are prosecuted as violating the ideals of society, are they not? Thus, to say that government takes no role in promoting beliefs is utter nonsense. We do it all the time. The real question is which ideals we promulgate.
"one of the principles underpinning the original Constitution was that slavery was lawful"
That's a pretty slanted way to look at the matter. The original Constitution called for an outlawing of slavery, but when it was heatedly discussed, everyone realized that the Southern States would rather break off to form their own nation than to dissolve slavery. The 3/5ths Compromise was made specifically with the idea that at some point in the future the "issue of slavery" would be revisited, but it was by no means acknowledged as a societal value or ideal. I am surprised and dismayed that you would argue such a point.
Apparently not. and a good thing.
I support the right of everyone to lead their own lives and to argue for their own ideals. What I don't support is the notion that all ideas are of equal merit and that we as individuals or as society should strive for anything but the highest of ideals.
I have no control over others nor do I wish any. I want people to arrive at the correct ideas and principles of their own reasoning and volition because only then will those principles truly matter.
Apparently not. and a good thing.
No, they’re prosecuted as violating the individual rights of the victim. The proper function of government, according to Objectivist philosophy, is to protect individual rights. Period. It is not a proper function of government to “officially” promulgate, enforce or promote ideals. That (except for the “enforce” part) is left up to individuals and freely associating groups in the private realm.
As to slavery, I would point out that not only was it perpetuated in the original Constitution, some of the more revered Founding Fathers owned slaves throughout their entire adult lifetimes. And you didn’t answer my question: Would you consider it okay for there to be a monument on public land promoting the re-introduction of slavery? If not, how do you justify a monument to the Ten Commandments? Both seem equally constitutional to me.
Traffic laws are all about enforcing the ideals of speed limits, right-of-way, etc. Parking tickets are all about the enforcement of ownership of property. When a thief is prosecuted and sentenced to prison, it is again about the ownership of property - an ideal. Behavior and value are all based on incentives (and disincentives). Punishments are disincentives to certain behavior, intending to persuade people to choose the opposite behavior.
Why the push for government healthcare? To supplant the notion of personal responsibility with the notion of entitlement. Why did the IRS target conservative groups for scrutiny? To deny them the opportunity to participate in the electoral process and promote candidates with their values. "You didn't build that" was an ideological statement pushing to supplant the notion of personal achievement with community benefit. Targeting the coal industry for shutdown is a push for the green agenda (ie slate of ideals). We can go on for hours. If you choose to deny that government promulgates ideals, you delude only yourself.
As to the slavery issue, you view that part of history however you choose. I have read the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist papers which cover the Constitution Convention debates as well as other materials and my views differs significantly with your presentation of the matter.
If you want to go build a monument encouraging slavery, go ahead - just don't expect me to participate or condone any such. Of course, there already exist such monuments in every State in the Union - they are the Social Security and Medicaid offices. And yes, we pay for them with tax money. Another: Planned Parenthood offices. Their founder was a eugenicist whom Hitler openly praised and their mission was to rid the world of "the scourge of colored people". I don't support any such thing - nor the ideals upon which they stand. And ideals, i.e. principles are what are key. If you view a recognition of an incorrect principle of slavery to have the same Constitutional validity as a recognition of correct principles of honesty, sanctity of life, etc., I can not help you.
Jefferson would not have a prayer for the presidential inauguration but would when made a governor. When asked about this Jefferson said (and I am paraphrasing from memory so it may off a bit) that the first amendment was intended to protect the states right to have a specific religion, but it was not proper in the federal government.
You also have to realize that when Jefferson was sworn into office at least 5 states required membership in one religion or another to be a legislator.
There are many examples of why the whole idea of "God" needing to be removed from everything is not a constitutional effort. Unless its a federal building its quite the contrary, but then the removal of god from all federal building would be supporting a specific religion as well, so even there it would be against the first amendment.
Mike Lee wrote a great book that covers this topic rather well. "Our Lost Constitution"
Even if you do not agree with the above statements, Cruz’s view of the proper relationship between religion and government is far from one that would emerge in a society based on Objectivist principles.
As I examine the existing candidates, however, this is what I see:
We have two candidates who are in bed with the media and yet seek to put the screws on them.
Then we have another candidate who has said that he favors altering the protections of the First Amendment so he can prosecute or sue those who disparage him. I'm really not a big fan of an elected representative being able to sue or prosecute those who disagree with him (or her). That sounds to me like imperialism and I'm not going there.
The last candidate is one who is not ashamed to be religious, but of whom I have yet to find a single example of where he has advanced that religious view in the public arena.
Pretty cut and dried if you ask me.
https://www.tedcruz.org/issues/religi...
" then ask themselves whether Cruz would be willing to uphold the Constitution"
Show me an instance where Cruz has subverted the original intent of the Constitution to forward his personal religious views and mandate their adoption by everyone (i.e. an establishment of religion) and you can make a case. Without that, it is pure speculation and innuendo. I don't need to ask myself if a candidate would do something. I look at what they have actually done in the past.
If you're bound and determined to make Cruz into a religious zealot intent on forcibly converting every American to his flavor of Christianity, you are welcome to entertain such ideas, but I see nothing from his positional statements or his historical actions to justify such a conclusion. You're welcome to dislike the man and refuse to vote for him because he holds religious views. I don't. I look at his history of defending what I consider to be the original intent of the Founders of the Constitution as being honorable and exactly the kind of President I am looking for. I look at the other three candidates and see imperialists: those who would use their power not to defend the Constitution - the primary responsibility of the President of the United States I might add - but to further their own agendas by whatever means they thought they could get away with.
You point to Cruz' site, but what I see there are a whole bunch of issues where the Federal Government has been trying to tell everyone else what they can or should believe. That is an establishment of religion and nothing short of it.
(I would also note that we've already previously agreed that marriage licenses in and of themselves are only for taxation and control and should be eliminated, so why you keep bringing up this issue I can not fathom.)
Do you mean free to do what you want regardless of the consequences? If you seek that you seek an illusion. Reality dictates to us that choices have consequences over which we have no control.
"The 14th Amendment overrides the 9th and 10th Amendments"
Your statements are gross overreaches and misrepresentations. Read the text of the Fourteenth Amendment: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't override the Ninth or Tenth by reserving specific powers to the Federal government, it simply does away with slavery. If one reads the comments and original interpretation by its own author, one can do nothing rational but conclude that the Fourteenth has no extension into resolving marriage or even that of illegal aliens. That it has been perverted in its application appalls me.
Again, what privilege or immunity is being abridged? What life, liberty, or property is being deprived? None, whatsoever. We have already established that the Federal Government has no authority over marriage. What is forgotten is that neither do the States! The issuance of marriage "licenses" was to try to prevent interracial marriages by establishing a punishment for such. Prior to that, however, marriages were solely the realm of religion! To try to argue that somehow government has authority to declare what constitutes a marriage is simply not supported.
Furthermore, there is no right to get married. Rights are individual - they do not apply to contracts (i.e. agreements between individuals). In contract law, society - through its agent the government - has every authority to choose the conditions under which it will recognize and\or enforce contractual provisions.
Huh? The whole purpose behind entering into a contract is to have an enforcement mechanism behind it in case there is a dispute? And now you want to claim that an invalid (ie unenforceable) contract is somehow still valid/enforceable?
-1 for terrible logic.
“Society” – meaning government – has no authority to discriminate in its recognition and enforcement of contracts, based upon the religious preferences of the government official tasked with validating such contracts.
RE: ‘Again, what privilege or immunity is being abridged? What life, liberty, or property is being deprived?”
Answer: The right to government recognition of a valid contract, especially when such recognition is granted selectively based on the religious beliefs of the government official doing the granting.
It’s no different in principle than forbidding state and local governments from forcing African-Americans to attend inferior schools. The Constitution says nothing about public education, so by your logic the 9th and 10th Amendments would allow states to resume discrimination in educational opportunity based on a person’s race.
"The right to government recognition of a valid contract..."
Validity is not obtained simply by entering into a contract. For example, if a sixteen-year-old is given a credit card, they sign a contract they will pay back the money they borrow. However, a sixteen-year-old is not considered a fiduciary agent for themselves by the State. One must be eighteen. So if the sixteen-year-old charges a bunch of money to the credit card and fails to pay it back, the credit card company has no legal recourse via the State to enforce payment. It is an unenforceable contract. Many such exist. That is precisely what contract law cases center around this question: is the contract legally binding. And the people - through the government - determine which kinds of contracts they authorize the judicial system to enforce and grant validity to.
"The Constitution says nothing about public education"
And for that reason education should be left entirely to the States to deal with. What should be noted is that up until the early 20th century, there was no government school system for K-12. I would love to see the government entirely out of the business of schooling and leave it to private enterprise.
And get off the notion that somehow race and sexual choice are equivalent. That's quite a fallacy as well. One chooses to engage in sexual behavior - of whatever stripe. One does not choose their skin color (although there are many who want to make their skin color some sort of protected culture). -1 If you want to engage in meaningless hypotheticals, you just go off on your own tangents, but I'm not going there with you.
The people here who are anti god would also have a problem with Mike Lee.
Cannot have it both ways. Evil is Evil and when the individual terms it as such are admitting to a certain self confessed lack of moral values.
But then that's the business of the individual and their standards we all have our lines that cannot be crossed and those that can be fudged or winked at. I still would not support Saturday Morning Cartoons main sponsors (high sugar content cereals) but I would consider Choc-U-la over those three I mentioned any day of the week.
It appears she sees it otherwise.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=ayn+ran...
And here's a whole site full of self-proclaimed "Christian Objectivists": http://www.christianobjectivism.blogs...
He'll say anything and do anything to get elected - sell out his principles, mooch from the people, steal others lines if they have better public approval than his own... who knows what limits he won't stoop to...
He's ready to roll up his Cuffys, and out-mooch Mouch.
But it takes the same ingredients to be successful First, Second, and Third Law. Deny any of them then you deny yourself and a valid outcome.
Being an independent and honest thinker is a very hard step for those used to being told exactly what to think, say and do.
At that point, I had to make a decision and I did; I left.
His Canadian lawyer Stephen Green, former Chair of the Canadian Bar Association for Immigration and Naturalization found that indeed Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz is a Natural-Born-Canadian Citizen [findings in 2013], his mother it seems denounced her citizenship in 1968, she could because she spent more than 5yrs in the U.K. between 1961 and 1968. Her healthcare for Ted's birth was covered under Alberta Healthcare which would be impossible for a non-Canadian citizen.
It amazes me that no Major news organization will report on this; it has been sent and reported to them multiple times.
Just thought you should know.
Or is this a sacrificial sequel?
Trump is using sloganeering with no meaning and has yet to formulate a splinter much less the lumber needed to build a platform.
Cruz can do better if he remembers where the votes are and begins using words like donate instead of sacrifice Much as I like the south there are only so many GRITS available.
ere we go: Cruz campaign narrows VP candidates to short list; Fiorina being vetted.
That gets him the womens vote...some of them
But Fiorina is a self admitted Democrat who gave every indication of being an acceptable replacement for Hillary - just another RINO leftist.
Some may remember my plan for Wasserman to protect her job by dumping Hillary and point votes and funds at Fiorino. It was only half in jest. Fiorino is no where near the center nor even the right side of the left as are many Rinos and Cinos. Statist tendenceies aside she also brings some of the seedier side of left wing socialist corporatist and would fit in as a Trump VP.
So if this story is true ......We are back to having zero acceptable candidates and Ted truly is an ex everything. Libertarian or Objectivist
How the ;religious right wing of the left will view him is anybodies guess.
left means government over citizens
right means citizens over government
The center IS the Constitution.
And the best of the left apparently is Cruz...
In general, you have been the epitome of a reasonable conversant. We disagree without being disagreeable. I sincerely commend you.
There are no Christians in foxholes either...once the shelling has stopped. But a lot of relapsed former non smokers.
Question is is he a Republican or a Republican In Name Only.
I'm wondering which of the four will destroy the country and the system the fastest. If you are going to support evil why screw around with half measures. Get it down and over with. It isn't like what's left after Obama is worth saving.
Nor the people that support that sort of society.
Or trying to be both at one time.
I say the apples that fell from his tree are pretty good and sensible kids, and mean that the tree itself is a good tree.
The bravado, ego, and brandishing politically incorrect statements I dismiss as a way to avoid spending $200 million like Hillary does on a $400k job.
John Galt wouldnt want the job as president, and wouldnt win in this environment, so why wait for him to run. I do think Trump will slow down the march of socialism. Not stop it, but slow it down.
Cruz couldnt convince his own senators of anything, let along advance freedom. He preaches and it turns people off. He is a religious zealot and bible thumps, which I dont think is what we need in government. We need government to be independent of all religions.
Right now all but a few are criminals, stupid or just plain non human.
<;-S
There is only one way to identify them from the general population: Conscience...do they have one.
Problem here is that they have become very good at imitating one...(monkey see, monkey do, type learning)
We the people should Not be flattered.
Parasitical humanoids: 1 can not produce or create value, can not exist without us (normal conscious humans) 2 humanoid because they are only a brain in a body...much like our OT biblical ancestors.
Being only 2 parts of a three part equation means they "Cannot" make a connection to the mind nor a cosmic identity (quantum physics)...they live only in an ego and reside in the worlds kakistocracies.
I am not laughing about this last part.
But, the parasitical humanoid part is objectively observable...No conscience, no mind, not human in the same sense as most of us are.
Read: Julian Jaynes...breakdown of the bicameral mind...(meaning brain) - most use mind and brain interchangeably but they are very different things.
Hmmm ... if some people look human but really aren't — and if you WERE joking about them having been genetically modified into non-humanness long, long ago — then presumably there WOULD be nothing wrong with serving them for dinner, and an Objectivist butcher shop could legitimately offer steaks, chops, and ribs from these-things-that-look-entirely-human-but-aren't ... ?
pt 1 brain. pt 2 body...at this point you are humanoid...(like an android)...pt 3 would be the conscious mind which would seem to give one a definitive identity...
It's a work in progress.
About your observed obsession with eating humanoids I have to ask: was Jeffery Domer a relative?...hahahahahahah
Perhaps.."human" Humanoid" in relation to conscience/consciousness and the "Humans as a species" needs different designations.
Can't get more direct...even a liberal might be able to understand.
How ever, would make no difference with progressives...born with criminal brains...laws make no difference to them.
Your hypothetical was whether or not I would support the building of a monument supporting slavery (and in today's time and nation, it is an absurd hypothetical) and I told you: No. Why? Because the principle behind it is abhorrent and unConstitutional. It violates the principle of self-ownership and self-determination.
Now you present a wholly separate hypothetical, which is similarly flawed because of principle. NO I do not support the notion of racial segregation. Why? Because while it is wholly justified to examine the outcomes of choices and view the relative merits of each, but it is not justified to assign different merits or values of people based on their race, color, etc. Is that simply enough for you?
Now, I know your next argument is going to be that there is no difference between being "black" and engaging in various kinds of sexual behavior. But if you were reading at all, I have already discussed why this is a false comparison: because one is not a choice while the other is. You seem to conflate one's physical attraction with the conscious choices to act on that as if they are one and the same. I do not.
Ayn Rand weighed in on exactly which ideals form the basis of a proper government. “America’s founding ideal was the principle of individual rights. Nothing more—and nothing less. The rest—everything that America achieved, everything she became, everything ‘noble and just,’ and heroic, and great, and unprecedented in human history—was the logical consequence of fidelity to that one principle.” –Ayn Rand, The Ayn Rand Letter.
Protecting individuals and their property from aggression is a proper function of government. Promoting the ideal that led to its formation (the principle of individual rights) is a function properly performed voluntarily by people within its jurisdiction, not by the government itself.
I don't disagree per se with Rand's opinions on how America was created. Rand omits one minor detail, however: that the Founding Fathers also considered the source of rights to be the Creator (see the Declaration of Independence). To a man, all 204 involved were deists (see http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding.... Did they rationally and reasonably go through all the past attempts at human government and identify the flaws in each? Yes, and in impressive detail. They were all very acquainted with the Ten Commandments. They were acquainted with the various governments of Syracuse, Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, Switzerland, England, and many others. They were familiar with Thomas Locke and many other philosophers from St. Thomas Aquila to Plato. What is interesting to me is that they didn't set up a deist government. They allowed for everyone to differ as to how they wanted to practice religion - or even if they did not - and it was so important that they proscribed the Federal Government from adopting a State religion despite the fact that they all held very similar beliefs.
"Protecting individuals and their property from aggression is a proper function of government."
I agree.
"Promoting the ideal that led to its formation (the principle of individual rights) is a function properly performed voluntarily by people within its jurisdiction, not by the government itself."
As a representative government is an extension of the people, your assertion here is openly contradictory. You would assert that the government is not there to forward the very principles upon which it is based and upon which it was organized or created! That's simply nonsense. It's like saying that even though one is an Objectivist, one isn't going to take those Objectivist principles into one's actions in representative government. If you advocate such, you are advocating a society of bi-polar individuals - those who act on one set of ideals during one portion of the day or week and another during the other. This is inconsistency incarnate. You are advocating for A != A.
"Forwarding or advocating such principles is properly a private activity of citizens. What specifically would you have the government do (at its citizens' expense) to forward such principles?"
The entire criminal justice system is based on punishing dissenting behavior - disincentivizing behaviors which diverge from the accepted societal values. I would remind you that a valid government only has powers delegated to it by the individuals it represents, so a government practicing the values of its citizens necessarily forwards the ideals of its citizens.
For example: if a foreign national comes to visit this nation, are they allowed to violate our laws simply because they differ from theirs? Not at all. They recognize that if they come to our nation, they will be subject to its laws and its ideals for as long as they stay. Similarly, American citizens are under the same constraints when travelling abroad.
Every nation on earth pushes its principles out towards every other nation - most notably its economic principles but not to the exclusion of its military principles. China postures in the South China Sea over several island chains it claims to own in dispute with Vietnam and the Phillippines. It is positively asserting its principles. Russia buzzed US Naval vessels in the Black Sea the other day, positively asserting its principles and thumbing their noses at ours. Mexico asserts its principles by encouraging its citizens to cross the border into the US illegally and send money back to Mexico. The EU is trying desperately to salvage their economic unity even as their individual nation-states rebel against the fiscal restraints put upon them in response to their spending excesses. Iran funds terror organizations throughout the world. North Korea tests long-range missile capabilities. There are examples all over of nations forwarding their ruling ideals simply by acting on them.
Foreign nationals obey our laws while here primarily because they perceive that we will implement them, not because they perceive that we are forwarding our ideals.
And power-seeking governments do not say, “We have these principles, let’s forward them.” They say, “Here’s something we can get away with, let’s do it.”
I suppose you can point to any government activity (or individual activity, for that matter) and say, “Look, this person/government is forwarding his/her/its principles.” But unless the explicit purpose of a given action is to advance one’s principles, such a statement does not have much explanatory value.
That being aside, the whole reason for the existence of laws is absolutely to forward the ideals of civilization. There are some which get tried and don't work (or violate rights) and some which get tried and do work. But all laws set forth the expectations for behavior (ie ideals) for the actions of its citizens. The evidence is right in front of you and I have presented example after example. Your "ideal" that government should not advance the ideals of its citizens is pure and unadulterated contradiction, as I demonstrated. What is hypocrisy? It is when one claims to hold a certain ideal in esteem, but acts contrary to it. A hypocrite is definitively inconsistent in his application of ideals.
With regards to Prohibition, what was in play was an ideal, was it not? On the one hand were those who said that because of the deleterious effects of alcohol, we're going to ban it and on the other were those that said we don't care about the effects, we should be able to make the decision ourselves. Originally, the one camp persuaded the adoption of the ban. Eventually, the camp opposed was able to persuade a majority in favor of repeal. What should be noted was that both sides absolutely were pressing their ideas as what should be the standards for society to the point of ensconcing those ideals in law - to be promulgated and enforced by government.
Any time someone does anything, it is because they are acting on their principles. It really is that simple. And in acting on them, you are not only reinforcing them as the way you will live your life, but demonstrating to others that that is how they should live their lives as well. Some call it example. Some call it leadership. To me, implicit is something that is understood without doing; explicit is when it is done. Therefore if one acts, it is explicit. A government based on implicity would be a government that does absolutely nothing and therefore serves no purpose. (Of course, we have quite a bit of that in our current government, so you may have a point... ;)
I would never vote for Cruz, even if he is the repub nominee. He would never beat Hillary anyway.