We Won't Support Chick-Fil-A With Our Dollars, but You Must Fund Abortion With Yours...

polifrog



American Thinker:

So while the Tea Party advances small-government principles, wanting to leave citizens free to make their own decisions and reap the benefits or suffer the consequences accordingly, the left pursues a system of big-government command and control. They then turn around and accuse the small-government Christian Tea Partiers of attempting to impose a theocracy in America, when it is the left's plan that is often indistinguishable from theocratic rule.

So true.

Take for example the Chick-Fil-A fun we had recently.  Liberals gladly pushed others to forgo CFA  and  attempted boycotts like 'Eat Les Chiken'.  Surly many chose not to support CFA so as to not fund revenue steams they found immoral.  That is their right.

But what of those folks who do not wish to indulge revenue streams that fund birth control or abortifacients? Even while  reveling in their right to not engage in an activity that funds what they deem immoral, liberals are fine with forcing others to engage in activity those others deem immoral.


Odder still  was that as soon as government inserted itself in the CFA argument via various mayors threatening CFA., much of the  left deserted those mayors.  Why?

The left seemed perfectly willing to use the coercive powers of government to fund abortion.

Why didn't the left support the mayors against CFA?
   
I believe the reason that many liberals did not lend support to those mayors who proposed  bullying the pious is that such actions have yet to be sanctified by governance in the way that governance has moralized the outright unconstitutional coercion of the religious by way of codified law otherwise known as ObamaCare.

Thus, forcing the religious to support an immoral stream of revenue is just fine for liberals. But when government attempts to force the religious to shut up without having first sanctified the nightstick used, well Rahm and the other mayors were forced to backtrack from immoral behavior that had yet been moralized by state  codification.

These are a theocratic bunch, these  progressive, liberal, Democrats  who have effectively handed the power to moralize to governance, but then, what other result could be expected when religion is forced from the public square?











out

David Price (NC-4) Diving beyond Debt and Morality

polifrog


It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.

This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.

Here is why...

---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.

---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.

---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.

Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow David Price and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.

Bob Etheridge does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Bob Etheridge's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.

As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....

President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."

How can a president expect anyone to believe such blithering nonsense? He may as well be convincing the citizens of the US that Guam is in danger of capsizing.



Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Bob Etheridge finds a way through the use of situation 4.

---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.

I guess it is a small thing, though, for Bob Etheridge to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.

Bob Etheridge, a grade school economist.



out

Rep Bob Etheridge (NC-2) Diving beyond Debt and Morality

polifrog


It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.

This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.

Here is why...

---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.

---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.

---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.

Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow Brad Miller and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.

Bob Etheridge does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Bob Etheridge's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.

As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....

President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."

How can a president expect anyone to believe such blithering nonsense? He may as well be convincing the citizens of the US that Guam is in danger of capsizing.



Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Bob Etheridge finds a way in situation 4.

---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.

I guess it is a small thing, though, for Brad Miller to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.

Bob Etheridge, a grade school economist.



out

GK Butterfield - Diving beyond Debt and Morality

polifrog


It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.

This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.

Here is why...

---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.

---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.

---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.

Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow GK Butterfield and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.

GK Butterfield does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. GK Butterfield's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.

As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....

President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."

How can a president expect anyone to believe such blithering nonsense? He may as well be convincing the citizens of the US that Guam is in danger of capsizing.



Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet GK Butterfield finds a way.

---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.

I guess it is a small thing, though, for GK Butterfield to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.

GK Butterfield, a grade school economist.



out

Brad Miller NC-13 Diving beyond Debt and Morality

polifrog


It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.

This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.

Here is why...

---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.

---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.

---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.

Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow Brad Miller and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.

According to Rep. Brad Miller

It is inexcusable that in a country as prosperous as the United States, so many of our citizens are not able to afford health care...

Brad Miller does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Brad Miller's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.

As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....

President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."

How can a president expect anyone to believe such blithering nonsense? He may as well be convincing the citizens of the US that Guam is in danger of capsizing.



Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Brad Miller finds a way.

---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.

I guess it is a small thing, though, for Brad Miller to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.

Brad Miller, a grade school economist.



out

Rep Brad Miller's Moral Relativism vs. Bill Randall and The Positive Influence of Principles on Governance....

polifrog



Bill Randall has mounted a campaign based on principles stemming from religion, the Constitution, and morality.

Frequently the preacher within Bill Randall emerges on the campaign trail when referencing The Ten Commandments. Just as often his respect for the words within the Constitution as they are written, as well as the ideals enshrined within those words, become vivid talking points for Randall. The Randall Campaign has embraced these two and produced an appealing morality all too often absent in modern politics. As important as the morality though, is the fact that they are principles, a yard stick, by which one can measure Bill Randall's actions against and if elected, his political leadership.

The positive results of this were on display during the primaries between Bernie Reeves and Bill Randall. Although, Reeves and Randall agreed on much, there were a handful of points on which they parted.

One of these was the sudden and unfortunate BP disaster in the Gulf. Prior to the BP gusher Randall and Reeves were indistinguishable from one another on the topic of oil drilling. Drill here, drill now. That ended with the threat of oil inundating the NC coast. Bernie Reeves' position conveniently shifted from pro drilling to no drilling. Bill Randall, on the other hand, stuck to principle; continued his pro drilling stance and despite his muddled government/BP collusion press conference won the primaries.

That is not to say Bill Randall's pro drilling stance won the primaries for him, but it is to say that the episode helped to define Randall as a man of principle who, when confronted with a politically expedient choice, chose principle. Many conservative voters battered with the disappointment that was the listless conservative congress under the first 6 years of Bush found Bill Randall's reliance on principle refreshing. Conversely, Bernie Reeves seemed imbued with the odor of the stale unprincipled conservatism of the Bush years.

In truth, Bernie Reeves got caught on the wrong side of Conservative Party history. The Conservative Party is being rewritten before all our eyes with something more powerful than Newt Gingrich's Contract With America, but Reeves missed it. The party is being reformulated through an injection of Tea Party morality based on fundamental principals that candidates are expected to govern by. Where the Contract With America had a half-life (it came to an end when its to-do list was completed), Tea Party morality is as permanent as the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party is in its essence a repudiation of moral relativism seeping into the Conservative Party and gives voters that essential yardstick by which to judge a politician's performance. This will prove more effective than Newt's Contract With America.

And this is one of Brad Miller's primary difficulties come this November 2. This election comes at a time when Americans are coming to the conclusion that they elected an illusion to the presidency and in return they received disillusion. Currently many Americans question their president's religion. They question... who is this man? National politics is normally just background when electing representatives. Not this year.

When North Carolinians go to the polls this November, will they be comfortable with a moral relativist like Brad Miller? He is a man who believes, on the one hand, that a woman's right to choose supersedes her child's right to live and her right to choose extends to the moments before her child's birth, while, on the other hand, he supports removing all our health-care choices through ObamaCare. The conflict does not stop there; Brad Miller claims to be guided by lessons learned from his church. Clearly Brad Miller must separate the act of governance from his biblical guidance, and if that is so he is not guided by Christian belief.

Not only is Brad Miller not guided by biblical teachings, but he does not seem to rely on Constitutional text either. Where does he find the Constitutional right to force anyone to purchase anything through ObamaCare? Does he not see that ObamaCare conflicts with the tenth amendment? How does he divine a right of privacy that allows a woman to choose to kill her own child, while at the very same time he ignores the obvious wording of the second amendment? Where does he find a limitation on free political speech through incorporation? None of these interpretations are in our Constitution.

Yet these interpretations of our Constitution are no different than the those that allowed the atrocity of slavery to exist within America. Politicians like Brad Miller who are willing to interpret Constitutional "rights" such as infanticide in and out of existence are worse than their slave rationalizing brethren. At least slaves got life.

Brad Miller can point to neither The Ten Commandments nor can he point to The Constitution as a moral anchors. Brad Miller has no principles; he has no morality by which he can be judged. And when the North Carolina electorate visits the polls, will they be keen to reelect a politician (Brad Miller) who has no moral yardstick by which to gauge his performance?

No. North Carolina is ready for a political cleansing.




out

Brad Miller NC-13 Diving beyond Debt and Morality

polifrog


It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.

This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.

Here is why...

---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.

---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.

---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.

Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow Brad Miller and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.

According to Rep. Brad Miller

It is inexcusable that in a country as prosperous as the United States, so many of our citizens are not able to afford health care...

Brad Miller does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Brad Miller's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.

As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....

President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."

How can a president expect anyone to believe such blithering nonsense? He may as well be convincing the citizens of the US that Guam is in danger of capsizing.



Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Brad Miller finds a way.

---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.

I guess it is a small thing, though, for Brad Miller to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.

Brad Miller, a grade school economist.



out