TheBlaze Books Give You More!

CommentsDisplaying CafeConservative's 10 most recent comments.

• University Prof. Offended By Images at Pro-Life Rally Gets Arrested After Odd Obscenity-Laced Tirade

  April 16, 2013 at 7:45pm

  In reply to FreedomWitness.

  Her “partner” is completely fine with it.

• Army Training Material on ‘Religious Extremism’ Lists Evangelical Christians, Catholics and Some Jews Alongside KKK, Al-Qaeda and Hamas

  April 5, 2013 at 11:12pm

  In reply to hi.

  TERRORIST! How dare you threaten prayer?

• ‘Donald Trump Is Not Bats**t Crazy’: See What Penn Jillette Has to Say About Trump, Freedom — and Glenn Beck

  April 4, 2013 at 7:41pm

  In reply to Realman30.

  Dissentow, on the issue of foreign policy, I should have been more specific about speaking on military issues rather than being broad and accidentally including trade and other matters of foreign policy.

  With regards to drugs, abortion, and gay marriage the effect is the same; to allow these things to occur unrestricted. Whether the liberal wants to write it into law or for the libertarian wants to prevent banning such behaviors as rights, the effect is the same.

  At one point in this thread I had made the distinction but I think that may have been eaten by the site. What liberals and libertarians profess, they do so under different rationales but in the end they both end up with the same result. As Locked put it, liberals write into law a right to gay marriage and libertarians claim the government has no right to involve itself in marriage but either way you end up with gay marriage. Liberals write into law a right to use marijuana (decriminalization) and Libertarians say the government has not right to involve itself in regulating marijuana and you end up with marijuana being legal. The same goes for abortion. In discussions, it is not uncommon for the rationale for the position is left out. Based on the above, you could easily find both a liberal and libertarian saying, “I support a right to gay marriage, abortion, and legal marijuana use” even though they disagree on the way to recognizing the right.

• ‘Donald Trump Is Not Bats**t Crazy’: See What Penn Jillette Has to Say About Trump, Freedom — and Glenn Beck

  April 4, 2013 at 7:25pm

  In reply to searching for the Truth.

  Yes, Locked, as long as you completely ignore the Bible, you can conclude that secular good is the same as Bible good.

• ‘Donald Trump Is Not Bats**t Crazy’: See What Penn Jillette Has to Say About Trump, Freedom — and Glenn Beck

  April 4, 2013 at 7:08pm

  In reply to progressiveslayer.

  @Locked
  Do I not see the difference? As I’ve stated elsewhere in the thread (unless it was a part of my post eaten by the site), the rationale for liberals and libertarians on social issues may be completely different but the effect is exactly the same. Babies are still murdered in the womb despite the libertarian claim to protect people from being violated. Religion is still unconstitutionally suppressed. Gay marriage becomes a state-sanctioned right (Libertarians claim that the government has no place in marriage but if their supposed position on the issue was fought like their position on marijuana, things would look a lot different than they do now. In other words, their rhetoric is simply that. The implicitly approve of gay marriage by the government by not taking a stand against the government as they do with other issues).

  Rationale different. Effect the same.

  You claim to be a constitutional conservative but the arguments you present are in no way consistent with the Constitution the founders wrote. Perhaps you are a modern constitutional conservative who embraces what the constitution has morphed into but your positions are in no way consistent with original intent.

• ‘Donald Trump Is Not Bats**t Crazy’: See What Penn Jillette Has to Say About Trump, Freedom — and Glenn Beck

  April 4, 2013 at 12:50am

  In reply to Realman30.

  Boo, the site ate my first reply.

  I spend a lot of time reading Reason (libertarian site/magazine) and the comments section there. I’ve got a good idea of what constitutes libertarian thought even though you can’t get libertarians to necessarily agree on the issue themselves.

  With regards to government and religion, the Constitution is abundantly clear and simple. No establishing a religion, like they did in England, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I find the Libertarian support for free exercise to be completely underwhelming (near non-existent) while they are simultaneously overzealous in including everything involving government and religion to somehow be an example of “establishment.” So I don’t find Libertarians to be very consistent with the Constitution or what the founders intended or practiced so I really don’t give their thoughts on the topic much weight.

  A good example of the role of religion and our founding from the Library of Congress. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html

• ‘Donald Trump Is Not Bats**t Crazy’: See What Penn Jillette Has to Say About Trump, Freedom — and Glenn Beck

  April 4, 2013 at 12:35am

  In reply to D-Fence.

  I don’t subscribe to the idea that good and bad are relative or subjective. And there are examples of his unrepentant (not in a religious sense) behavior that does not comport to being good and thus is not principled. As I posted a few comments above, the definition of principled typically extends beyond just sticking to a set of personally-defined values but actually includes ethics and morals (good and bad).

  If you’d like to agree to disagree, we can but, Penn is definitely not principled by dictionary definition or my own. = )

  That doesn’t make him any less honest or smart or consistent with his beliefs which are definitely admirable by secular standards considering there are few secularists or religious folks who can confidently define what they believe in, be consistent to those beliefs even when inconvenient, and just simply be honest in their dealings.

• ‘Donald Trump Is Not Bats**t Crazy’: See What Penn Jillette Has to Say About Trump, Freedom — and Glenn Beck

  April 3, 2013 at 11:57pm

  In reply to progressiveslayer.

  Stupid word count is never accurate.

  ” And there is absolutely nothing “arbitrary” about the use of religion in gov’t. It’s dutifully considered when approached.”

  In other words. Religion in government is allowed and when doing one’s constitutional duty, one is obliged to painstakingly consider why the government is inserting itself into the and that it’s not doing so in a way that is establishing a religion (preference that compels obedience or offers a material advantage of one group over another).

  For example, if the government was having an issue in a certain part of a city that was of national importance and the best solution was to provide aid to a Catholic organization to fix the problem, there is no establishment of religion. While the one parish benefits, it would not help Catholics nationwide nor offer anyone outside the immediate area a benefit to become or pretend to be a Catholic.

  On the other hand, if the feds selected the Catholic Church as a nation-wide partner in addressing an issue like hunger, then there is a distinct advantage and a step towards establishment because the scope is national and would exclude or significantly diminish all other secular or religious organizations.

  The founders were not afraid of meddling the government and religion it just made sure it didn’t get to the point of marrying the two like in England with the Church of England.

• ‘Donald Trump Is Not Bats**t Crazy’: See What Penn Jillette Has to Say About Trump, Freedom — and Glenn Beck

  April 3, 2013 at 11:40pm

  In reply to searching for the Truth.

  Locked, you are mixing your chocolate and peanut butter.

  You need to completely separate your secular standards and your Christian standards. When you say that a person is good (by secular standards) you them imply that they are good overall, that is fine but only for a secular definition because it is completely untrue when we use biblical standards. Christ Himself makes the distinction.

  “Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? “Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!”

  The main drive of this verse is to focus on relying on God for what you need but within in it we see another message and that is “evil” people can do “good” deeds but it makes them no less evil. In fact, that chapter gos on to show that there will even be men who perform miracles and cast out demons that are not held by God as either good or faithful. And so we know that to be good (by a Christian definition) requires faith (belief, repentance, and deeds combined) not just deeds alone thus, an unbeliever can never be “good” by biblical standards.

• ‘Donald Trump Is Not Bats**t Crazy’: See What Penn Jillette Has to Say About Trump, Freedom — and Glenn Beck

  April 3, 2013 at 11:22pm

  In reply to progressiveslayer.

  Me-“It’s pretty simple to confuse for the average (low-information) voter because they are equally liberal as liberals on social issues”

  Locked “Blatantly false. Saying “let the people decide” is a very different beast than saying “let the government ban” behaviors you disagree with. I don’t define myself as a libertarian, but I understand their stances; it’s better to allow “immoral” actions than to step outside the boundaries of the Constitution to arbitrarily enforce your specific brand of morality”

  Two points. First, I provided you a way in which they are alike, social issues, which can lead to confusion. You ignore this accurate comment, conclude that by ignoring it you’ve proved m wrong so say “blatantly false,” then to cement your position go off on a tangent. So lets rewind back to my actual point and please show me how liberals and libertarians differ on the following social issues: abortion, gay marriage, and separation of church and state to name just a few.

  Secondly, the nation was founded by a men of varying degrees of religiosity. To say that religion played no role in shaping the Constitution (allowing for government involvement in religious issues) and governing is the epitome of ignorance. (For your studying I’ll refer you to the Library of Congress–http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html). And there is absolutely nothing “arbitrary” about the use of religion in gov’t It’s dutifully considered when appro