Posted on 03/22/2007 11:28:22 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
...We constantly present the false impression that government can solve problems that government in America was designed not to solve. Families are significantly less important in the development of children today than they were 30 or 40 years ago. Religion has less influence than it did 30 or 40 years ago. Communities don't mean what they meant 30 or 40 years ago.
As Americans, we're not sure we share values. We're sometimes even afraid to use the word values. We talk about teaching ethics in schools -- people say, "What ethics? Whose ethics? Maybe we can't." And they confuse that with teaching of religion. And we are afraid to reaffirm the basics upon which a lawful and a decent society are based. We're almost embarrassed by it.
.... What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.
... The fact is that we're fooling people if we suggest to them the solutions to these very, very deep-seated problems are going to be found in government.
... They are going to have to be just as solid and just as strong in teaching every single youngster their responsibility for citizenship. We're going to find the answer when schools once again train citizens. Schools exist in America and have always existed to train responsible citizens of the United States of America.
If they don't do that, it's very hard to hold us together as a country, because it's shared values that hold us together.
(Excerpt) Read more at query.nytimes.com ...
"Do you question everyone's allegiance in this forum, or just people with Hispanic surnames?"
Oh brother, is that the best you can do, Mr. "Victim?"
Regulating.
Well, show me where he's questioned your allegiance.
Well, yes and no.
While you are right about the Congress being the ones who write and pass the laws, let's keep in mind that the President sets the agenda and has veto power.
If "President Giuliani" (God help us, no) makes a national speech calling for Congress to pass gun control legislation, they will make an effort to do just that.
Here's what you said:
"When it comes to guns, elect the right people to Congress and don't worry about the Executive."
Here's what I said: You could use that same argument to vote for a liberal Dem, too.
The Constitution supreceding State's authority.
There's one.
Duh...
"Well, show me where he's questioned your allegiance."
I think you're picking on me, because I'm Polish.
"Well, show me where he's questioned your allegiance."
Please, have you resorted to playing the race card?
It has nothing to do with your surname or your nationality. The topic was the pledge of allegiance, and it being ultimately a pledge of allegiance to God.
It had nothing to do with race, merely with the long running conversation in this thread about the role of God in the founding of this country and the constitution.
Only you tried to make it about race.
Show me where's he's questioned anyone else's allegiance for that matter.
"Duh..."
You continue to make fun of me because I'm Polish.
A pledge to God?
So a nation with a Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion, and with a Constitutional restriction on an establishment of religion by its government demands a pledge of allegiance to God from its citizens?
You all make no sense.
Send no money to the RNC. Send money to your favorite candidate.
You're grasping. That has nothing to do with what rudy said and the philosophy behind it.
Have you realized that every single person you've tried to take on in this thread has handed you your lunch quite easily?
I'm beginning to think you realize just how badly you're getting stomped here and you're just doing this to waste our time. Luckily I can type about 50+ WPM and even then, that's the biggest constraint in taking apart your weak arguments.
Yes!
A fellow neolibertarian!!!
Really?
Where?
"He's a social libertarian"
That's a laugh. I think a whole lot of libertarians (big or little L) would have problem with his stances on many issues. The topic of this thread being a great big set off of alarms for them.
Show off! ;^)
If you'd read my point on that one, I cede that issue to anyone but Rudy (meaning you win on that particular issue). It's not a deal killer for me though. As I've previously mentioned, I'm not a single-issue voter. I will, however, support whomever the party nominates, as anyone's better than the Democrat alternatives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.