• helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Today, 04:00 PM
    Well, I also have lived there. I will tell you it is a overwhelmingly leftist, overwhelmingly pro-multicultural place, overwhelmingly pro-"social justice" (and thus anti-actual-justice) place. It is also beautiful, friendly, etc. There is no conservatism there. There is no right wing there. There's only one side of the argument there, and that side is complete, extreme cultural Marxism. Now this of course is big-picture true, not literally true. There are a few. There was me, when I lived there! I like the guy who does the right-wing paper on Molokai, http://www.molokaiadvertiser-news.com . But for all practical purposes: it's 100% socialist, 100% leftist, and absolutely precisely 0% hope that it will ever swing the other direction. Believe me. Why? Demographics. Sad but fact. But, go ahead and prefer Democrats there (where you've never lived) over Democrats in New York (where you've also probably never lived). You might very well be right that you'd get along much better with the living-off-the-dole SJWs from Hawaii than the brash and abrasive trade unionists from New York. Just depends on your upbringing and temperament.
    6 replies | 102 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Today, 02:41 PM
    Uh huh. You say this based on...... ?
    6 replies | 102 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Today, 11:29 AM
    I love your Roads page!
    19 replies | 371 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Today, 11:19 AM
    Somewhat surprising Hawaii has not banned guns altogether already. Or at least to the level of a New Jersey or a NYC. The political climate there is overwhelmingly Democrat (just another fact showing demography is destiny), and so it is natural they are always going to be passing legislation (I won't honor it with the title of "law") that makes Democrats happy and angers Republicans. They are all Democrats! Why wouldn't they? Probably just sheer Hawaiian laziness that they haven't passed more comprehensive statewide restrictions and bans, now that I think about it. Maybe now they'll get around to it. Slowly. On aloha time.
    6 replies | 102 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Today, 11:11 AM
    That means it's a wash for me! And thus we see why Helmuth doesn't even pay attention to the market fluctuations. Steady ride; smooth as silk. Thanks, Harry Browne!
    373 replies | 7428 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Today, 11:00 AM
    And, I just can't help myself: WOOHOO!!!!!!
    373 replies | 7428 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Today, 10:42 AM
    This is fantastic! I'm not used to seeing big national elections actually turn out my way. But here it is! A good result! It is possible! Here is the reaction from the opposition. Very telling. Very telling indeed. Here's the thing: they aren't wrong. Whites did this. Minorities voted Remain. Go figure, eh? Just another fact to think about.
    373 replies | 7428 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Today, 03:08 AM
    The Accountant seems like it's a movie mixture of The Bourne Identity and A Beautiful Mind. Nonetheless, I still want to see it.
    1042 replies | 52278 view(s)
  • LibertyEagle's Avatar
    Today, 12:16 AM
    IQ isn't everything of course, but it is germane. 10 IQ points is significant, when, prior to 1973 mental retardation was 85. "Prior to 1973, the recommended IQ cut-off score for mental retardation was 85. In 1973, that was revised downwards to approximately 70, where it remains today ..." The next question should be, why would a country bring in people who are less intelligent than the people already here? Unless the goal is to create a 3rd world nation.
    49 replies | 799 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:26 PM
    Seriously? Have you run across the phrase "cry repentance" anywhere in your Biblical studies? Occasional references to "this untoward generation" and fearless, unequivocal condemnation of "abominations"? When people are bad, the prophets in the Bible seemed to, umm, tell them they were bad. To their face. Straight up. Now that act is not technically shunning, true, but I think most would call it "burning your bridges," after which chummy social relations cease to be. In today's fragile butterfly environment, harsh criticism is not compatible with friendship or close association. Thus, same result. Half a dozen, meet six. Cool. You don't have to wait until you're head of household to be an influence for good, though. You can be an influence for good in your dorm, in your classes, and everywhere. Just from a practical perspective, you know? I'm not against philosophy, politics, and such as hobbies. Obviously! Here I am! Well, it is in mine! :p That's one cool thing about being a Mormon! Theologically, it is highly libertarian. And that's not just wishful thinking coming from a libertarian. There are very deep tie-ins.
    62 replies | 744 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:31 AM
    If that's the basic crux of your arguments and feelings, I am in agreement with you. Believe it or not! Yes, virtue and morality are definitely not minor. Again: I'm in total agreement. So, are you shunning people who participate in or promote homosexuality or fornication? Are you, personally doing that, CL? See, there's more than one way to gut a fish. Widespread societal pressure and disapproval can accomplish the same thing without state involvement. In fact, it is nearly impossible to envision getting to a place where there are state sanctions on immorality but aren't widespread societal pressures and disapproval. The one is prerequisite for the other, and if you have the one, the other is redundant and highly ineffective compared to the first. Theocrat has a point that families, workplaces, etc., are types of "governments" in a way. There is no moral problem for these "governments" to clamp down on immorality and perversion. And, as I said above, their actions in doing so will be one hundred thousand times more effective than state legislation. So, why not focus on that?
    62 replies | 744 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:16 AM
    So you're just trying to figure out the right view to have. To get the correct answer. It's a puzzle. Fair enough! Oh, I know! Don't worry, you're not going to hurt my feelings. :) We've all got a lens, CL. We've all got a lens. What's your lens? Maybe it was closer than you think. So, notice: I gave a very off-the-cuff reconciliation of libertarianism with these passages, and even though it was made up on the spot with very little effort or time taken, and even though since I am a Mormon all my thoughts ought to be full of "wacky conclusions" and easily dismissable, in order to counter it you had to resort to all kinds of technical terms and jargon. Super inside-baseball. And even then it was a counter, and not an actual refutation.
    62 replies | 744 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:46 AM
    In fact the first two are essentially incompatible with the latter two, long term. Actually, everything is incompatible with long-term prosperity. Prosperity is unstable. And, because liberty inevitably creates prosperity, liberty is unstable, too, indirectly. Just a thought.
    373 replies | 7428 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:33 AM
    He did not say "I" will murder you. He said, though -- in my interpretation, not directly -- that he thinks it would be right and Biblical for the agents of the state to say, "Comply or cooperate with my judgment, or I will murder you." He said this when he said he thinks the state should make prostitution illegal. The threat of literal death is always ultimately there behind every decree of the State. Refusing to cooperate with a law, no matter how "minor", even refusing to pay a parking ticket, leads to an inexorable escalation, legally-speaking. Ultimately the refusenik may legally be killed if they resist arrest sufficiently successfully. You are right, Theocrat, that it would be inconsistent to condemn all judgment while making judgments oneself. But you should and must admit that Tod's person "judgment" is extremely, hugely different than CL's proposed civil judgment. Thinking censorious thoughts is quite different than placing handcuffs around wrists or bullets in chests.
    62 replies | 744 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:48 AM
    The bottom line of this discussion is determining whether or not it's good to have laws prohibiting sexual behaviors, in general, and prostitution, in particular. It seems to me that you believe local, state, nor the federal governments should have laws prohibiting sexual behavior. If I'm correct about that, then are you for repealing laws that prohibit sexual acts like rape, child molestation, and bestiality because they have been codified by civil magistrates? I'm just trying to understand where your thinking is on that.
    62 replies | 744 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:27 AM
    Where did Christian Liberty ever say, "Comply or cooperate with my judgment, or I will murder you," as it pertains to prostitution?
    62 replies | 744 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:25 AM
    If you're a Christian, then you should have a moral problem with bestiality. If you don't, then you need to study the Scriptures to see what God thinks of it. Now, my reason for asking you about bestiality was to simply show that you do pass judgments on sexual behavior, just as Christian Liberty does. There is no neutrality about it. That brings me to your statement: There is no religious neutrality in public policy. The rejection of a Biblical application to public policy is just the adoption of another religious authority, which in our current state of affairs is secular humanism. Some group of citizens will be judged and sanctioned by the law, based on the religious foundation of those who create laws. That's why homosexuals, for example, are using state and federal legislatures to impose their morality upon Christians (and other groups) through "hate crimes legislation." Once again, that's just a reflection of someone's religious worldview. It's simply inevitable.
    62 replies | 744 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:55 AM
    When will we know the result? 3.30am The overall picture could be clear, reckons polling expert Chris Hanretty, when Lancaster reports; by then about 200 results should be known. 4am There is another flood of results due including London boroughs such as Tower Hamlets. Hackney lands at 4.30am, Kensington at 5am. 6am Among the last counts to arrive around this time will be from Bristol, followed by Harborough at 7am. It is not impossible there could be recounts but these would be local rather than national: the only challenge to the overall result can be via a judicial review. If the result has not been “called” by broadcasters and news agencies by this point, it could be because the numbers are very close.
    373 replies | 7428 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:48 AM
    Oh, I hope it wins! May England be merry and free again! Make Great Britain Again!
    373 replies | 7428 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:41 AM
    Surely you've gotta understand this is a quantifiably -- and hugely -- different form of "judgment" that Tod is talking about vs. what CL is proposing, Theocrat. One consists of: Thoughts inside Tod's head. The other consists of: Forming enforcement squads, locking people in cages, stealing their money, tearing apart their lives, their careers, and their families, and, most seriously, killing people in cold blood if they too successfully resist being taken. The threat of literal death is always there behind every decree of the State, no matter how stupid and arbitrary (or Godly and Biblical). So there's a bit of a difference between "comply or cooperate with my judgment or I will murder you" and incurring some disapproval from some guy named Tod. The second you can live with. You probably didn't want his approval anyway! The first you cannot live with. Literally.
    62 replies | 744 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:32 AM
    F r e e d o m !
    29 replies | 323 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:41 AM
    Okay, maybe I misunderstood you, so let me back up and ask if you have a problem with sexual acts like bestiality.
    62 replies | 744 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:13 AM
    29 replies | 323 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:52 AM
    It doesn't matter which of the two tod evans was referring to because both of them are judgments of a sexual act. That was simply my point. Now, concerning how that relates to this thread, as Christians, we know the Bible teaches that God is sovereign over His creation, which means that He has authority over every aspect of human life. So, when we are discussing public policy about certain behaviors which are public taboos in our society, then our first question to ask is, "What has God said about it?" From there, we use wisdom from the Scriptures to understand how that behavior ought to be dealt with in society by all levels of government (self, family, church, and civil) in order to please God.
    62 replies | 744 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:24 AM
    My point is that you have a moral declaration about a particular sexual behavior, and that declaration is, in fact, passing judgment upon those who engage in the act (which, in the case I quoted you from, was bestiality). In fact, everyone passes judgment on sexual behaviors. I'm sure that no one here accepts that rape is a moral sexual behavior. But, hey, if there is no God, and thus, there is no ultimate ethical standard for sexual behavior, so, therefore, humans are nothing more than evolved bags of meat with electricity running through themselves, then some people can't help their sexual preference to rape others. And we can apply that same reasoning to other sexual behaviors. So, then, where is the room to judge any sexual behavior, if God hasn't set up some rules for standard sexuality? Thus, the prerequisite in this whole discussion is marked by one simple question: "By whose standard?"
    62 replies | 744 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    06-22-2016, 09:01 AM
    A solution: Spanish equivalent, of course.
    58 replies | 736 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    06-22-2016, 08:53 AM
    True statement 1: Government policy matters. It matters a lot. That is true. True statement 2: You, CL, do not and cannot really affect government policy. That is also very true. Put the two statements together = this is something irrelevant to your life. Irrelevant is the perfect word. If you can't affect it, can't do anything about it, then....... there you have it. He, he, I know! :D Oh, people are very creative when it comes to reconciling and integrating and apologeticizing. Sometimes it seems it all amounts to linguistic jiu-jitsu. Off the top of my head (and this is not my own view, but it just goes to show how easy it is to come up with these things): All these verses where God is commanding seemingly non-libertarian laws and penalties, to whom is he directing the commands, hmm? Oh, that's right: to Israel! Did he command that Assyria follow the same legal code? Greece? Any other nation? Nope, nope He did not.
    62 replies | 744 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-22-2016, 08:31 AM
    Bachmann must have been inspired by Trump's "Two Corinthians" speech:
    33 replies | 497 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-22-2016, 05:38 AM
    Oh, so it's not okay for Christian Liberty to pass judgment on other people's sexuality, but it's okay for you to do so when it comes to bestiality? Remember this?
    62 replies | 744 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    06-21-2016, 02:31 PM
    I don't think it does offer a way out. You still must pick a side. Everyone must pick a side (or sides, as it's multidimensional). Government is just one tool, and one quite distant and unchangeable (and thus irrelevant) for most people. But are you going to shun people who live together? Are you going to shun dishonest people? Are you going to live a wholesome virtuous life yourself? These are the kind of questions that are actually relevant in a culture war, not "what government policy do you support?". Libertarianism does not require that assumption. It has nothing to do with that assumption.
    62 replies | 744 view(s)
More Activity

2 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Thanks so much!
  2. View Conversation
    Oh. Thank you sir.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 2 of 2
About Original_Intent

Basic Information

Signature


"The journalist is one who separates the wheat from the chaff, and then prints the chaff." - Adlai Stevenson

I tell you that virtue does not come from money: but from virtue comes money and all other good things to man, both to the individual and to the state. - Socrates

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
9,127
Posts Per Day
2.75
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
2
Most Recent Message
10-17-2014 10:04 PM
General Information
Last Activity
03-26-2016 04:25 AM
Join Date
05-18-2007
Referrals
0

6 Friends

  1. american.swan american.swan is offline

    Member

    american.swan
  2. helmuth_hubener helmuth_hubener is online now

    Member

    helmuth_hubener
  3. LibertyEagle LibertyEagle is offline

    Paleoconservative

    LibertyEagle
  4. Mister Grieves Mister Grieves is offline

    Member

    Mister Grieves
  5. silverhawks silverhawks is offline

    Member

    silverhawks
  6. Theocrat Theocrat is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via Skype™ to Theocrat
    Theocrat
Showing Friends 1 to 6 of 6
No results to display...
No results to display...

03-16-2016

  • 08:43 PM - Hidden