Great question. It's not clear that mortal terminology applies much, but I await some news in eternity.

You've misunderstood. The Creator created 'is', and affords a scope in which the universe can execute.

Alternately, unable to make the faith leap that the universe "just kinda is".

And scientists aren't doing that constantly? Look at the groovy symbols, man. All that could well be true, or turn out to be a big, fat brontosaurus.
These are the conjectures of the day. Are they so much phlogiston? If we're going to allow that Jesus Christ may not be the Messiah (and we should, lest we fall into fanaticism) then we should fall equally short of fetishing science as though these squishy theories couldn't be overturned next week.

. . .beyond that, all bets are backed up somewhere on the spectrum of realipolitik from gentle encouragement to gun-barrel-up-the-nose.

. . .and make way for Her Majesty.

It's all about feeding d_r's }={ fetish.

I was being sarcastic.

Only if you're going to be naïve, and claim that the Democrats somehow represent the 1% in any lesser way than the Republicans.

I disagree that you need to study this, which is what I've said - we want equal opportunity. We don't have it, but the opportunity is a lot more equal than 70%. What people are seemingly demanding is equal outcome. It's not a "problem" that needs to be corrected that women tend to choose certain jobs and men choose others - there is still significant overlap and we are continuously evolving as a society already. Not everything needs to be scrutinized to every tiny detail. If you're going to focus on something, focus on why women get paid less for like professions with like education and like experience - that's the ONLY "problem" in all of this. Even then, with more women entering college than men, and the gradually changing mores of society, I think it's a gradually self correcting problem.

The problem I have is that, right now, our economy is largely based on debt. That's not a good position to be in, and the recent (and ongoing) crash had a lot to do with people taking on more debt than they could deal with. I wouldn't mind a consumption based economy if people weren't going into debt to do it, and an economy rebuilt that way would be a lot stronger and less subject to crashes. The FairTax does encourage saving - I don't see that as a bad thing. There might be some short term economic problems, but we would emerge a lot stronger in the long run. Too many people are focussed on the short term. I also realize that it seems like the middle class would be the hardest hit, but like you said, they already are, and look at it this way - no more complaints about things like rich people making their money off of capital gains not paying their "Fair Share." No more under-the-table employment.

You're right... they've made the FairTax worse, now. I didn't see the latest submission to congress.... but complaint about the strawman stands, because it was prior to 2013 when I was hearing that nonsense about it. Still, I would suggest that, mortgage interest rates being what they are, they would not be subjected to tax - only the fees involved with the lender would be subject.

Lastly, the problem with your question is that it puts the FairTax in a poor position compared to other suggested (and the existing) forms of taxation, because it was designed to be revenue neutral. Now you're demanding something that the current system doesn't even provide, and then complaining about it. It seems like a way off base reason to campaign against it.

My point is that "following the rules of God" is the object this leads to the maximizing of individual liberty. All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. There is a whole spectrum of non-sinful opportunity for me; the question is how to maximize the glory of God. But the "common good" is achieved in passing, in the passing of the need to fear God and walk humbly in His ways from one generation to the next.
"Common good", on its own, is such an amorphous, conjectural notion as to seem a campaign slogan of the "Forward" or "Hope and Change" variety. We're born individuals, and derive a notion of "common" from the population. We certainly do NOT move from the group to the individual, sorry. Christ died for each individual person's sins in all of time. "God so loved the world," yes, but remember that "whosoever believeth" is an individual, not corporate, requirement.

Ja. The dork also does something at Georgetown that he calls "teaching".

Actually, I had already blogged about your boy Hunter. All I can say is that I'm deeply grateful that BHO ran against the 1%. I mean, if Those Awful M0rm0ns had taken over, the river of hookers and blow running through the capitol would've been wider than the Potomac, I daresay.

Howie gonna question what we see on TV, or read on the Internet? Isn't it all true?