I never felt like Cruz was preaching at me but I did get his "sneaky" when he accused Trump of causing trouble at rallies.
Anyone with a brain can go figure that the trouble was caused by protestors holding neatly made assembly line signs both bought and paid for by George Soros and MoveOn.Commie.
Trump turns me off before he speaks before he thinks and gets himself in senseless hot water.
The latest example was how he let himself get led into saying he would punish women for having abortions.
I just know he freaking would not really do that.
Maybe I could go back to being a reporter like I was back during the 70s and get Trump to say that he could claim be the Pied Piper of dumb as a brick lemmings and not lose a single follower. He's already said something similar about shooting somebody (which I know he would not do).
Maybe some day as president he may make some flippant remark about nuking and throw some dangerous nation into a panic.
Me dino don't think I like anyone anymore!

ah. ewv in a rabbithole :)

I don't think it's cronyism. Big stores would like to get rid of it and some small ones want to keep it so they don't have to compete all week.

this is a good article;;; Thank You Kaila!!! -- j
.

for me, just reading We The Living got me hooked.
I just had to have more of her. . I read Rand like eating
a chocolate sundae -- just couldn't quit! -- j
.

I think its either cronyism or as you say- to make up for government inefficiencies

The origin of the blue laws is religious, but that is not the motivation for them now.

The religious nature of Cruz is not the biggest reason I wont vote for him.
1) I just get the feeling he is a sneaky person, trying to manipulate me into doing what he wants. I just get this feeling he is a career politician and thats what those people do. I am tired of that, especially when they are into positions of power.
2) I feel like I am being preached AT
3) He spends his time slamming the other candidates so he gets elected. In particular I dont like the "STOP TRUMP" campaign he is into. I want to know what HE is going to do for the country, not how the other candidate is no good. He could just forget all the specifics about Trump, and just say "I want to WIN and have the power of the presidency, and will do anything to get there". I would feel better if he just said that
3) I have to agree with Trump's anti-establishment positions. The establishment is crooked and things are set up to perpetuate their reign. I am so done with that ! I would rather this whole election thing was "one person, one vote". No more "delegates", "electoral college votes" and other ways to change what the people are voting for.
4) I have to give Bernie that he is somewhat honest, against the establishment (Hillary and her cronies), and doesnt like the giving of the printed money to wall street in bailouts. His solutions are really wacko, though, and will turn us into Venezuela in a few years.
5) Overall, I am for Trump for 4 years. He will tell it like it is (I thought it is interesting that his whole family is like that- so he must have raised them right). He will tell us if the emperor has no clothes for a change. He is freeing us from political correctness by his outspoken attitudes. He is an outsider who will question a lot of what has been "business as usual" in washington. He will also get respect from other countries and stop apologizing to the muslim countries and others like Obama has done. None of the other candidates will get respect, most notably Hillary, and certainly not Sanders or Cruz.

I have recently voted for Cruz but may not vote for him again a different reason than yours.
I'm a Christian who would have no problem with an elected to any public office atheist who would refuse to swear on the Bible because it would make him into a hypocrite.
I'd only have a problem if he would refuse to swear to "we the people" to uphold the Constitution. (Wondering if Bolshevik Bernie would or wouldn't do that).

What about the Invisible Hand of Adam Smith? If circumstances are difficult, people will change their ways, and individual choices will aggregate. In fact, people must drive extra miles to the next county to get what they want on Sunday, a loss of time and an increased cost of travel. Moreover, the law has silly consequence, as this shows:

"Near the end of the meeting, Horn suddenly turned to a Starbucks employee as she removed an item from a shelf. “That’s a French press?” he asked. “Someone’s actually going to buy that today?”
“Yes,” the employee said.
“That’s a cooking item,” Horn said. “That’s prohibited. That’s a prohibited transaction. Starbucks—”
“Flouting the law,” Harry Chalfin’s father, Neil, said.
“Breaking the law,” Horn said.
The smiles around the small table were triumphant."
-- http://www.newyorker.com/business/cur...

I think he gives her kudos for capitalism/economics. Ironically, she was clear she was not an expert in economics. But, I do not think he gives her any credit for morality in general. Of course her entire philosophy is based on a moral system.

For what it is worth I always believe it matters not what is said about you so long as it is you that is being spoken of. He does say good things about Ayn Rand and as such is giving her exposure which is obviously very good. Ayn Rand is in my opinion important to him otherwise why would he refer to her?

We dont need to be controlled by whats in some book supposedly delivered by a mythical being we cant see- but have to believe. What nonsense to have government force that on people.

If someone wants to believe in some version of god, more power to them. Its their life after all. But, government should be totally unable to enforce those beliefs on anyone. That way, we can all get along. Otherwise, its religious warfare with one version of god (muslim for example) against another version of god (christianity for example).

I wont vote for Cruz because I just dont think that he can separate religion from government. He bible thumps too much and talks a lot about religion- all the while running for president.

When I was in high school, I lived in Madison NJ. There WERE religious blue laws that shut down stores on sundays. I do think that those laws were eventually repealed fortunately.

Funny that Venezuela enacted recently that Friday would be a day of rest because there was not enough electricity to power things all week. Another government snafu.

I think two things are going on here: 1 Inner city youths and many others are not equipped to use their minds to determine morality objectively...they have never been taught that skill, they have been disempowered . 2...again it is language and a basic refusal to accept the "authority" of the author in context...I use "Celfishness" instead of selfishness...it's seems once I explain, people begin to get it.
For those of you who haven't read my book, I'll recap: Every cell in your body is responsible for it's own survival...once that has been accomplished the excess value is passed on...think about that, food and oxygen comes through the blood to each cell...it takes what it needs to survive, some more than others, then when it is full or satisfied (healthy and doing it's job) it shuts it's door and the food and oxygen is passed on to the next. Put all these cell together to form a human body and that community of cells does the same thing on a larger scale...if allowed to do so naturally.

Bergen County NJ has blue laws to cut down one day a week on the traffic and congestion that is due to the poor government planning. It's a nuisance as bad as the traffic, but it's not religious.

The answer to why so few people are willing "to acknowledge and grapple with the fact that Rand put forth a secular, observation-based, life-serving, rights-grounding, capitalism-supporting philosophy" is contained in one Rand's book titles: Unknown. I do not mean that the answer is unknown; rather, most people do not know Rand's philosophy.

Both my kids and I read Rand novels (Anthem for me, and We the Living for my kids) as requirements (ironic?) for high school English. I didn't appreciate the full depth of Rand's writing until well into adulthood, in part because I wasn't taught the philosophy as part of the course but moreso because I didn't have time at that time to investigate Objectivism properly. Trying to get A's in other courses was more important at that time.

We have another conversation going in "Ask the Gulch" about Objectivists being too inflexible. I am not participating there. Here in this context, I will point out that many here like Prager University's videos because they say things we like to hear. As you note, however, their religionism harbors a threat to freedom.

In daily life, none of the states with laws against atheism actually enforces them. But the laws are still on the books.

According to them (and Prager), morality is impossible without God. Therefore, atheists cannot be trusted to tell the truth when they take an oath of office, or serve on a jury, or appear as a witness in court, or, for that matter, vote in a public election. In fact, even a civil marriage ceremony would be invalid, as it is usually stated as an exchange of vows.

We still have laws banning the sale of alcohol on Sundays. Here in Texas, car dealerships cannot be open both Saturday and Sunday, a nod to Jews, apparently. "... Bergen County, New Jersey is notable for their blue laws banning the sale of clothing, shoes, furniture, home supplies and appliances on Sundays kept through county-wide referendum." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law Once they perceive themselves as a majority, nothing will stop them from interfering in trade and commerce. They are anti-capitalists.

I would REALLY like to view the author's set of videos that he proposes.

the beginning of the article: "In a recent Townhall.com article titled, “A Note to Conservatives Who Are Secular,” Dennis Prager initially praises secular conservatives such as Paul Johnson, George Will, and Thomas Sowell for their understanding of history, human nature, and the state of mankind. “But,” Prager laments,

The vast majority of leading conservative writers, just like their liberal colleagues, have a secular outlook on life. With few exceptions, the conservative political and intellectual worlds are oblivious to the consequences of secularism. They are unaware of the disaster that godlessness in the West has led to.

To what disaster is Prager referring? He doesn’t say. But he appears to mean the possible or impending death of America. “Secular conservatives,” he writes, “think that America can survive the death of God and religion”; they think “fiscal and other forms of conservatism without social conservatism can preserve America.” But, Prager insists, “the only solution to many—perhaps most—of the social problems ailing America and the West is some expression of Judeo-Christian faith.”