“The age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists and calculators has succeeded.”

Chivalry is respect for one another, so out of style and way-out in today's world! It is not what the individual needs to be self sufficent, but what society needs in our "social engineering!"

With cal, chivalry is an application of the nobility of life's recognition; such is gone. Obamunist, czars and stars (Pelosi, Reid, etc.) are the statist theocracy's first to openly reject natural law's most basic, fundamental, foundational, and that from which all law is predicated, that of life's inalienable nobility, and calculated a price tag on the beings worth. Such doctrine then eliminates any basis for understanding inalienable rights; all rights are no more. Obamunist czars and stars have of course used sophistry to soften any repudiation, but none the less, have openly fast tracked, the termination of any and all that could be called chivalrous, noble, compassionate, freedom, liberty, law, and justice. The chivalrous sons and daughters of liberty had better prepare quickly for the events that are surely about to occur; the enemies of law and order are past the door, they are in the house..

A quote from 1797 has nothing to say about present day America. But philosophically I think he is saying that chilvary is throwing caution to the wind, being gutsy, swaggering like etcetera while by sophistry, economist and calculator he means being careful, analytical and circumspect. Yesterday I read an analysis of President Bush's style versus Obama. Buish was the caution to the wind guy and Obama is the analytical guy. Bush and Cheney (or was it Cheney and Bush) made their plans secretly while Obama anayses openly and honestly to way the proper course of action. I suggest both approaches spring from a view of the self, of what kind of person a person is. While chivalry may appear as Cal and Mike suggest as being respect for others, it may actually be a misguied view of self - Don Quiote like. To take on the world as if every thing is ones own problem, to fix single handed, is a bit narcissistic and megolomaniacal, while to be anaylitcal and considerate of all of the facts and points of view may be considered dithering. To have the proper balance that is the thing. Sometimes chilvary is equated with being a fool and calculation is equated with being a heel. The chilvarous guy gives a $10 tip for a $5 dollar meal while the calculator guy computes 10 or 20 percent and winds up leaving a quarter.

And Waffler, as the quote says, the sophisters have succeeded...for now.

A current example of sophistry is when Obama says that his administration has created 600,000 new jobs. And they can say this with a straight face and expect someone with a brain to believe it. Obama, Pelosi, Reed, and the rest of this sorry lot are giving Bill Clinton a run for his money when it comes to lying.

I wish you guys could tell me what you are smoking cause it must be some very good S^&* to keep y'all so utterly removed from what is actually going on. The economic reports are up the market is up, health care is the first step in reducing costs, insurance will come down when it gets good competition and taxes will go up and the debt will come down in a year or two. While the Repub crowd fiddled for 8 years the nation got screwed.

Waffler, you sound exactly like Sean Hannity 8 months before Bush left office. Hmmm, the dem side of the Repub argument. Both blame the other and say how good they're doing. Both are accurate in their criticism. We of neither side, choosing a third option - that of rule of law, recognize the destruction of both.

Your side is without a voice Mike. I know nothing of what you believe about health care, taxes, or deficits and debt.

Waffler, you are exactly right, you could not be more correct. I have no voice in the statist theocracy that now infests this land. I stand with the non represented that believe in rule of law. If my voice were to be heard, it would be known that the representative republic's Constitution does not allow any governmentally associated health care, taxes would be limited and set forth as I have at ad nauseam explained here on this bllog, and deficits and debt would occur only as absolutely needed for unexpected occurrences with complete payment being made in a timely fashion (as Constitutionally outlined and within the intent of the original founders). By way of extremely small example, but not by way of limitation, there would be no socialistic ownership of car companies, finance / security companies, health care, insurance practices, ponzi schemes; and, there would be no compelled compliance, governmental license, victimless crimes, larceny with impunity, funny money; and, each and every individual would retain the status of supreme sovereign with each and every individual's rights being unitedly represented in a secular forum. Anonymous, you now know something of my beliefs, and I still have no voice or representation.

Further, since the Warren Court's legislative declaration that the statist theocracy has inherent right (not being of, by, or for 'We The People') all votes go to an entity / individual that will represent the foreign dictator. Neither, do I have a voice or representative, and, there is no body or forum for my representative to represent me. The governmental media complex does on occasion have sound bites that image rule of law or skirt constitutional issues (by way of example from the likes of Oberman and Beck) but again, you are correct, I have no voice or representation.

Waffler, trying to disguise your last comment by subscribing your name as Anonymous does not add validity. You are still correct about my voice and, you voiced well one of the major differences between 51% rule and the representative republic guaranteed by the Constitution. In the constitutionally defined representative republic, each and every, any and all individuals have a voice and are represented and protected in their individual inalienable rights. In your comment you showed that individuals or their rights do not matter, it is only the force of the majority that is heard. So, I vehemently disagree with you, I believe it best when all voices are heard, respected, and protected - not just a majority or a minority. All life is noble with the chivalrous forum being, each voice is heard and equal before the law. Majority rule is antithetical to rule of law and through sophistry, empowers the tyrannical mob.