[besson3c]

Can I be Rudy?

[sek929]

Sure, in fact, there are a lot of players here I wouldn't mind carrying off the field.

[besson3c]

Well, start by carrying me! Will you chant my name?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

As is your lack of curiosity involving a group of people you hardly seem to have connected with.

Your biased, incorrect guess is noted as well.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Your biased, incorrect guess is noted as well.

Well then, you are welcome to continue to rant and do your thing targeted at your imaginary enemy. Very odd, but whatever floats your boat.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You sure ?

Looked like a 90 yard field goal attempt to me

-t

I'm dyin' over here.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well then, you are welcome to continue to rant and do your thing targeted at your imaginary enemy. Very odd, but whatever floats your boat.

I crown you, "King of Iron and Hypocrisy". I bow before you.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I crown you, "King of Iron and Hypocrisy". I bow before you.

besson3c is King of Iron?

Then I'm the Man of Steel.

The only question remaining is who is the Great White Hope?

[besson3c]

Yeah... I hate to belabor this stupendousman, but let me just clarify. What you wrote is really what you think Democrats are all about? Really?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yeah... I hate to belabor this stupendousman, but let me just clarify. What you wrote is really what you think Democrats are all about? Really?

What specifically are you finding fault with. I've written a lot of things.

[TheWOAT]

Republicans should be offended by this, it denotes that they are an inferior party and their candidates are long shots... like whites in boxing.

[ironknee]

i reckon...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What specifically are you finding fault with. I've written a lot of things.

This:

I disagree. The Democrats mostly appeal to people who don't subscribe to traditional moral values and want more government control. The Republicans appeal to those who more strongly support traditional values and have more respect for personal liberty and responsibility.

As I explained, the Democrats HAVE to pander to smaller groups of special interests because there is a much bigger block of voters who support traditional values, the Constitution as our framers intended, and a smaller role of government in our lives. In order to win majorities they have to do a pretty difficult balancing act of catering to smaller special interest groups while pretending to support the kind of ideals that the Republican party normally do not have to pretend about. Like Obama saying he was going to cut taxes and that he didn't really support all those radicals he had past associations with (and now we find out he's putting them into positions of power as "Czars").

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Other than the first point about "traditional moral values" (which is quite a bit more subjective than to sum it so simplistically) the rest sounds pretty damned accurate.

[besson3c]

Heh, it's no WONDER this disconnect exists if that it is really how you perceive the other side. Is this really it? I just want to be sure.

How can you guys ever hope to have a good debate with a group of people you don't understand and have no interest in understanding? I've come to understand that these political lounge threads are not about you being interested in good debate, but more like being interested in ranting, but I just want you guys to be clear that if you guys ever get tired of ranting and graduate to an interest in actual debate (or come to understand that many, if not most of us are completely numb and mostly disinterested in your rants at this point), you have some work to do.

I don't claim to have an intimate understanding of the other side other, but I try to understand as I have an opportunity and the appropriate environment to do so. This is a complete fantasy land group of villains you have concocted.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Other than the first point about "traditional moral values" (which is quite a bit more subjective than to sum it so simplistically) the rest sounds pretty damned accurate.

Let's classify "traditional" as normal judeo/christian Bible/Talmud based teachings that have been around for a couple thousand years.

How can a party appeal to people who truely share these values if their base insists on making these priorities:

Demand to kill their offspring before birth as a "right" intended by our founding fathers that was never supported by our founding fathers?

Demand that homosexuality and other sexual practices that have always been traditionally viewed to be sexually deviant and not equal it their worth to society as an equal requiring protection. Essentially legislating anti-traditionally moral views that go against many religious teaching as a requirement despite there being no protections for sexual behavior intended by our framers.

Not only that, but now the left and their friends have been pushing for teaching kindergartners about deviant sex practices and educating them about masturbation.

http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/2...paid-for-this/

This is the same sort of thing that Obama Barrack supported back when he was a legislator. Something that most Americans who support "traditional" moral values aren't going to buy into.

Seemingly doing everything it can to stamp out any evidence of religion and traditional morality in government by creating a phony "separation" that wasn't intended by most of the founding fathers who had no problem with people expressing their religious beliefs in any kind of government setting as long as the government didn't force you to share those beliefs under threat of punishment.

Now, these are only a quick, select few areas where the Democrat base has been pushing an agenda that really can't rationally be supported by people who have traditional moral values. I think the problem is that Besson doesn't understand the people he would seem to share political beliefs with himself. Most all the folks on the left making up the Democrat political base I know of don't have strong traditional moral values. That doesn't mean that they have no morals, or have no sense of "right" and "wrong" and are "bad" or some kind of villians. That's just Besson's guilt talking.

The reason why Besson continues to troll and make vague accusations about what people do and don't understand is because he really can't form a coherent argument to refute what most everyone else likely can see as "pretty damned accurate" portrayal of the political landscape. It hurts him when he realizes that the Democrats have chosen the (traditional) moral low ground, and in order to "win" they've got to play that card with all their might.

[ort888]

Your idea that people on the left have inferior moral values is insulting and hateful.

And to claim that these superior moral values come from the bible is even more of a farce considering that people pick and choose what the want to believe with wild abandon. There are one or two passages that condemn homosexuality and dozens and dozens speaking out against usury. Yet why aren't their christian protests outside of banks? The bible talks about multiple wives, beating wives, keeping slaves, killing this person and that person for worshiping this or that or committing adultery... what happened to those values? Outdated? Inconvenient?

What would Jesus think about universal health care? Do you think he would be opposed to it? Is a free market society really something Jesus would be in favor of? Really? Do you honestly believe that? Do you think Jesus would be in favor of closing the borders? Or not letting gays marry? Or having a ridiculously massive military?

Jesus was the ultimate lefty... he was further to the left then 99.9% of modern american liberals today. Jesus gave everything he has to help those less fortunate to him. Everything... and he encouraged others to do the same.

Jesus was about love and peace. All I ever here from you is hate.

[CreepDogg]

Not to mention, it's the Republican party that panders to that group with so-called 'traditional' moral values. All political parties pander. It's what they do. To claim superiority of one party over the other based on pandering is completely ridiculous.

Also, if I recall, the Constitution doesn't say much about 'traditional moral values', particularly those based on religion. It tends to focus more on religious freedom.

So, let's review. People in the groups that Democrats pander to tend to be Democrats. People in the groups that Republicans pander to tend to be Republicans. Shocking!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Your idea that people on the left have inferior moral values is insulting and hateful.

Cry me a river.

I NEVER said "inferior". That's apparently your guilt talking to you. I said it was not "traditional", which it isn't as I outlined.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Not to mention, it's the Republican party that panders to that group with so-called 'traditional' moral values.

It's my belief that this represents a group larger than that which holds new and "progression" views on morality. That's my point.

Also, if I recall, the Constitution doesn't say much about 'traditional moral values', particularly those based on religion. It tends to focus more on religious freedom.

True, but most of the reasoning and logic behind what our founders thought was important was rooted in traditional moral values and the idea that all men are free and should be treated as an individuals responsible for themselves and not a group to be raised by the government. That's not what the current Democrat party "panders" to.

So, let's review. People in the groups that Democrats pander to tend to be Democrats. People in the groups that Republicans pander to tend to be Republicans. Shocking!

I agree. You are making my point. My point was that there's as large a group that is turned off by the Democrats stands on the issues and their refusal to be inclusive to their views as there are Repubilcans. It was Besson who was fantasizing that somehow only the Republicans where lacking inclusivity.

[besson3c]

stupendousman: pardon me, I still can't get over this and I would really like some confirmation here... What you wrote is *really* what you think Democrats are about? Really?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

the idea that all men are free and should be treated as an individuals responsible for themselves and not a group to be raised by the government.

Is that why social conservatives are so focused trying to make sure people can't think for themselves regarding same-sex marriage?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's my belief that this represents a group larger than that which holds new and "progression" views on morality. That's my point.

Well, election results at a national level over the last couple decades (at least) would tend to disprove that. What I've seen is it's generally 50-50 with mild swings in one direction or the other. So, when it's actual experience vs. 'your belief', well, I'll take experience. But since we're talking 'belief', I'll share mine. I believe that as long as we have a two-party system with all the 'my team-your team' bickering, it will remain close to 50-50 with mild swings one way or the other.

True, but most of the reasoning and logic behind what our founders thought was important was rooted in traditional moral values and the idea that all men are free and should be treated as an individuals responsible for themselves and not a group to be raised by the government.

Which is exactly why morality based on religious views shouldn't be legislated. Glad you agree. So does one of our founding fathers.

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

As to your original statement, I'll point out the flaw.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

people who don't subscribe to traditional moral values and want more government control

These two things don't automatically go together.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

those who more strongly support traditional values and have more respect for personal liberty and responsibility

Neither do these two.

[ort888]

The republican party is just as all encompassing. That's why it's the party of rich upper class people who want to keep their wealth, small town people who are scared of city folk, hardcore Christians, gun enthusiasts, small government people, etc...

Most of those groups have almost nothing in common. Just like many of the traditional democratic stereotypes have little to do with each other.

It's a flaw of the 2 party system.

[besson3c]

The moral values garbage was the obvious sticking point, but what stupendousman wrote is extremely illuminating if this really is representative. Democrats "want" more government control? What's next, they hate ice cream too? I suppose they want more taxes too, and socialism, to help America's enemies, zero military, etc.? What I want is ice cream for all at all times, zero government control, no taxes, a benevolent and all knowing dictator, no need for military, and puppies, kittens, and ponies for all!

As far as respect for personal responsibility and liberty, I guess this excludes gays marrying, having sovereignty over one's own body, having the opportunity to succeed without crippling health care expenses that can potentially come out of random chance, being able to decide when to die, buying alcohol on a Sunday in some states, public urination, etc.? (Don't obsess over any of these specific examples, they are besides the point)

Reality isn't this binary, stupendousman.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

stupendousman: pardon me, I still can't get over this and I would really like some confirmation here... What you wrote is *really* what you think Democrats are about? Really?

I LOVE how you refuse to get specific about what exactly it is you have a problem with, and just generalize "what I wrote". As we've seen, people have a hard time with basic reading comprehension (the allegation I said Democrats moral values where "inferior") around here, so you really need to specifically state what your difference of opinion is because it's highly likely either you are trying to take what I said out of context, have poor reading comprehension, or simply are trolling - if you think what I've wrote anywhere is all that shocking.

Specifics please. I can't refute what's in your head or what you think I might have meant.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The moral values garbage was the obvious sticking point, but what stupendousman wrote is extremely illuminating if this really is representative. Democrats "want" more government control? What's next, they hate ice cream too? I suppose they want more taxes too, and socialism, to help America's enemies, zero military, etc.? What I want is ice cream for all at all times, zero government control, no taxes, a benevolent and all knowing dictator, no need for military, and puppies, kittens, and ponies for all!

The exception to the rule apparently. :LOL

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Is that why social conservatives are so focused trying to make sure people can't think for themselves regarding same-sex marriage?

People have been able to "think for themselves". The majority of Americans have chosen not to live in a country that gives "equal" rights to things that actually provides and encourages lower standards. It's the social liberals who want to force this standard on the majority because they have to pander to the minority in order to accrue enough votes by fringe groups in order to be successful.

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Well, election results at a national level over the last couple decades (at least) would tend to disprove that. What I've seen is it's generally 50-50 with mild swings in one direction or the other.

There's only been one 2 term Democrat President in the last how many years? That guy got his second term by doing what? Pandering right instead of left as he did pre-1994 with really disastrous results.

Up until the last several years, Republicans pretty much ran everything (until they moved away from conservatism, that is).

Which is exactly why morality based on religious views shouldn't be legislated. Glad you agree. So does one of our founding fathers.

We have to have some standards. Our founding fathers for the most part relied on traditional moral values when creating those standards. No one said anything specifically about traditional RELIGIOUS moral values, though religion does provide the basis for many of those standards. Thomas Jeffersion was one man, a Christian man, but one man.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Democrats "want" more government control?

Yes. How can you possibly not see this? Is it the Republicans who support the placement of a whole bevy of czars and are refusing to support healthcare reform unless the government actively takes on responsibility for people's care (i.e., more government control)?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

having the opportunity to succeed without crippling health care expenses that can potentially come out of random chance

Here's the liberty and personal responsibility angle on this matter: It's your personal responsibility to prepare adequately for such a situation, and you are at liberty not to do so if you choose.

The idea that people are more free when they are forced to pay for both their own healthcare and other people's whether they want it or not is simply ridiculous. And then the next item in your list is "being able to decide when to die" — so you're in favor of the depressed being allowed to commit suicide without our intervention, but you're opposed to letting normal people decide their own fate through their own work.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

People have been able to "think for themselves".

With all the utter lies and confusion spilling out of the conservative side of the Prop. 8 campaign? Don't give your folks too much credit. If people were able to think freely on the matter, it was in spite of the Republicans.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I LOVE how you refuse to get specific about what exactly it is you have a problem with, and just generalize "what I wrote". As we've seen, people have a hard time with basic reading comprehension (the allegation I said Democrats moral values where "inferior") around here, so you really need to specifically state what your difference of opinion is because it's highly likely either you are trying to take what I said out of context, have poor reading comprehension, or simply are trolling - if you think what I've wrote anywhere is all that shocking.

Specifics please. I can't refute what's in your head or what you think I might have meant.

I was waiting for you to show some interest and ask. For starters, this would indicate whether you were actually interested in "winning" these debates, because you have to know your enemy to win, and thus far you've seemed comfortable with this lack of knowing.

The specifics I outlined to the next post you replied to, that Democrats don't "want" those things, and are no enemies to personal responsibilities and individual liberties, whether you want to believe this or not. There is a *massive* difference between not being so philosophical opposed to something that the mere discussion of an idea is a complete non-starter, and being genuinely "for" something. For instance, to use a very inaccurate and highly spun term, I'm "pro-abortion", but this doesn't mean that I think that abortions are swell and that everybody should go out and have one. (By the way, I feel this way about this issue because of my belief in non-government interference here, personal liberty and sovereignty over one's body, etc. Do you find this odd?)

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes. How can you possibly not see this? Is it the Republicans who support the placement of a whole bevy of czars and are refusing to support healthcare reform unless the government actively takes on responsibility for people's care (i.e., more government control)?

No, Republicans want more government control over our lives.

No gay marriages for you.
No abortions for you.
No gay sex for you.
No sodomy for you.
No sex toys for you.
No stem-cell research for you.

Democrats want more regulations and government control over corporations and businesses, so these companies like credit card companies, health insurance companies, banks, oil, energy, and so forth have less control over our lives.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes. How can you possibly not see this? Is it the Republicans who support the placement of a whole bevy of czars and are refusing to support healthcare reform unless the government actively takes on responsibility for people's care (i.e., more government control)?

Irrelevant here. This doesn't mean that I "want" any of these things, necessarily.

Originally Posted by besson3c

There is a *massive* difference between not being so philosophical opposed to something that the mere discussion of an idea is a complete non-starter, and being genuinely "for" something. For instance, to use a very inaccurate and highly spun term, I'm "pro-abortion", but this doesn't mean that I think that abortions are swell and that everybody should go out and have one.

Here's the liberty and personal responsibility angle on this matter: It's your personal responsibility to prepare adequately for such a situation, and you are at liberty not to do so if you choose.

The idea that people are more free when they are forced to pay for both their own healthcare and other people's whether they want it or not is simply ridiculous. And then the next item in your list is "being able to decide when to die" — so you're in favor of the depressed being allowed to commit suicide without our intervention, but you're opposed to letting normal people decide their own fate through their own work.

I'm not sure I would connect a spreading of risk as "freedom", but the point I was driving at was this... If you were to wake up tomorrow and get hit by a car that didn't stop and there were no witnesses around, and your expenses literally bankrupted you (however much of an expense this would require obviously varies depending on the person, but let's say for this hypothetical example it was $100,000 and you flat out had no way of coming up with this money), would you feel that this was "fair"? Would you feel like you were denied a chance for success and happiness because of a system that failed you? "A system" meaning the system of private health insurance, or the government's regulation of this, whichever you felt more strongly about...

Please don't pick apart this highly hypothetical example, I'm just playing devil's advocate to present this particular argument, because I think there are some instances and circumstances where it could be spun this way in a compelling manner. Most, if not all countries in the world have some sort of system to spread risk, be it public or private. Would it not be natural to take a failure that affected you so profoundly pretty personal?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

lower standards

Sounds to me like you ARE making judgements on superior and inferior moral standards, as much as you claim not to be.

There's only been one 2 term Democrat President in the last how many years? That guy got his second term by doing what? Pandering right instead of left as he did pre-1994 with really disastrous results.

Up until the last several years, Republicans pretty much ran everything (until they moved away from conservatism, that is).

What does that have to do with anything? Look at the popular vote results for national elections, particularly where it's been a two-man race. Looks pretty 50-50 with periodic swings to me.

We have to have some standards. Our founding fathers for the most part relied on traditional moral values when creating those standards. No one said anything specifically about traditional RELIGIOUS moral values, though religion does provide the basis for many of those standards. Thomas Jeffersion (sic) was one man, a Christian man, but one man.

OK - who decides the standards? Why do YOU get to decide? Christians get to, because they're the majority? That completely flies in the face of religious freedom. Also - some demographics are indicating that in 30-40 years, Muslims will overtake Christians as the majority (sooner in Europe), and if that happens, I'm sure Muslims will want to impose their 'traditional moral standards' in government. I wonder what tune you'd be singing if that happens.

And - our founding fathers relied on 'traditional moral standards'? Like a black man being 3/5 of a person? And a woman not a person at all? Yeah - obviously their 'morals' were perfect and we shouldn't change or question ANY of them.

Seems to me the intent is more about the distribution of rights and liberty than about imposing 'moral standards'. You can rationalize the legislation of Christianity any way you like. We'll have to respectfully agree to disagree - 'traditional morals' (which we all know is really just code for 'Christian morals') have NO place in government or legislation. To say they do just because 'we have to have some standards' is just silly.

One of the EXPLICITLY SPELLED OUT standards, and one which the founding fathers were PATENTLY CLEAR on, is religious freedom. Sorry, but I have a really hard time reconciling that standard with the legislative imposition of 'traditional moral values'.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

No, Republicans want more government control over our lives.

No gay marriages for you.
No abortions for you.
No gay sex for you.
No sodomy for you.
No sex toys for you.
No stem-cell research for you.

Democrats want more regulations and government control over corporations and businesses, so these companies like credit card companies, health insurance companies, banks, oil, energy, and so forth have less control over our lives.

This is a little overblown but still a good point. BOTH parties are advocating more government control, just in different areas of our lives. For either party to claim they have a monopoly on liberty is disingenuous. So, when it comes to it, people have to choose (assuming they have to choose only these two parties, which is pretty much the case right now) where they want to protect their liberties and where they will give. In some cases, they also have to choose between government control and corporate control. Not surprisingly, people make different choices for different reasons.

[besson3c]

Regarding stupendousman's remarks about traditional morals, what would Jesus say to that person who got hit by a car as described above? "Tough break, I guess you should have had $100,000 lying around to be better prepared"?

I have *great* difficulty with tying political ideology to morality, in general.

[besson3c]

CreepDogg: I find that the whole "founding fathers" and constitution arguments are usually made by people when it is convenient to do so, but let's face it, Joe Sixpack protester waving some ridiculous sign and blabbering on about the constitution (no matter what political persuasion) usually know jack **** about constitutional law.

It's so hard to separate legitimate constitutional/founding fathers arguments from people who are just invoking these concepts as a means to gain leverage.

[hyteckit]

Traditional Values - An Euphemism for telling others to obey my values rules, without needing to explain the reason and logic behind it.

[besson3c]

I gotta have me my sodomy and sex toys.

[ort888]

Traditional values = we hate gays

Answer this super simple question...

Was Jesus a liberal or a conservative?

[besson3c]

So if women at one point were second class citizens, and then blacks became second class citizens, and now gays are the new blacks/women, anybody care to guess who the next outcasts will be after we get over our discrimination towards gays?

My guess is Australians.

[ort888]

dirty filthy australians

[besson3c]

Hey, I don't want to be held single handedly responsible for starting a revolution against those beady eyed freaks.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Was Jesus a liberal or a conservative?

I'm pretty sure if he were content with the traditional ways of doing things in his time, we would never have heard of him.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

With all the utter lies and confusion spilling out of the conservative side of the Prop. 8 campaign? Don't give your folks too much credit. If people were able to think freely on the matter, it was in spite of the Republicans.

What lies where told? I've heard there were, but I've not seen them listed.

Where these on TV commercials?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Sounds to me like you ARE making judgements on superior and inferior moral standards, as much as you claim not to be.

Lower as compared to "traditional" moral values.

Lower isn't always inferior. It's often times much more practical and productive. Why would I put a superior gazillion horsepower hand crafted engine in a car designed to take me a short distance to work and back. It's probably going to consume more gas and overkill. That superior engine design would actually create an inferior car design.

What does that have to do with anything? Look at the popular vote results for national elections, particularly where it's been a two-man race. Looks pretty 50-50 with periodic swings to me.

When there's been crappy candidates. It wasn't 50-50 this year or many past years since Democrats stopped dominated national politics.

OK - who decides the standards?

The founding fathers already decided the standards. They put together ways to change them if we wanted, but it's not easy.

And - our founding fathers relied on 'traditional moral standards'? Like a black man being 3/5 of a person? And a woman not a person at all? Yeah - obviously their 'morals' were perfect and we shouldn't change or question ANY of them.

No one's suggesting they were perfect, or that anyone is perfect. We did however charge them with putting together the country and the Constitution the best they could with the standards approved by the majority of the citizens of the day

One of the EXPLICITLY SPELLED OUT standards, and one which the founding fathers were PATENTLY CLEAR on, is religious freedom. Sorry, but I have a really hard time reconciling that standard with the legislative imposition of 'traditional moral values'.

No one said that people couldn't worship as they chose. That doesn't mean however if the way the majority chooses to worship influences basic "community standards," thats some sort of infringement, unless those standards specifically prohibits behavior or action required by someone else's personal faith. Of course, that has limits as well. A person can't say that their faith requires human sacrifice and not face prosecution if they engage in that behavior regardless of "religious freedom".

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What lies where told? I've heard there were, but I've not seen them listed.

Where these on TV commercials?

I'm pretty sure they had commercials that said the same things, but their people on the street were definitely full of it. Things like if Prop. 8 had been passed, churches would be forced to do gay marriages and schools would be required to promote gay marriage as a good idea children should consider. I went to one of the YES On 8 training sessions and they actually told people to spread this stuff around. They were also very upset at the measure being called "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" and wanted it to be instead "Marriage Protection."

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A person can't say that their faith requires human sacrifice and not face prosecution if they engage in that behavior regardless of "religious freedom".

Dammit. There go my Columbus Day plans.

Wait, what if I get a bunch of followers, and I get elected? Can I legislate my personal, er, religious and moral hobbies then?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Lower as compared to "traditional" moral values.

Lower isn't always inferior. It's often times much more practical and productive. Why would I put a superior gazillion horsepower hand crafted engine in a car designed to take me a short distance to work and back. It's probably going to consume more gas and overkill. That superior engine design would actually create an inferior car design.

Oh, so since the definition is arbitrary, I can say that Democrats have higher moral standards and be just as right. OK.

The founding fathers already decided the standards. They put together ways to change them if we wanted, but it's not easy.

Exactly. As I said, the EXPLICITLY DEFINED standard is religious freedom.

No one said that people couldn't worship as they chose. That doesn't mean however if the way the majority chooses to worship influences basic "community standards," thats some sort of infringement, unless those standards specifically prohibits behavior or action required by someone else's personal faith. Of course, that has limits as well. A person can't say that their faith requires human sacrifice and not face prosecution if they engage in that behavior regardless of "religious freedom".

Exactly - because human sacrifice infringes on the right of the other person to live. Forcing 'community standards' based on the majority's choice of worship is equally an infringement on the liberty of others. In my opinion, a much bigger infringement on liberty than raising your taxes.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm pretty sure they had commercials that said the same things, but their people on the street were definitely full of it.

So, no "smoking gun"? Just hearsay about what some people thought the laws would lead to?