[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by 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.

I find that when someone can't defend their stand constitutionally, or based on intent, that they'll look for all sorts of excuses why none of that should matter.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

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.

I believe what I see. I see one party that consistently pushes for laws and policies which would require less personal responsibility and gives more power to judges and the government than the other.

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?)

I don't find it odd. I find it inconsistent. Democrats make this argument, yet do not support the same for a man. If it's a matter of "choice" as to what we do with our bodies and personal liberty, then logically a man should not be held responsible for what a woman chooses to do with her body and an unmarried woman should have no power to force a man to support her and the results of her choices.

You aren't supporting "personal liberty", you are supporting laws that allow the abdication of responsibility in matters involving innocent third parties. You support convenience and freedom from responsibility, exactly as I noted.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

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

You can...but "higher" as compared to what?

Again, "higher" does not necessarily mean "better" or "superior". The Taliban has very high, strict moral standards. I'm pretty sure that most people on this forum would agree that their standards are not desirable or "superior".

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

No one is suggesting you be forced to personally worship any particular way. Not me, and not the founding fathers who for the most part held traditional moral standards based on religious teachings and used those standards to create a new country.

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.

As long as the "standard" doesn't require you to change the way you worship (or do not worship) your God, there's no real infringement. You've got to have standards. You can't have anarchy, and you can't just refuse standards just because there is a traditional moral basis to them which is also taught via religion.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

As long as the "standard" doesn't require you to change the way you worship (or do not worship) your God, there's no real infringement. You've got to have standards. You can't have anarchy, and you can't just refuse standards just because there is a traditional moral basis to them which is also taught via religion.

True. And you also shouldn't just create standards purely on the basis of religious morals, particularly if they infringe on religious freedom, freedom of expression, right to due process, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc. To do so is to deny liberty to others based on the tenets of one religion.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You can...but "higher" as compared to what?

Again, "higher" does not necessarily mean "better" or "superior". The Taliban has very high, strict moral standards. I'm pretty sure that most people on this forum would agree that their standards are not desirable or "superior".

Finally someone is admitting conservatives values are closer to the Taliban than liberal values.

Both Taliban and conservative have "high moral values" use to tell people what to do and restrict their freedom.

Both the Taliban and conservatives need to be liberated from its "high moral values".

Told you high moral values just means more control over our lives.

Code:

libertarians        liberals         conservatives     Tilaban
<-------------------------------------------------------------->
low                                                   very high

[hyteckit]

Hahah.. CA Assemblyman Michael Duvall, family values (higher moral values) man, caught on tape bragging about sexual affairs and spanking during a committee meeting.

YouTube - CAUGHT ON TAPE!!.....CA Assemblyman Michael Duvall; HOT MIC convo about sex 'a lot' and 'spanking'

[lpkmckenna]

The story about Duvall can't be truth. Republicans cheaters only go for boys.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Both the Taliban and conservatives need to be liberated from its "high moral values".

And the Democrats are here to save the day, and give us back our freedom ?



F***ing funniest thing I've heard since Obama got into office.

-t

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Finally someone is admitting conservatives values are closer to the Taliban than liberal values.

...and as such liberal values are closer to to communism and anarchy then conservative values.

Big Whoop. I'm pretty sure most wouldn't want communism and anarchy any more than they'd want a Taliban-style religious government.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

True. And you also shouldn't just create standards purely on the basis of religious morals, particularly if they infringe on religious freedom, freedom of expression, right to due process, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc. To do so is to deny liberty to others based on the tenets of one religion.

I don't think they did it JUST BECAUSE they were religious values. I think they did it because they were religious values that have proven to WORK in a civilized culture and society.

Again, none of the religious values that inspired the founding fathers forced anyone to worship in a way they chose not to.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't think they did it JUST BECAUSE they were religious values. I think they did it because they were religious values that have proven to WORK in a civilized culture and society.

Again, none of the religious values that inspired the founding fathers forced anyone to worship in a way they chose not to.

So then they don't really have anything to do with religion at all. They just happen to be practices that have been observed to work in real-world behavior. That said - do you have any specific references to items that were based on one set of religious tenets? I can't think of one.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Finally someone is admitting conservatives values are closer to the Taliban than liberal values.

Ironic how terrorists continue to support candidates from the left in this country idn't it?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Ironic how terrorists continue to support candidates from the left in this country idn't it?

You mean two religious groups trying to fight for control so they can impose their "traditional values" on people?

God will win!
No, Allah will win!