TexasCHLforum.com

mamabearCali wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:If Obama is re-elected, I will blame the religious right... Which is the single biggest reason we have Obama as a president right now. Maybe if the religious right could step down off their high horse for a change, folks won't be as terrified of their agenda as they are of the leftist agenda. I don't welcome the government in my moral affairs any more than I want them redistributing my hard earned money to less industrious citizens than I. I vote republican because I like my money more than I am worried about the moral minority forcing their religious beliefs on me. Many are more concerned in the other direction. Religious fanatics have taken the GOP hostage and I am scared folks are not taking the fanatics for the joke that they are.

Try some of this and life will be much better for us all. Get out of my bedroom.... Quit legislating morals. Quit using my money to pay for others choices! It's not my job to feed you or cloth you... It is also not my right to tell you how to live your life.

I will vote for anyone but Obama because I know his group is more likely to accomplish their goals than the religious fanatics are to accomplish their goals. Both groups are a threat to my ideals of freedom.

I have to respectfully disagree. The reason we have Obama is Iraq and the emotional insanity that seemed to overcome people at the thought of the country's first black president. It has nearly nothing to do with social issues.

As for not legislating morality. All law is based on morality. Not allowed to murder someone--based on morality. Not allowed to steal--based on morality. Not allowed to cheat and gain an unfair advantage--based on morality. Not allowed to assault people--based on morality. Unless you are saying that right and wrong simply come from the consensus of the people in that case then the murder of the Jews was perfectly legal, and slavery was perfectly legal. So we can, and do legislate morality every where you look. As for what someone does in the bedroom I don't care, but keep it out of my kids school. How about this, we keep school to reading, writing, math, science, history, and a sprinkling of the arts and let each parent teach their own children about the birds and the bees.

As for "quit using my money to pay for other's choices"---well not sure how that is tied to religious fanaticism, as it seems to be the dems doing that. They are the ones making people who believe that hormonal birth control to be sin pay for it.

THIS!

The "noise" that the "religious right" (which is not some monolithic organization....it is simply those people who have conservative social values for religious reasons) makes about things like abortion have nothing to do with thowing women in jail for abortion, or any such thing—and the insistence on the part of those who are opposed is simply a red herring. The "noise" that the "religious right" makes about abortion is the ENTIRELY REASONABLE AND CONSERVATIVE argument about not requiring taxpayers to pay for the sexual choices of other people. Here are some FACTS: about 95% or more of abortions are performed as contraception....not because of rape/insest/risk to mother's health. There is no reason that abortion......or birth control pills or condoms or RU482.......should be covered by the taxpayers. You want to talk about you can't legislate morality? Fine. KEEP OTHER PEOPLE'S MORAL CHOICES OUT OF MY WALLET!!! And as mamabearCali so succinctly pointed out, keep your sexual issues (including "education" about it) out of my kid's classrooms. I submit to you that these are conservative, not to mention (small "l") libertarian core value.

Now, is all of this informed by my faith? Certainly it is, but that is because my faith leads to conservative values—values which are also independently supportable by secular conservative thought. So in that light, can you please demonstrate to me how the "religious right" is trying to ram their religion down your throat? If you don't want it, don't listen to it. Asking people to stop talking about their core values when it comes to political discussions is to ask them to forgo their 1st amendment right to freedom of political speech, thought, and expression. How is that conservative??


Edited to correct a misspelling of the word "conservative".....

Mamabearcali:
We are VERY close on our opinions here. Yes someone seeing a prostitute hurts his wife, in the same way that someone seeing his mistress hurts his wife but the government isn't stepping in on that one. Your meth lab analogy........I am OK with the unregulated manufacture and sale of controlled substances being illegal, I would like to see the laws regarding posession go away. I don't believe that the religious right or neocons led to BHO being elected, but I do believe it had a lot to do with the midterms of 2006 that handed control of the house and senate to dems. 2 years of liberal congressional control contributed to the mess at the end of GWB's second term.

anygun:
Yes, everything we do affects others. If I choose to give up a six figure job and go flip burgers at McDonalds, my family will suffer for my decision. If I gamble away my life savings in Vegas, they suffer. If I drink myself into oblivion they suffer. Why is it OK for the government to outlaw some self destructive behaviors and not others? Do you really want a government (that will sometimes be controlled radicals such as BHO) that decides what is good for you? I myself welcome the consequences that come with making bad decisions, because with that comes freedom.

The Annoyed Man wrote: THIS!

The "noise" that the "religious right" (which is not some monolithic organization....it is simply those people who have conservative social values for religious reasons) makes about things like abortion have nothing to do with thowing women in jail for abortion, or any such thing—and the insistence on the part of those who are opposed is simply a red herring. The "noise" that the "religious right" makes about abortion is the ENTIRELY REASONABLE AND CONSERVITIVE argument about not requiring taxpayers to pay for the sexual choices of other people. Here are some FACTS: about 95% or more of abortions are performed as contraception....not because of rape/insest/risk to mother's health. There is no reason that abortion......or birth control pills or condoms or RU482.......should be covered by the taxpayers. You want to talk about you can't legislate morality? Fine. KEEP OTHER PEOPLE'S MORAL CHOICES OUT OF MY WALLET!!! And as mamabearCali so succinctly pointed out, keep your sexual issues (including "education" about it) out of my kid's classrooms. I submit to you that these are conservative, not to mention (small "l") libertarian core value.

Now, is all of this informed by my faith? Certainly it is, but that is because my faith leads to conservative values—values which are also independently supportable by secular conservative thought. So in that light, can you please demonstrate to me how the "religious right" is trying to ram their religion down your throat? If you don't want it, don't listen to it. Asking people to stop talking about their core values when it comes to political discussions is to ask them to forgo their 1st amendment right to freedom of political speech, thought, and expression. How is that conservative??

Even a "small l" libertarian such as myself agrees with you 100% on this point. I don't want the government to ban someone's bad behavior, but I don't want to finance it either. I want people to be free to make bad decisions and then be free to deal with the outcome of those decisions.

For what it's worth, I am also pro life. Abortion is not a victimless crime (obv).

canvasbck wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: THIS!

The "noise" that the "religious right" (which is not some monolithic organization....it is simply those people who have conservative social values for religious reasons) makes about things like abortion have nothing to do with thowing women in jail for abortion, or any such thing—and the insistence on the part of those who are opposed is simply a red herring. The "noise" that the "religious right" makes about abortion is the ENTIRELY REASONABLE AND CONSERVITIVE argument about not requiring taxpayers to pay for the sexual choices of other people. Here are some FACTS: about 95% or more of abortions are performed as contraception....not because of rape/insest/risk to mother's health. There is no reason that abortion......or birth control pills or condoms or RU482.......should be covered by the taxpayers. You want to talk about you can't legislate morality? Fine. KEEP OTHER PEOPLE'S MORAL CHOICES OUT OF MY WALLET!!! And as mamabearCali so succinctly pointed out, keep your sexual issues (including "education" about it) out of my kid's classrooms. I submit to you that these are conservative, not to mention (small "l") libertarian core value.

Now, is all of this informed by my faith? Certainly it is, but that is because my faith leads to conservative values—values which are also independently supportable by secular conservative thought. So in that light, can you please demonstrate to me how the "religious right" is trying to ram their religion down your throat? If you don't want it, don't listen to it. Asking people to stop talking about their core values when it comes to political discussions is to ask them to forgo their 1st amendment right to freedom of political speech, thought, and expression. How is that conservative??

Even a "small l" libertarian such as myself agrees with you 100% on this point. I don't want the government to ban someone's bad behavior, but I don't want to finance it either. I want people to be free to make bad decisions and then be free to deal with the outcome of those decisions.

For what it's worth, I am also pro life. Abortion is not a victimless crime (obv).

That position, taken to extremes, would eliminate laws against murder, theft, fraud, etc. I assume that you mean, by bad behavior, that you don't want to see "victimless" crimes outlawed, but you don't object to laws against crimes where another is injured, either physically or financially through assault, theft, fraud, extortion and the like. To that degree, I agree with you. However, the problem comes in defining "victimless". If some bozo goes to a prostitute and brings an HIV infection home to his wife, are his actions still victimless? Ah, therein lies the rub (to quote Shakespeare). Think it over.

I think this thread is hovering near the "Lock Cliff" now.

I'm pretty sure that none of us want him re-elected, but we should not forget that our senators and representatives are the true protectors of the Constitution. We are a federated republic (the oldest surviving federation, in fact!), and we should strive to remember that. Sometimes I think we let other people pull our strings too hard, and make us focus on the president too much.

And in the words of Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."

EconDoc wrote:

canvasbck wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: THIS!

The "noise" that the "religious right" (which is not some monolithic organization....it is simply those people who have conservative social values for religious reasons) makes about things like abortion have nothing to do with thowing women in jail for abortion, or any such thing—and the insistence on the part of those who are opposed is simply a red herring. The "noise" that the "religious right" makes about abortion is the ENTIRELY REASONABLE AND CONSERVITIVE argument about not requiring taxpayers to pay for the sexual choices of other people. Here are some FACTS: about 95% or more of abortions are performed as contraception....not because of rape/insest/risk to mother's health. There is no reason that abortion......or birth control pills or condoms or RU482.......should be covered by the taxpayers. You want to talk about you can't legislate morality? Fine. KEEP OTHER PEOPLE'S MORAL CHOICES OUT OF MY WALLET!!! And as mamabearCali so succinctly pointed out, keep your sexual issues (including "education" about it) out of my kid's classrooms. I submit to you that these are conservative, not to mention (small "l") libertarian core value.

Now, is all of this informed by my faith? Certainly it is, but that is because my faith leads to conservative values—values which are also independently supportable by secular conservative thought. So in that light, can you please demonstrate to me how the "religious right" is trying to ram their religion down your throat? If you don't want it, don't listen to it. Asking people to stop talking about their core values when it comes to political discussions is to ask them to forgo their 1st amendment right to freedom of political speech, thought, and expression. How is that conservative??

Even a "small l" libertarian such as myself agrees with you 100% on this point. I don't want the government to ban someone's bad behavior, but I don't want to finance it either. I want people to be free to make bad decisions and then be free to deal with the outcome of those decisions.

For what it's worth, I am also pro life. Abortion is not a victimless crime (obv).

That position, taken to extremes, would eliminate laws against murder, theft, fraud, etc. I assume that you mean, by bad behavior, that you don't want to see "victimless" crimes outlawed, but you don't object to laws against crimes where another is injured, either physically or financially through assault, theft, fraud, extortion and the like. To that degree, I agree with you. However, the problem comes in defining "victimless". If some bozo goes to a prostitute and brings an HIV infection home to his wife, are his actions still victimless? Ah, therein lies the rub (to quote Shakespeare). Think it over.

I don't see any rub at all. If he goes out riding a motorcycle and gets killed, his family loses his income, his wife is also affected --so then maybe the government should make it illegal for married men to ride motorcycles? go skydiving, skiing, boating, white water rafting, swimming, climbing ladders. I don't see where you're going to draw the line....and while you may draw it at some reasonable point, once you've granted the government that kind of power, there is going to be someone drawing lines that aren't so reasonable. If a guy goes to a prostitute and infects his wife with HIV, that's a problem between him and his wife. She can bring charges against him if she desires, she can divorce him, and/or sue him. Anyway, there are already laws against prostitution and it doesn't stop men from going to prostitutes, any more than making guns illegal will stop criminals from using guns.

EconDoc wrote:
That position, taken to extremes, would eliminate laws against murder, theft, fraud, etc. I assume that you mean, by bad behavior, that you don't want to see "victimless" crimes outlawed, but you don't object to laws against crimes where another is injured, either physically or financially through assault, theft, fraud, extortion and the like. To that degree, I agree with you. However, the problem comes in defining "victimless". If some bozo goes to a prostitute and brings an HIV infection home to his wife, are his actions still victimless? Ah, therein lies the rub (to quote Shakespeare). Think it over.

It wouldn't. You have described crimes with a clear victim. If your actions intentionally/knowingly harm someone else, government should step in and make sure you assume responsibility. If your actions harm yourself or harm nobody, government needs to stay out.

Both sides of the isle need to quit running to the federal government with their agendas. That's what got us in this situation. I don't think we will dig ourselves out of it until we all realize that while the R's and D's throw punches by legislating our personal behavior from DC, we're the ones getting the black eyes.

texasmusic wrote:

EconDoc wrote:
That position, taken to extremes, would eliminate laws against murder, theft, fraud, etc. I assume that you mean, by bad behavior, that you don't want to see "victimless" crimes outlawed, but you don't object to laws against crimes where another is injured, either physically or financially through assault, theft, fraud, extortion and the like. To that degree, I agree with you. However, the problem comes in defining "victimless". If some bozo goes to a prostitute and brings an HIV infection home to his wife, are his actions still victimless? Ah, therein lies the rub (to quote Shakespeare). Think it over.

It wouldn't. You have described crimes with a clear victim. If your actions intentionally/knowingly harm someone else, government should step in and make sure you assume responsibility. If your actions harm yourself or harm nobody, government needs to stay out.

Both sides of the isle need to quit running to the federal government [emphasis added] with their agendas. That's what got us in this situation. I don't think we will dig ourselves out of it until we all realize that while the R's and D's throw punches by legislating our personal behavior from DC, we're the ones getting the black eyes.

More to the point (well, more to my point, anyway), I believe those are all state-level crimes.

Dave2 wrote:

texasmusic wrote:

EconDoc wrote:
That position, taken to extremes, would eliminate laws against murder, theft, fraud, etc. I assume that you mean, by bad behavior, that you don't want to see "victimless" crimes outlawed, but you don't object to laws against crimes where another is injured, either physically or financially through assault, theft, fraud, extortion and the like. To that degree, I agree with you. However, the problem comes in defining "victimless". If some bozo goes to a prostitute and brings an HIV infection home to his wife, are his actions still victimless? Ah, therein lies the rub (to quote Shakespeare). Think it over.

It wouldn't. You have described crimes with a clear victim. If your actions intentionally/knowingly harm someone else, government should step in and make sure you assume responsibility. If your actions harm yourself or harm nobody, government needs to stay out.

Both sides of the isle need to quit running to the federal government [emphasis added] with their agendas. That's what got us in this situation. I don't think we will dig ourselves out of it until we all realize that while the R's and D's throw punches by legislating our personal behavior from DC, we're the ones getting the black eyes.

More to the point (well, more to my point, anyway), I believe those are all state-level crimes.

They are federal crimes as well (USC Title 18). The states handle them almost exclusively. They overlap in some places and don't in others.

edit: My point being that we do get a lot of disagreeable laws among the states handed down from DC (NFA, Controlled substances act). While we could just leave that sort of thing to the States. Let the Californians have their dope let us Texans have our guns. Why should there be a blanket law applied between two different cultures of this kind. The traffic of drugs/guns between the two could obviously be regulated like the ICC was intended.

texasmusic wrote:My point being that we do get a lot of disagreeable laws among the states handed down from DC (NFA, Controlled substances act). While we could just leave that sort of thing to the States. Let the Californians have their dope let us Texans have our guns. Why should there be a blanket law applied between two different cultures of this kind. The traffic of drugs/guns between the two could obviously be regulated like the ICC was intended.

What do you mean by "ICC"?

Dave2 wrote:

texasmusic wrote:My point being that we do get a lot of disagreeable laws among the states handed down from DC (NFA, Controlled substances act). While we could just leave that sort of thing to the States. Let the Californians have their dope let us Texans have our guns. Why should there be a blanket law applied between two different cultures of this kind. The traffic of drugs/guns between the two could obviously be regulated like the ICC was intended.

What do you mean by "ICC"?

Interstate commerce clause.

canvasbck wrote: Even a "small l" libertarian such as myself agrees with you 100% on this point. I don't want the government to ban someone's bad behavior, but I don't want to finance it either. I want people to be free to make bad decisions and then be free to deal with the outcome of those decisions.

For what it's worth, I am also pro life. Abortion is not a victimless crime (obv).

Thank you for that.

Not everything is illegal nor should it be made so. Bad behavior has been around since...the beginning.

Government should be small. Laws should be few. Sense should be common. Rights should be obvious, respected, and exercised often. The strong should protect the weak. Those blessed with plenty should care for those who have not. Justice should be equal, swift, and fit the crime.

It really is pretty simple.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote: Government should be small. Laws should be few. Sense should be common. Rights should be obvious, respected, and exercised often. The strong should protect the weak. Those blessed with plenty should care for those who have not. Justice should be equal, swift, and fit the crime.

It really is pretty simple.

Anygunanywhere

Can I get an "Amen!" over here, brothers and sisters?

OldCannon wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: Government should be small. Laws should be few. Sense should be common. Rights should be obvious, respected, and exercised often. The strong should protect the weak. Those blessed with plenty should care for those who have not. Justice should be equal, swift, and fit the crime.

It really is pretty simple.

Anygunanywhere

Can I get an "Amen!" over here, brothers and sisters?

That would be nice!

amen in that!