Can America Handle the truth?

[pcgizzmo]

So, I am guessing that all those that want less government are also for legalizng drugs right?

Sure. I have no objections to making it legal for an adult to buy alcohol, ibuprofen, tetrahydrocannabinol, or azithromycin without a prescription. I think driving while intoxicated (from anything) should remain illegal, because it endangers others. I support employers being able to fire people who can't do their job, whether intoxicated, incompetent, or plumb stupid.

I also think voluntary impairment should not be a defense in criminal or civil matters. If you knowingly get stoned and enter into a contract, it should be binding. If you get drunk and kill a man, or steal a TV, there should be no leniency because of your mental state.

I also support abolition of 50% or more of "entitlement" spending, including the anti-drug strawman of taxpayer funded healthcare for people who injure themselves while intoxicated. So many problems would auto-solve if we allowed the invisible hand and natural selection to work.

Thank you.

[Dave2]

I also think voluntary impairment should not be a defense in criminal or civil matters. If you knowingly get stoned and enter into a contract, it should be binding. If you get drunk and kill a man, or steal a TV, there should be no leniency because of your mental state.

I'd take it a step further and say the punishment should be greater since you voluntarily chose to impare your judgment, bodily control, and/or mental processes.

[Oldgringo]

I also think voluntary impairment should not be a defense in criminal or civil matters. If you knowingly get stoned and enter into a contract, it should be binding. If you get drunk and kill a man, or steal a TV, there should be no leniency because of your mental state.

I'd take it a step further and say the punishment should be greater since you voluntarily chose to impare your judgment, bodily control, and/or mental processes.

[baldeagle]

So, you've never taken a drink? Maybe one too many? You've taken a drug if so. Morality is just a number on a dart board based on who you talk to. in the 1600's men routinely married girls as young as 9. Many societies allowed polygamy. Amsterdam allows smoking of hashish and prostitution. You can get prescription drugs over the counter in Mexico. Ft. Worth Tx used to have legalized prostitution. What is sin to one may not be to another and it changes with the times and the mindset of the people.

It seems like everyone want's less government unless there is something the government legislates that somehow matches their idea of morality. This all stems from someone's idea of what is right for them should be right for everyone else. If we were to move away from the way of thinking we would all be a lot better off.

You completely missed my point. ALL men are immoral. It's the nature of the beast. Your argument is, because all men are immoral, we should never legislate against immorality.

So, again, I ask you, how do you justify the death penalty? On what basis?

If the basis is it harms other people, well so do drug use, alcohol use, prostitution, pornography and all those other so-called "victimless" crimes.

It's not a question of imposing anyone's morals on someone else. It's a question of whether or not the society will become so "tolerant" that any behavior is condoned. Murder and rape are condoned in Islamist countries. Would that be acceptable to you? If not, why not? On what basis would you disallow them?

There was a time in this country when a woman getting pregnant out of wedlock was frowned upon, thought to be a bad thing. Now women openly get pregnant out of wedlock and everyone celebrates the baby and its mother. Obviously our standards have changed. But what has the impact been on society? From a political standpoint we now EXPECT our leaders to have affairs and aren't the least bit bothered when they have sex in the Oval Office or lie on the witness stand. After all, boys will be boys, they say.

We now teach sex in the public schools and in some places teach homosexuality. What's next? Labs where they can practice? Would that be wrong? On what basis? With your standard of the government should stay out of the morality business, there would be no justification for a law preventing that practice. If two "consenting" 14 year olds want to practice, what's the harm?

If you think that's GOOD for society, I disagree. There's a reason America is the cesspool of ignorance and cowardice it is now, and it's not because we've upheld our high standards. It's because we fell for the lie that "everybody does it" and "no one's perfect" and therefore we have no right to tell anyone else what to do.

[Republicans 4 Obama]

Having abortion as a litmus test prevented us from nominating somebody who could beat Obama. However, given the choice between Obama and somebody who wants to put the government in my bedroom, I choose Obama. If nothing else, when push comes to shove, I shot at Communists 40 years ago and I can do it again.

[baldeagle]

Having abortion as a litmus test prevented us from nominating somebody who could beat Obama. However, given the choice between Obama and somebody who wants to put the government in my bedroom, I choose Obama. If nothing else, when push comes to shove, I shot at Communists 40 years ago and I can do it again.

You won't get the chance to shoot at them, because they're about to take your guns away.

[mamabearCali]

Having abortion as a litmus test prevented us from nominating somebody who could beat Obama. However, given the choice between Obama and somebody who wants to put the government in my bedroom, I choose Obama. If nothing else, when push comes to shove, I shot at Communists 40 years ago and I can do it again.

I think we need to realize that it is us seeing life as sacred that ALL our rights come from. We value life, so we have the right to have the instruments that defend it. We value life, so it is illegal to steal as that takes the product of a persons time and energy and thus a bit if their life. If we do not value the smallest and weakest of human life we will eventually devalue all human life. If we don't value human life then all our natural rights will fall to the side include the right to self defense (2nd amendment).

I do not care about a persons bedroom behavior, take whatever precautions you like (as long as I don't have to pay for it). However once there is child, all be it very small it no longer is a neutral issue. If a person does not take precautions, then they invited that child into existence and thus morally cannot murder it. A child is a child no matter how small.

On the gay issue, if they want govt out of the love defining business then the govt has to get all the way out. Right now they are shilling for the LGBT lobby in our schools. Seems like they want their bedroom in the govt schools, in our churches, and in short to force us to all celebrate their choices. That seems to me like the govt wants to take the bedroom into the public square. If that is the case then those of us that see marriage the way it has been defined for the past 6,000 years of recorded history have just as much if a right to be in on the conversation as anyone.

[Oldgringo]

baldeagle wrote:
.....ALL men are immoral....

Where, may I ask, did you come by this knowledge and/or who made you the Judge?

[The Annoyed Man]

Having abortion as a litmus test prevented us from nominating somebody who could beat Obama. However, given the choice between Obama and somebody who wants to put the government in my bedroom, I choose Obama. If nothing else, when push comes to shove, I shot at Communists 40 years ago and I can do it again.

I think we need to realize that it is us seeing life as sacred that ALL our rights come from. We value life, so we have the right to have the instruments that defend it. We value life, so it is illegal to steal as that takes the product of a persons time and energy and thus a bit if their life. If we do not value the smallest and weakest of human life we will eventually devalue all human life. If we don't value human life then all our natural rights will fall to the side include the right to self defense (2nd amendment).

I do not care about a persons bedroom behavior, take whatever precautions you like (as long as I don't have to pay for it). However once there is child, all be it very small it no longer is a neutral issue. If a person does not take precautions, then they invited that child into existence and thus morally cannot murder it. A child is a child no matter how small.

On the gay issue, if they want govt out of the love defining business then the govt has to get all the way out. Right now they are shilling for the LGBT lobby in our schools. Seems like they want their bedroom in the govt schools, in our churches, and in short to force us to all celebrate their choices. That seems to me like the govt wants to take the bedroom into the public square. If that is the case then those of us that see marriage the way it has been defined for the past 6,000 years of recorded history have just as much if a right to be in on the conversation as anyone.

I have yet to see an abortion occur in a bedroom. The question, since a misguided court discovered previously nonexistent constitutional items as "penumbras" and "emanations," is can government compel a citizen who opposes abortion on reasons of conscience from having to pay for the abortion of someone else who has no such moral strictures? If someone has a right to have one, do I not have a right to say, "go ahead; just don't ask me to pay for it?"

Nobody can in all seriousness claim to vote for Obutthead based on his alleged respect for individual rights, when the liar in chief recently expended a lot of political capital to tell religious institutions that they must provide healthcare to their employees which includes an abortion option. Please tell me, "Republicans 4 Obama," that you're not as big a liar as he is......regardless of how many commies you put in the ground 40 years ago. If THAT was your only standard, why didn't you vote libertarian? If you're an aging commie-killer, then I'm roughly the same age as you are. Because of voters like you, faceless bureaucracies created by Obutthead-care are going to be making MY end of life decisions, deciding whether or not My life is worth sustaining, worth the cost of palliative care, worth less perhaps because I am a white male.

baldeagle wrote:
.....ALL men are immoral....

Where, may I ask, did you come by this knowledge and/or who made you the Judge?

You just proved the point.

You can't be both a moral relativist AND moral.

[Oldgringo]

Having abortion as a litmus test prevented us from nominating somebody who could beat Obama. However, given the choice between Obama and somebody who wants to put the government in my bedroom, I choose Obama. If nothing else, when push comes to shove, I shot at Communists 40 years ago and I can do it again.

I think we need to realize that it is us seeing life as sacred that ALL our rights come from. We value life, so we have the right to have the instruments that defend it. We value life, so it is illegal to steal as that takes the product of a persons time and energy and thus a bit if their life. If we do not value the smallest and weakest of human life we will eventually devalue all human life. If we don't value human life then all our natural rights will fall to the side include the right to self defense (2nd amendment).

I do not care about a persons bedroom behavior, take whatever precautions you like (as long as I don't have to pay for it). However once there is child, all be it very small it no longer is a neutral issue. If a person does not take precautions, then they invited that child into existence and thus morally cannot murder it. A child is a child no matter how small.

On the gay issue, if they want govt out of the love defining business then the govt has to get all the way out. Right now they are shilling for the LGBT lobby in our schools. Seems like they want their bedroom in the govt schools, in our churches, and in short to force us to all celebrate their choices. That seems to me like the govt wants to take the bedroom into the public square. If that is the case then those of us that see marriage the way it has been defined for the past 6,000 years of recorded history have just as much if a right to be in on the conversation as anyone.

I have yet to see an abortion occur in a bedroom. The question, since a misguided court discovered previously nonexistent constitutional items as "penumbras" and "emanations," is can government compel a citizen who opposes abortion on reasons of conscience from having to pay for the abortion of someone else who has no such moral strictures? If someone has a right to have one, do I not have a right to say, "go ahead; just don't ask me to pay for it?"

Nobody can in all seriousness claim to vote for Obutthead based on his alleged respect for individual rights, when the liar in chief recently expended a lot of political capital to tell religious institutions that they must provide healthcare to their employees which includes an abortion option. Please tell me, "Republicans 4 Obama," that you're not as big a liar as he is......regardless of how many commies you put in the ground 40 years ago. If THAT was your only standard, why didn't you vote libertarian? If you're an aging commie-killer, then I'm roughly the same age as you are. Because of voters like you, faceless bureaucracies created by Obutthead-care are going to be making MY end of life decisions, deciding whether or not My life is worth sustaining, worth the cost of palliative care, worth less perhaps because I am a white male.

baldeagle wrote:
.....ALL men are immoral....

Where, may I ask, did you come by this knowledge and/or who made you the Judge?

You just proved the point.

You can't be both a moral relativist AND moral.

"...here come de judge, here come de judge..." Who said that?

[baldeagle]

"...here come de judge, here come de judge..." Who said that?

I believe that was General Motors. (Just thought I'd provide an in-kind flippant answer.)

[Oldgringo]

"...here come de judge, here come de judge..." Who said that?

I believe that was General Motors. (Just thought I'd provide an in-kind flippant answer.)

Wrong; however, flippant is close - but no cigar.

[emcee rib]

On the gay issue, if they want govt out of the love defining business then the govt has to get all the way out.

That sounds great to me. Same income taxes for straight or gay. Same income taxes for married, single, or polygamous. Same income taxes for parents of 5 years olds, parents of 45 year olds, and non parents. That would be a great step forward for equality and fairness!

[The Annoyed Man]

On the gay issue, if they want govt out of the love defining business then the govt has to get all the way out.

That sounds great to me. Same income taxes for straight or gay. Same income taxes for married, single, or polygamous. Same income taxes for parents of 5 years olds, parents of 45 year olds, and non parents. That would be a great step forward for equality and fairness!

This tax benefit for married couples was created back in a time when people were willing to buy the cow before getting the milk for free. Marriage was deemed to be beneficial to society and worth of encouragement by means of financial incentive. Children were recognized as a non-producing drain on a married couple's finances but that procreation in marriage was to be encouraged, again for the general health of society and as a stabilizing influence. Thus, tax breaks were given for marriage, and for procreation.

Sadly, today people see no benefit in marriage as a stabilizing force in society.......because there is no longer any public censure for acting the whore. And the government not only does all it can to tell you that you are not sovereign in how you raise your kids, but they will pay for your condoms and abortions. Furthermore, while we here talk about how unfair it is for married couples to get a tax break for raising kids in a two parent household, government actually pays single mothers on welfare extra bribes for every ashcat they can pop out every 9 months. They're not having children; they're having cubs. And those cubs grow up expecting the same AND a free obamaphone.

You're right, in such a world, it isn't fair for single people to be taxed at a different rate that married people are; and it isn't fair for parents to get a tax break for their dependent children. In fact, it isn't fair to bring kids into it. Why should we inflict our self-made dysfunctions on them?

What a world, and welcome to it. How is it working out for everybody?

[pcgizzmo]

So, again, I ask you, how do you justify the death penalty? On what basis?

I used to justify it a lot more till DNA came along and individuals started being found innocent. Now I don't have an issue w/it if there is zero doubt of who committed the act or there is a confession. I feel about it the same way I do abortion. If there is an innocent life at stake then we need to take measures to protect it even if that means someone doesn't get the death penalty because there is doubt.

It's not a question of imposing anyone's morals on someone else. It's a question of whether or not the society will become so "tolerant" that any behavior is condoned. Murder and rape are condoned in Islamist countries. Would that be acceptable to you? If not, why not? On what basis would you disallow them?

I don't think your going to find anyone here in the US condoning murder and rape. To wrap up my answer to the question I disagree w/anything or anyone that does direct physical harm to someone else otherwise I don't really care and IMO neither should the government or anyone else.

We now teach sex in the public schools and in some places teach homosexuality. What's next? Labs where they can practice? Would that be wrong? On what basis? With your standard of the government should stay out of the morality business, there would be no justification for a law preventing that practice. If two "consenting" 14 year olds want to practice, what's the harm?

I honestly think we should teach sex education in public schools. I certainly learned enough about sex at the age of 8 or 9 from my friends brothers playboys. I learned even more from the girl across the street at the age of 12 when we played Dr. The more we demystify sex and quit hiding it like it's this evil thing and talk about it with our children, let them know it's normal human activity the less problems we will have in my opinion.

As far as homosexuality goes I don't really care who is gay or if they want to get married as long as they don't try and make a pass at me I'm fine with it. A gay man sung the most beautiful Ava Maria in my wedding I've ever heard. Right, wrong, against my morals etc... it's not directly physically harming anyone else so I don't really care. I don't think anyone else should care either. If you don't believe in it then teach your children that it's wrong etc.. and hope they listen or better yet hope one of them doesn't happen to turn out gay. You may change your feeling on it if that happens. I have a friend that is a pastor of a church of over 700 people. Guess what? His son just came out. He was taught it was not right etc.. etc.. that didn't stop him. His parents have taken a complete about face on their feelings about it by the way. Funny how being in the fire changes your mind about things..