Posted on 06/30/2011 4:39:19 PM PDT by TheDingoAteMyBaby
There is a HUGE difference between letting parents decide whether specific video games are appropriate for their children, and letting predators have unfettered access to young girls. I honestly don't know where or how you came up with such a comparison.
“A law is unnecessary where people have moral standards - where moral standards are absent - the law will be insufficient.”
have I read Blackstone?
No, im not even sure what or whom Blackstone is.
James Otis was a Massachusetts politician.
George Mason was a Virginian Anti-federalist and slave owner, although he found the institution repugnant.
James Madison anther Virginian and life long slave holder who was like George Mason apauled by the Institution of slavery although he saw fit to do little about it.
I fail to see how any of this has anything to do with the topic at hand.
A man’s position on slavery has nothing to do with the incorporation of the federal “bill of rights” upon the States which did not even begin under Federal Tyrant in black robe Edict until 1925.
I do believe in laws - although I know they are insufficient to prevent crime or properly punish the perpetrators. The subject though was moral laws, blue laws, speech code laws, obscenity laws, birth control bans, alcohol prohibition and the like. Although the sentiment is surely true as well for the protection from and punishment of violent crimes and property crimes.
Yes, robbery is illegal, and robbers should be put in prison - but the law is insufficient to protect my family and property - thus I am armed and have a dog. The law will not need to properly punish the person who breaks into my house, as they don't prosecute dead men.
A law is unnecessary where people have moral standards - where moral standards are absent - the law will be insufficient.
You really are clueless, you are talking to a social conservative and you want to pretend that is what I am fighting for
You are at war with our culture and morals and are strengthening the same court decisions of the last 60 years that has led to the government running every facet of all of our lives, you support the federal government against the parents and local communities, that is how you advance the homosexual agenda, you guys had to crush our communities and our self rule before you could force things like the homosexual agenda onto our communities and culture.
Only the force of law and the force of a hostile govenrment could advance your homosexual agenda on a nation of conservatives that fought it all the way.
I do NOT support government intrusion into the minutiae of everyday life - federal, state, or local. That is the entire point of the argument that apparently you were too blind to see. I support individual responsibility not the nannyState.
You are for any law that abridges freedom so long as you can delude yourself that it will curb licentiousness.
Where morality exists a law is not necessary - where morality does not exist - the law will be insufficient.
You want laws. You think these laws will protect you. You are a fool to think so.
The fact is, that is how you guys imposed the homosexual agenda, you removed control from the American people and used the federal government to force it on us.
It is how you guys have accomplished so much in only 50 years, the force of federal power and the Supreme Court.
You should worship the Warren Court, it was the most powerful court you guys ever had.
But you confirm exactly what I said about you in my previous posts by making that your argument.
You don't have a consistent logical or coherent ideology - just “us” and “them”.
You support any and all such abridgments of liberty if you agree with the purported effect - especially the enforcement of your morality upon the minutiae of life.
You cannot even get it straight that I am against government encroachment - from either side - you just go on with your prepackaged argument you have ready for one of “them”.
I am not one of “them”, I am me.
You cannot argue against me, just the homosexual liberal who does things in your head. That ain't me. Thus you continue to act the fool and confirm exactly what I have said.
Thanks for that! :)
You are one of them, your only argument is to give the law to them, while we all go Gandhi and stay out of it.
You support the gains of the left against what you see as us using laws to create our communities and regulate the extremes, rather than doing nothing except chanting that ‘morality is within’ laws are useless and wrong.
The proper thing to do when the pimps and hookers, and pornographers, and homosexuality, get out of control in your city, is to pass laws and enforce them, not to lock your door and chant, ‘what will be be, will be’.
The only difference is the morality you would see enforced.
I don't drink enough to ever get drunk. I support laws against public drunkenness. But I think prohibition was and is a ridiculous notion.
I never have and never will engage the services of a prostitute. I support laws against prostitution. But I recognize that it is a human universal throughout time and all cultures and that laws will not prevent it.
Pornography is available on every computer. Do you think they should ban it? I am against public displays of such and was glad that 7-Eleven and other retailers started keeping it behind the counter or with a screen over the cover after public condemnation.
Homosexuality is also a human universal in every time and all cultures. They have a right to parade and such on THEIR parade (like even the Nazis do here in America where we have freedom) - I am against enforced parade inclusion (Fireman parades and such in NYC) under the Constitutional grounds of freedom of association.
Forced inclusion is just the nannyState enforcement of a different morality.
I am against such things consistently based upon the idea of a limited government of enumerated powers and sovereign citizens.
The laws that are getting passed and enforced in San Francisco are based upon the same theory of governance that you believe in, it will just be a different morality enforced.
LOL, that would be a huge difference, but even that isn't the fact, good laws promote a good society, the left has converted the law into a libertarian club to destroy American culture and society, and our communities.
You just changed your tune and listed laws that you do approve of, I noticed that I was right about you supporting the homosexual agenda, the gay agenda is always a tell for you guys, it proves that you are not conservative.
The Warren Court lives in your hearts.
I didn't change my tune at all. I said (once you changed the subject to violent and property crimes) that I supported laws against robbery and violent crimes, but that consistent with my statement - the law is insufficient; apparently that was above your reading comprehension level.
Where there is morality a law is not needed, where there is no morality the law will be insufficient.
Law enforces compliance with the law, it doesn't curb licentiousness.
Keeping unaccompanied kids out of R rated movies is a good thing - but it doesn't stop kids for seeing R rated movies.
Once you accept that government has the power to regulate the minutiae of life - the morality of your San Francisco Fag mirror image will be used to regulate the minutiae of life to enforce their morality against circumcision, happy meal toys, fattening foods, non acceptance of homosexual clients and tenants.
The nannyState is what you want - just a different nanny.
This is like talking to some dreamy stoned teen, law helps us keep the damage to a minimum, we are not a little commune, or cult, where everyone is on the same page, we used to be sort of like that, but your types brought in the courts and a left wing government to break up all that cohesion. The fact is that when the good people can’t make their good laws, laws don’t just go away, it creates an environment that brings in more law, and more government.
Your fantasy makes things worse, not better.
You keep chanting your mantra like a stoner, chanting doesn’t maintain good order and a safe and decent, family friendly culture.
Frankly you aren’t making any sense at all, I don’t even know what your point is, you contradict yourself.
You seem to be talking about a no laws standards for a monastery, not a nation of 300 million people. You keep chanting about everyone being moral is enough, well we aren’t all moral and the more you types prevail, the less moral we become as a whole, the less able we are to encourage morality, to sell it as the widely held standard, to display it as normal, to forcefully remind someone who is immoral that they can not exploit our kids, or our common space as the culture sinks deeper into the morass, that is why we need law to keep sociopaths and criminals, and pornographers and homosexuals, and pushers, and pimps, and so on within boundaries, and to get them to hide their excesses from public view, the way that we treated homosexuality and consumption sins for 200 years.
Why don’t you go smoke a doobie and put your repetitious chant that you see as the end to the world’s problems, to music, or at least on a bumper sticker.
This is the first time I can recall Thomas and Scalia splitting their votes. Interesting...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.