Posted on 12/30/2001 1:25:13 AM PST by NoCurrentFreeperByThatName
Nasty Republicans want to starve children. Distortions aren't facts. You behave like a Democrat as you play "ends justify means." Say whatever is needed as long as your position of power is secured. Smear, misrepresent, whatever.
I'd guess some of them rode on the cracks, sure. No word about their mothers' backs or anything, at least not in the papers.
You are going to extremes. How do you equate illegal drug use/drug addiction and a bike helmet law?
False.
Read the Libertarian Party platform:
We call for repeal of all "children's codes" or statutes which abridge due process protections for young people.
The more I read the platform, the less I see it as conservative. WOW
I am honestly shocked. I really didn't expect to read that in their platform. WOW!
Bingo. They are moral-liberals who despise conservatism, not unlike the DNC, the Greens, or the Spartacist League.
I've been known to do that. 8~).
How do you equate illegal drug use/drug addiction and a bike helmet law?
I was tying in your remark about drugs making their way to children through adults. Not everything every adult is the best, for themselves or their children. I'm sure you're a pretty decent guy and what you want is generally good. I doubt I live my life much different from what you advocate, I certainly warn my children often about the problems of drugs.
Where I diverge is that I don't want to make so many things against the law. I think that works at cross purposes to the desired outcome and many people chafe at the perceived yoke you offer. Admittedly many don't, but those that do get all bent out of shape at someone telling them what to do. They get all confused about the law, in general, and begin deciding which laws they want to obey and which they don't. People start having serious problems trying to explain why booze is legal and pot isn't. I've yet to see a defensible answer to booze vs pot -- one I'd risk my reputation with my kids over. I just think there are lots and lots of unintended consequences with these morality laws.
I have a pretty good idea who I am and know I'm not going to be doing a bunch of harmful stuff to myself or my family regardless of the current laws. I also believe I'm not so special and that the vast majority won't get caught in a vicious life. They'll know better and act accordingly. As far as kids go, they'll learn and pretty much do what's right, after some experimentation just as they always have. Will some stumble? I'd be surprised if they didn't, but who's got the foolproof solution?
Thats why free republic is here, - to discuss them, & work to correct them, just as JR was quoted as saying above.
Why are you here? -- 413 posted by tpaine
To debate many ideas and point out the difference between good and evil regarding illegal drug use on these kinds of threads. But I am hardly a one issue person.
Yep, and you also aren't an honest person. here you are, just a few minutes after proclaiming your good 'debate' intentions, swapping slurs about libertarans with a full of hate creep like roscoe.
You have no honor.
Laws do not create a market, only supply and demand do. The moral-liberal-run industries (which the L.P. lauds) help to fuel the demand. You want to end the WOD (assuming there is even one) then ban pornography and abortion and throw the pornographers and abortionists in jail, and we can win the WOD overnight.
** The Government **
The government has a responsibility to enforce the laws. But it does much more than that. It sets a moral standard, based on the knowledge that some practices have evil consequences.
Doctors are aware how harmful sodomy is. The intestines were not designed for this purpose, and expensive operations have to be done to repair the damaged muscles and intestinal tissue. Diseases, also, are introduced through sodomy.
Practices which are harmful to the practitioners, as well as society, should not be encouraged. Such practices should be frowned upon, and not allowed. It would be cruel to allow people and society to suffer. We have no problem decrying the harmfulness of tobacco. But not sodomy, and other sexual perversions.
Why is this so?
The word "liberal" used to be religious term, denoting generosity of giving. Now, it's a secular term of licentiousness.
The vast majority of people are moral and decent. But in all the areas of power in this country, in the media, the advertisers, the entertainment industry, the government, the universities and schools, there are powerful groups of liberals who think if only people would fall into a "let live" attitude in morals, everything would be fine.
The whole liberal power-structure is geared to lowering morality, and they see it as a "crusade" to bring "freedom."
The bottomline, though, is greed. That is the driving-force behind their campaign against morality. Immorality generates money, and they're right behind, scooping it up.
Source: The Wisdom of the Ages
Yes, quite so. That was my point, I left it a bit hanging, hoping those with eyes and reason would see it and come to understanding themselves.;-)
Roscoe = all blow, no show.
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.