Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $81,105
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 92%!! Less than $6.9k to go!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Vatican raises stakes in gay debate (Same-sex marriage 'immoral'; adoption 'does violence')

    08/01/2003 1:22:55 PM PDT · 26 of 108
    moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing to wideawake
    "So essentially you believe that law should be entirely procedural and devoid of moral content. " You bring up a very good point. If the law should be based on moral law then whose moral law will be legislated? Christian? Jewish? Muslim? If Christian then which Christian beliefs? Catholic? Anglican? Methodist? Mormon? This could be why our law is based on protecting rights and why the founders specified a separation of church and state.
  • Bin Laden Pins Blame On Bill Clinton

    09/16/2002 1:39:59 PM PDT · 34 of 34
    moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing to exit82
    "Moderation, you're a good egg, and I don't mean to pull your chain.Please re-read your reply #7 in light of our discussion, and tell me if you still think I'm the only one being partisan here. "

    Not to worry, I think we've been having a very reasonable discussion (I don't bother responding to irrational posts).

    I think I stated in my first post that I wasn't defending the democrats so much as pointing out that we've had screw-ups no matter who was in the White House. At least I thought I was clear : )
  • Bin Laden Pins Blame On Bill Clinton

    09/13/2002 2:14:26 PM PDT · 28 of 34
    moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing to exit82
    You're still being partisan.... I fully acknowledge that Democratic presidents have screwed up, but you just won't take off the blinders and admit that the Republicans have screwed up too. I don't want to keep paying the price.... but then sometimes you get what you ask for. Good luck to you.
  • Bin Laden Pins Blame On Bill Clinton

    09/13/2002 1:48:49 PM PDT · 26 of 34
    moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing to exit82
    So the fact that Reagan and Bush Sr. created the Iraq monster means nothing? I said originally that I wasn't defending Clinton, but he's not the only one who screwed up to create this situation.
  • Terrorist acted out of "courage and faith"

    09/13/2002 11:59:02 AM PDT · 7 of 21
    moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing to Otto Krueger
    I happen to agree with this view. It was an act of faith and courage; it was also stupid, pointless, and misguided. But it was an extreme act of faith that few of us would be willing to follow in support of our own beliefs.
  • Bin Laden Pins Blame On Bill Clinton

    09/11/2002 3:42:07 PM PDT · 24 of 34
    moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing to exit82
    "Not so. It was a Democrat, Truman, who allowed us to get placed in a police action, instead of winning the Korean War, even after MacArthur brilliantly saved the day with the landing in Inchon. Ike got us out of a mess.

    And, in 1964, it was a Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, that allowed us to get sucked into a war that was based on a totally fabricated incident, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and then we were not allowed to fight to win. Again a Republican had to finish the job. And it ended when we finally flexed our incredible military muscle and almost bombed Hanoi and Haiphong back into the Stone Age. "

    How exactly did MacArthur save the day and then get fired by Ike? And unless I'm mistaken we retreated from Vietnam and let the south be overrun. Is that how Nixon finished it?

    Most of you have missed my point that we have at times engaged in failed military ventures regardless of who was in the White House, and being partisan just lets you blame it all on Democrats and Liberals and ignore the details.
  • Bin Laden Pins Blame On Bill Clinton

    09/10/2002 3:14:00 PM PDT · 7 of 34
    moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing to Rome2000
    >Ragheads don't realize that the Americans only cut and run when the Democrats are in the White House.

    I'm not defending Clinton, but don't make such large generalizations. It was a Republican who cut his losses against the Chinese and North Koreans in the '50s and it was another Republican who took over in '68 only to pull us from Vietnam in '73. I also believe it was a Republican who blew a golden opportunity to get rid of Hussein in the Gulf War.

    Unfortunately, there are no guarantees no matter who is in the White House.
  • If Bill Simon Can't Be Trusted To Run A Campaign

    07/31/2002 3:56:12 PM PDT · 20 of 36
    moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing to BJungNan
    >"Having in less than one year run the California budget from a surplus of over $12 billion to a budget deficit that would shut down most third world countries..."

    Anyone want to apply that analogy to Bush? I think that would be a disastrous strategy for the Simon campaign.
  • N.E. eyed as natural locale for wind power

    07/30/2002 2:26:54 PM PDT · 17 of 35
    moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing to Argus
    >"We're just not going to have impact-free energy development. It doesn't exist yet.''

    Nuclear Power? Never heard of it. "

    Just to be clear; are you suggesting that nuclear power has no impact on the environment or locale?
  • Liberty, Morality and Order

    07/25/2002 2:37:16 PM PDT · 189 of 190
    moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing to aconservaguy
    >"I guess I'm asking how do you explain the idea of "I think we can agree that people have rights and legislate our behaviour only to protect the rights of others." in light of the seemingly relativist position you took in an earlier post. To me it seems that the idea of "individual ights" underlying the government's... legitimacy, if you will, is a "moral" idea in itself. I guess I really wasn't looking at legislating per se, but more like the basis of the government, ends and so forth. Sorry if i wasn't explicit."

    Ahhh.... I understand your question now. I'd say basically that we all have rights because we all agree that we have rights. It's highly unlikely to find anyone who would say that they shouldn't have any rights, although it's easy to find people who would that OTHERS shouldn't have rights : )
  • Liberty, Morality and Order

    07/25/2002 1:44:40 PM PDT · 187 of 190
    moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing to aconservaguy
    >"I agree that morality is a slippery topic; but just something i'm just wondering : how would you defend your statement that "I think we can agree that people have rights and legislate our behaviour only to protect the rights of others." in light of your statement "I really don't like the idea of gov't telling me what I can and can't do on an arbitrary basis (because someone finds it immoral)""

    While the difference between legislating Rights versus Morality can seem to be a minor semantic argument the results can be significant.

    The biggest difference between legislating rights versus morality is that when looking at rights there can be no crime if no one's rights have been violated. Yet, legislating morality allows the gov't to proscribe even private victimless behaviour and that is too arbitrary for me. I believe that unless there is a victim, unless someone else is affected, a person should be free to follow their own conscience and moral standard without interference from gov't.
  • Liberty, Morality and Order

    07/24/2002 2:43:28 PM PDT · 181 of 190
    moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing to aconservaguy
    "What if dealing with non-consensual sex? Yes, if there aren't any victims, you can make the argument; but what do you do when it's non-consensual? Isn't there a morality followed?"

    There is definitely an overlap between law and morality. But in some societies at various times non-consensual sex has not been considered immoral, but we can easily look at it from the perspective that the victims rights were violated. Legislating from a Rights perspective versus morality makes things simpler.

    "Even "different cultures, different time periods and different people" doesn't mean that morality is relative; objecitive standards still exist independent of the person, time period or culture. "

    That's a common opinion, but I'm curious as to your arguments to substantiate it? If you're going to point to the Bible, then what about people of other religions? Jews and Christians certainly don't view the Bible in the same way, and even among Christians alone there are widely varying concepts of morality. Looking at Catholics alone you will see church standards on morality changing radically over the centuries.

    Basically, I view morality to be too slippery a topic and I really don't like the idea of gov't telling me what I can and can't do on an arbitrary basis (because someone finds it immoral). But I think we can agree that people have rights and legislate our behaviour only to protect the rights of others. This keeps things simple, or at least simpler : )
  • Liberty, Morality and Order

    07/24/2002 1:14:36 PM PDT · 179 of 190
    moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing to RAT Patrol
    "Some people have crazy ideas about what their liberties ought to be. society cannot cater to every individual whim at the expense of the majority's liberty."

    You're absolutely correct, but again I think it helps to talk about protecting rights rather than legislating morality. Your example of the flasher is perfect in that we shouldn't make flashing illegal because someone thinks it's immoral, it should be illegal because it infringes on the rights of the people who have to look at the flasher.

    I still believe that people should be free to do anything they wish as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. It's a very simple rule that leaves out the difficulty of defining morality.
  • Liberty, Morality and Order

    07/19/2002 4:45:31 PM PDT · 32 of 190
    moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing to aconservaguy
    "The notion of "violating the rights of others" seems a moral notion in itself... "

    You're right, but the concept of protecting individual rights is a very specific and narrow approach, but morality in general extends into areas that can be muddy and certainly no where that I want gov't going.

    For instance, is pre-marital sex immoral? You'll get various answers depending on who you talk to and certainly laws can be (and have been) passed outlawing it. Assuming we're dealing with consenting adults, there are certainly no victims here so whose morality do we follow? That of the majority?

    When discussing any particular behaviour you can certainly find someone who will find it immoral and that gets complicated. However if we stick to the concept of whether the rights of an individual are being infringed then things get simpler. There has been a huge cry about moral relativism lately, but when aren't morals relative? Looking at different cultures, different time periods, and different people you will find that concepts of morality differ greatly. Right here and right now, even if you limit yourself to Christians, you will find huge differences in perceived morality.

    Keep it simple: gov't should protect the rights of the people and not attempt to be the keeper of morality.
  • Effort to Clear Top Admiral at Pearl Harbor Rejected

    06/29/2002 9:32:30 AM PDT · 24 of 64
    moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing to elephantlips
    I agree with you entirely. The ridiculous idea that FDR knew about and allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to occur, or even worse that he encouraged it, is insane. You might as well say that Bush knew about the 9/11 attack and allowed it to happen...... who here wants to support THAT theory?
  • Arafat Calls for Democratic Elections in the United States

    06/29/2002 9:15:13 AM PDT · 8 of 9
    moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing to gitmo
    You've been had.... this article was clearly listed as satire wherever is started (I saw it there a few days ago). The references are all true, but the quotes are not.
  • It's The Elite Who Are Corrupt

    06/13/2002 3:57:48 PM PDT · 38 of 43
    moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing to Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
    As usual with market-oriented conservatives and libertarians, you miss the point entirely. "The free market" has never existed in pure form except at the very lowest level. The more complicated the economy (or the polity), the more elites have the ability to guide it by making decisions about what does and what does not appear in the market (or in public debate) before the individual consumer is given a chance to "choose" (or the individual voter is given a chance to vote).

    Thus one has the illusion of choice, in a situation where, in fact, choice is pre-constrained by elites into a narrow spectrum of "acceptable public limits". More often then not, elites can allow or prohibit most material they want allowed or prohibited, without having to pass any laws to do so. Hidden rule is often more effective then open rule because it offers the illusion of freedom, but only delivering a narrow parameter which the ruling elites have decided is acceptable to them.

    Blinded by ideology and "free market" ideals, it is no wonder so many conservatives and libertarians are bad at politics, and completely unaware of the existence of metapolitics. They don't seem to realize that all of the really important political questions are decided in private, months or years, sometimes decades, before they or the general public are even aware that such political questions even exist!

    First of all your assumptions about me are about as absurd as my suggesting that you need to take off your tin-foil hat and get out in the sunshine sometime. Oh wait.....

    And the same media that gives us both Oprah AND Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh AND Tom Brokaw, Readers Digest AND Hustler....... this media is all controlled by one sinister elite? Talk about illusions.......that is one very brain-damaged conspiracy!!
  • It's The Elite Who Are Corrupt

    06/11/2002 4:55:08 PM PDT · 14 of 43
    moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing to vannrox
    The vulgarity, profanity and violence you see in entertainment are there only because those individuals occupying the positions of power in the entertainment industry said "Yes." If they said "No," those things would disappear from the screens and the magazine racks.

    Hmm..... I was under the impression that free market capitalism and the First Amendment dictated what we see on movie screens and magazine racks. I'm not sure I want gov't involved in that.
  • Federal appeals court says abortion foes intimidated doctors

    05/16/2002 1:36:22 PM PDT · 3 of 25
    moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing to gdani
    I'm curious; regardless of where you stand on abortion rights, does anyone think that the Nuremberg Files website was supporting violence against abortion providers, and do you think that violence is an appropriate tactic?
  • 'Just Sprinkle A Little Kiddy-Cocaine On Your Child's Applesauce'

    05/13/2002 3:20:34 PM PDT · 18 of 29
    moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing to zoyd
    My own personal opinion is that about 75% of those taking Ritalin are actually 'normal' kids -- their behavior falls within 'normal' bounds -- but parents can't be bothered to care for a kid with higher-than-average energy levels and lower-than-average concentration.

    I agree. But we also have to be careful that just because a diagnosis is over-applied doesn't mean that it's not a correct diagnosis for some people.