^^^^+1

majorspark;1085390 wrote: I don't want prostitutes trolling the streets in front of my house

But imagine the convenience!

Hmmm, in the Obama economy the "oldest profession" is on the rise. So perhaps he DOES create jobs, and perhaps he has accomplished something of note.

sjmvsfscs08;1084899 wrote: The GOP is stepping on its own **** by dragging this primary out; once again the Bible-thumpers are holding the party hostage.

We've had something like 8 or 9 states hold primaries or caucases so far, and you're pissed it's being "dragged out"?

I Wear Pants;1085335 wrote:FTFY

The bible thumpers tend to want government intervention in religious, sexual, and "moral" issues like marriage rather than being truly conservative.

Government intervention is a two-way street when it comes to moral/social issues. Not a single state allowed abortion-on-demand in 1973 before the Supreme Court intervened and told us all that eliminating babies is OK and a woman's right. Citizens of California (not exactly the Bible belt) in 2008 voted to amend their state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, and the federal courts intervened and said that's not allowed.

The bottom line is morality and law are not so easily separated like liberals would have us believe- it's just who gets to decide them and on what level, as majorspark pointed out. Most people believe that killing another human being is immoral. It also happens to be illegal. Under the "no morality whatsoever" doctrine we would have to turn most of our legal code upside down.

IggyPride00;1085025 wrote:Correct, I actually prefer Newt, but he is done.

You wanted Newt bc you though it'd be cool to live on the moon. Be honest.

jhay78;1085687 wrote:We've had something like 8 or 9 states hold primaries or caucases so far, and you're pissed it's being "dragged out"?



Government intervention is a two-way street when it comes to moral/social issues. Not a single state allowed abortion-on-demand in 1973 before the Supreme Court intervened and told us all that eliminating babies is OK and a woman's right. Citizens of California (not exactly the Bible belt) in 2008 voted to amend their state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, and the federal courts intervened and said that's not allowed.

The bottom line is morality and law are not so easily separated like liberals would have us believe- it's just who gets to decide them and on what level, as majorspark pointed out. Most people believe that killing another human being is immoral. It also happens to be illegal. Under the "no morality whatsoever" doctrine we would have to turn most of our legal code upside down.

No, most "liberals" want our laws on that sort of thing to be based upon harm to people and not religious bullshit.

Murdering a person is wrong because it harms that person and their family and friends, not because the bible says it's wrong.

I Wear Pants;1085729 wrote:No, most "liberals" want our laws on that sort of thing to be based upon harm to people and not religious bullshit.

Murdering a person is wrong because it harms that person and their family and friends, not because the bible says it's wrong.

What about indirect harm to people?

I Wear Pants;1085729 wrote:No, most "liberals" want our laws on that sort of thing to be based upon harm to people and not religious bullshit.

Murdering a person is wrong because it harms that person and their family and friends, not because the bible says it's wrong.

So you agree Abortion is wrong and should not be legal?

majorspark;1085301 wrote:This happens all the time in presidential primaries. Rush was playing this up last election with "operation chaos" thinking somehow dragging out a primary is going to hurt the eventual nominee. Didn't hurt Obama.

Not to quibble too much, but the main reason Rush went with Operation Chaos was because Hillary was the only entity vetting Barry. I'll agree that he was OK with a long primary battle as it would cost money that couldn't be spent in the final battle and a bloody lip or two is seen as a good thing to the opposite party.

The main stream press was soooo much wanting to make history and have our first black POTUS, that they refused to look into anything in his past, refused to push him on publishing his college transcripts, refused to dig into the Bill Ayers/Dorghan/Resko quagmires, refused to read and report on his books wherein he covets marxist teachings/philosophy, refused to look into his dirtbag campaign manager that could magically unseal court records, refused to vet his "electricity will necessarily skyrocket" plans, refused to understand Rev Wright/Father Pfleger, and flat-out simply refused to do their jobs. Hillary, while desiring the presidency, was not willing to dig too deep as she would rather have Barry be prez than any Republican, yet she was exposing him more than anyone else nationally. Since McCain basically said all of Barry's past was off the table and not worthy of a Presidential vetting (which drove Palin nuts during the campaign), Rush saw Hillary as the only one with balls enough to do it and the only way she could continue to expose him was to win primaries.

I Wear Pants;1085335 wrote:FTFY

The bible thumpers tend to want government intervention in religious, sexual, and "moral" issues like marriage rather than being truly conservative.

It's difficult in drawing the line (legislatively)in the sand regarding morality. If one lives an amoral life, does it hurt the macro society? Anyone that thinks amoral living doesn't hurt our society is blinded by the liberal media.

The millions of women (and men) who use abortion as a means of birth control, are simply selfish pigs....who, for the most part, would steal, rob cheat to support a me only attitude. Couple that with the others that pump out 5 or 6 kids and never work a day of their life.

And that's just for starters.

Morality? Societal cost? You betcha.

You say that the Bible has no authority in preaching morality. Well OK. But then who does? Or what does?

For the most part, the liberalization of social mores has in fact been the major cause of our ever expanding welfare state. People live for the now, many embellishing a hedonist persona...and the general population taxpayer en masse ends up paying for it in oh so many ways.

Just look at the statistics on single parent moms. Good Gawd yawl....the disparity regarding success...versus those that are raised with 2 parents. Both the single parents...and the kids live a shid life.

BGFalcons82;1085812 wrote:The main stream press was soooo much wanting to make history and have our first black POTUS, that they refused to look into anything in his past, refused to push him on publishing his college transcripts, refused to dig into the Bill Ayers/Dorghan/Resko quagmires, refused to read and report on his books wherein he covets marxist teachings/philosophy, refused to look into his dirtbag campaign manager that could magically unseal court records, refused to vet his "electricity will necessarily skyrocket" plans, refused to understand Rev Wright/Father Pfleger, and flat-out simply refused to do their jobs.

You tell them brother!

They'll still be whining in 2017, when Obama's second term is complete.

stlouiedipalma;1086727 wrote:They'll still be whining in 2017, when Obama's second term is complete.

Kind of like the whining about Al Gore losing 8 years later when Bush's 2nd term was complete?

stlouiedipalma;1086727 wrote:They'll still be whining in 2017, when Obama's second term is complete.

I won't whine. I'll laugh if he is in office for 8 years. I'll laugh at our continued stupidity.

The people will deserve what we get if we reelect him.

Con_Alma;1086738 wrote:I won't whine. I'll laugh if he is in office for 8 years. I'll laugh at our continued stupidity.

The people will deserve what we get if we reelect him.

The nearly 50% that don't pay taxes are enjoying their handouts now, but ultimately they will pay one way or the other via a decline in real total comp or in higher taxes (once the govt realizes that even ridiculously high rates on the wealthy and corporations isn't a large enough tax base to fund everything).

We are heading down a path where the govt is taking more and more of your money, directly or indirectly, because the most inefficient and wasteful organization in the world thinks they can spend your money more wisely than you can.

I don't disagree.

Footwedge;1086010 wrote:It's difficult in drawing the line (legislatively)in the sand regarding morality. If one lives an amoral life, does it hurt the macro society? Anyone that thinks amoral living doesn't hurt our society is blinded by the liberal media.

The millions of women (and men) who use abortion as a means of birth control, are simply selfish pigs....who, for the most part, would steal, rob cheat to support a me only attitude. Couple that with the others that pump out 5 or 6 kids and never work a day of their life.

And that's just for starters.

Morality? Societal cost? You betcha.

You say that the Bible has no authority in preaching morality. Well OK. But then who does? Or what does?

For the most part, the liberalization of social mores has in fact been the major cause of our ever expanding welfare state. People live for the now, many embellishing a hedonist persona...and the general population taxpayer en masse ends up paying for it in oh so many ways.

Just look at the statistics on single parent moms. Good Gawd yawl....the disparity regarding success...versus those that are raised with 2 parents. Both the single parents...and the kids live a shid life.

I'd argue that those who pump out 5 and 6 kids and such are in all likelihood Christian people being influenced by people to not get abortions or perhaps to not use contraception.

You make it sound as if things were nice when societal mores were skewed vastly towards a conservative stance. Well that world fucking sucked.

And I don't see how single parent statistics has any damn thing to do with what I said.

jmog;1086731 wrote:Kind of like the whining about Al Gore losing 8 years later when Bush's 2nd term was complete?

We'll talk about that if the GOP candidate wins the general election but loses the presidency in a very controversial way. Don't act like republicans wouldn't have thrown the same fit.

I Wear Pants;1086919 wrote:I'd argue that those who pump out 5 and 6 kids and such are in all likelihood Christian people being influenced by people to not get abortions or perhaps to not use contraception.

Or, more likely they are either couples who like children OR one's who have more children as a way to make more money from welfare.

I Wear Pants;1086919 wrote:You make it sound as if things were nice when societal mores were skewed vastly towards a conservative stance. Well that world ****ing sucked.

Not nearly as much as this one does.....

I Wear Pants;1086919 wrote:And I don't see how single parent statistics has any damn thing to do with what I said.

But you cannot argue that the children of 2 parent, nuclear families are generally more successful than kids raised in single parent homes.

wkfan;1086946 wrote:Or, more likely they are either couples who like children OR one's who have more children as a way to make more money from welfare.



Not nearly as much as this one does.....



But you cannot argue that the children of 2 parent, nuclear families are generally more successful than kids raised in single parent homes.

No I can't, which is why I'm all for adoption and stuff (yes even for gay couples).

And we live in the best time ever, don't kid yourself. Things were not better in the past.

I Wear Pants;1086919 wrote:I'd argue that those who pump out 5 and 6 kids and such are in all likelihood Christian people being influenced by people to not get abortions or perhaps to not use contraception.

I doubt it. Most Christian large families are planned large families with...gulp....2 parents. Whatv a concept, eh? And secondly, Virtually all Christian families practice birth control...and I'm talking in the 98% range. So by and large, families of Christians....are planned.

Those that don't plan pay a serious price for not doing so. Our liberated social mores pushes 17-19 years olds to stick their wick into as many wanting snatch as they can. And today, it's pretty easy being a male whore.

So what's the problem right? Abortion is simply a phone call way...and if the woman (or man) has any appreciation regarding terminating the life of their own offspring....then it should bother them for decades.

The other option...if they can't scrape up the $2500 or so in order to have the embilical cord sliced in two....have your child...and then call the social security administration. And guess what? The more babies you pop out, the more money Uncle Sam forks over.

Never mind the kids' lives are crap...and the woman's life is crap. And daddy is nowhere to be found. Don't know who he is either. And don't care. That's your social mores that most liberals embrace.

You make it sound as if things were nice when societal mores were skewed vastly towards a conservative stance. Well that world ****ing sucked.

They did? Really? Got a link for that? We had stable families for the most part....and far, far less on the public dole. The welfare state has grown exponentially over the past 3 decades or so. Back then, daddy worked and mommy stayed at home and raised the kids. They did more with less and the family institution meant a lot more. There is no price tag that can be placed on those that come from a close knit family. Today, it's all about gluttonous, hedonous activities. Everything for me. The rancid stench of "self serving" mores reaches up and through all walks of life now...including Wall Street. The fluence of a decadent society permeates at will...with very little human feelings for other fellow humans. The prevalance of endless wars is just an offshoot. Abortion, wars...all from the same toilet...just different flush handles.

It used to be that religious people were admired in this country. The church goers...didn't matter if they were Jewish, Protestant, or Catholic. Another stability for the home. Today atheists seem to be the preferred breed. Just look at the number of regulars who pound on the "Bible thumpers" here on OC. Are there extremists that can become annoying? You bet. I've mentioned them myself here. But those are the exceptions...and not the rule.

Social conservatism worked and worked well. Anyone who thinks otherwise should do a little research on what life was like in the sixties...versus the garbage that we see today.

I Wear Pants;1086963 wrote:And we live in the best time ever, don't kid yourself. Things were not better in the past.

Not even close.

I Wear Pants;1086922 wrote:We'll talk about that if the GOP candidate wins the general election but loses the presidency in a very controversial way. Don't act like republicans wouldn't have thrown the same fit.

You are 100% incorrect, Gore did NOT win the general election.

You failed government class in HS if you equate having more total votes across the whole nation with winning the general election. You win states and accumulate Electoral College votes, you don't win by winning the total popular vote.

Footwedge;1087119 wrote:I doubt it. Most Christian large families are planned large families with...gulp....2 parents. Whatv a concept, eh? And secondly, Virtually all Christian families practice birth control...and I'm talking in the 98% range. So by and large, families of Christians....are planned.

Those that don't plan pay a serious price for not doing so. Our liberated social mores pushes 17-19 years olds to stick their wick into as many wanting snatch as they can. And today, it's pretty easy being a male whore.

So what's the problem right? Abortion is simply a phone call way...and if the woman (or man) has any appreciation regarding terminating the life of their own offspring....then it should bother them for decades.

The other option...if they can't scrape up the $2500 or so in order to have the embilical cord sliced in two....have your child...and then call the social security administration. And guess what? The more babies you pop out, the more money Uncle Sam forks over.

Never mind the kids' lives are crap...and the woman's life is crap. And daddy is nowhere to be found. Don't know who he is either. And don't care. That's your social mores that most liberals embrace.



They did? Really? Got a link for that? We had stable families for the most part....and far, far less on the public dole. The welfare state has grown exponentially over the past 3 decades or so. Back then, daddy worked and mommy stayed at home and raised the kids. They did more with less and the family institution meant a lot more. There is no price tag that can be placed on those that come from a close knit family. Today, it's all about gluttonous, hedonous activities. Everything for me. The rancid stench of "self serving" mores reaches up and through all walks of life now...including Wall Street. The fluence of a decadent society permeates at will...with very little human feelings for other fellow humans. The prevalance of endless wars is just an offshoot. Abortion, wars...all from the same toilet...just different flush handles.

It used to be that religious people were admired in this country. The church goers...didn't matter if they were Jewish, Protestant, or Catholic. Another stability for the home. Today atheists seem to be the preferred breed. Just look at the number of regulars who pound on the "Bible thumpers" here on OC. Are there extremists that can become annoying? You bet. I've mentioned them myself here. But those are the exceptions...and not the rule.

Social conservatism worked and worked well. Anyone who thinks otherwise should do a little research on what life was like in the sixties...versus the garbage that we see today.

You were a big Pat Buchanan fan, weren't you?

I agree that many of the social values the majority of the country held for a long time made for a much better society than we have today. The role families play has diminished for 50 years. Of course, the government makes it more lucrative for a woman to have children and not marry the father. If she marries the father his income would count against the welfare she would get. If she doesn't marry him she will get the full amount from the government and he will be forced to pay child support. It's a windfall. Yes, government welfare programs break up families. Don't act surprised. I know they meant well.

The thing is, it is not the governments place to legislate morality. In fact, when they stay out of the way the people tend to be more moral. When people are responsible for themselves they take responsibility for their children and try to make marriages work instead of running away to collect their check. They are responsible for educating their kids instead of dumping them on the state for 8 hours a day while their heads get filled with nationalistic and totalitarian propaganda. The government can not make people moral. They can, however, incentivize immorality.

I Wear Pants;1082784 wrote:“If you listen to the radio today, many of these brand new, so-called heavy metal music bands like Black Sabbath, Venom, The WASP and Iron Maiden use satanic imagery to corrupt the minds of young people,” -Santorum

"You know, I think Santorum has some presidential qualities, and I'm hoping that if it does come down to it, we'll see a Republican in the White House... and that it's Rick Santorum." - Dave Mustaine.

Cleveland Buck;1087132 wrote:You were a big Pat Buchanan fan, weren't you?

I agree that many of the social values the majority of the country held for a long time made for a much better society than we have today. The role families play has diminished for 50 years. Of course, the government makes it more lucrative for a woman to have children and not marry the father. If she marries the father his income would count against the welfare she would get. If she doesn't marry him she will get the full amount from the government and he will be forced to pay child support. It's a windfall. Yes, government welfare programs break up families. Don't act surprised. I know they meant well.

The thing is, it is not the governments place to legislate morality. In fact, when they stay out of the way the people tend to be more moral. When people are responsible for themselves they take responsibility for their children and try to make marriages work instead of running away to collect their check. They are responsible for educating their kids instead of dumping them on the state for 8 hours a day while their heads get filled with nationalistic and totalitarian propaganda. The government can not make people moral. They can, however, incentivize immorality.

Yes, I am a Pat Buchanan follower. My only problem with Pat is that I think he is an anti Semite.

As for legislating morality....no...I never said that. Look through all of my recent posts on the issue. My argument doesn't include that.

But the cultural changes that have transpired over the past 30 years or so has definitely contributed to our societal downfall.

And I'm hardly in the minority regarding the issue.

For example...as recently as last year, a full 67% agree that single parents have a deleterious effect on society. The numbers don't lie.

You know it's kind of ironic....but one of my favorite talk show hosts is none other than Walter Williams...a guy who used to fill in for the fatman.

Williams agenda was social conservatism....and he had all the numbers backing up what he claimed.

People get all wrapped up with gay people, gay marriage...and what not. What gays do affects nobody in the big picture. But the single moms (25%) effects every single taxpayer out there.