So-con questions for CJ


#1

Since the thread at http://www.republicanoperative.com/forums/f22/federal-court-u-s-supreme-court-ruling-atheism-religion-41026/ is about the atheism being called a “religion”, and, like RwNj I could care less about that and it doesn’t matter to me one way or the other, I have started a new thread. Since my intent is to discuss CJ’s issue with so-cons, I have decided to start a new thread rather than hijack that one.

However, CJ’s comments in that thread have prompted this . . . I just didn’t want to contribute to more thread-drift there.

Also, I have no intention of discussing beliefs in Christianity versus beliefs in atheism. That topic is a non-starter, with the atheists digging their heels in and some even attacking Christians personally. It has been “debated” here ad nauseam and usually devolves into insults and sarcasm and the thread goes south. I would rather have a lively but civil discussion here confined to CJ’s view of so-cons.

Don’t misunderstand. I solicit EVERY ONE’S comments. It’s just that I have specific questions and comments for CJ in this OP.

CJ seems to be obsessed with so-cons and the significance he places on their political views (morbid fear? “danger”?) CJ’s stated fear:

And the so-con obsession, which seems to be related to the above quotes:

[quote="Cactus Jack]How is that different from saying so cons are bigots?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Cactus Jack]However, I’ve seen Cam get admonished for calling so cons “bigots”[/QUOTE]

[quote=“Cactus_Jack, post:53, topic:31001”]
The only intellectual laziness and dishonesty here is yours Pete, but intellectual dishonesty seems to be a way of life around here with the religious so-cons so it’s hardly surprising
[/quote]So you would put Pete not only in the category of a liar, but also in the category of a so-con who threatens your liberty?

[quote="Cactus Jack]And So cons wonder why they’re losing relevance. Amazing.[/QUOTE]This seems to be contradictory. On the one hand you are wringing your hands over the possibility of so-con control, yet in this quote you seem to be saying that so-cons are not worth worrying about. Which is it? So-cons are a threat or they’re not. You can’t have it both ways, unless of course you want to stamp out every last vestige of social conservative thought.

[QUOTE=Cactus Jack, post:29, topic:36112"]
So-cons will never win over moderates and centrists because they are jack boot right wing
[/quote]Same question as above.

And in the same vein:

[quote=“Cactus_Jack, post:72, topic:39741”]
Yes, I’m very happy to see the pendulum swinging in the direction of personal liberty. It’s a good thing.
[/quote]Contradiction again?

OK . . . so let’s take some examples from the REAL WORLD, not some imagined threat.

First we have the Reagan presidency . . . Ronald Reagan being the so-con hero, and with good cause.

Reagan was in power for eight years. During that time, did we see legislation passed reversing Roe v Wade? Did we see legislation passed compelling display of the nativity scene on public property? Did we see legislation passed compelling any specific prayer being recited in schools? Did we see legislation passed compelling ANY Christian actions?

So much for that so-con having the “legislative agenda of evangelical types.”

But Reagan and his so-con ideas didn’t control the legislative branch you say.

OK . . . so let’s take the 104th Congress, the one controlled by so-cons and their “Contract with America”. During that time, did we see legislation passed reversing Roe v Wade? Did we see legislation passed compelling display of the nativity scene on public property? Did we see legislation passed compelling any specific prayer being recited in schools? Did we see legislation passed compelling ANY Christian actions?

So much for that so-con Congress having the “legislative agenda of evangelical types.”

But, you say, that’s the feds . . . the states are a different animal.

OK . . . so let’s take the Republican governor of Ohio, John Kasich. Kasich was sworn in as the governor of Ohio on January 10th, 2011.

Though Kasich has held positions contrary to some gun rights activists, and is on the NRA “enemies list”, he is nevertheless a “born-again Christian” and actually was raised in the Roman Catholic faith in his youth (he left the Catholic church and is now a non-denominational Christian.) He was a member of the 104th Congress “Contract with America” crowd. It’s fair to call him a so-con, albeit maybe a soft one.

During Kasich’s time and up to the present, did we see Ohio legislation passed reversing Roe v Wade? Did we see Ohio legislation passed compelling display of the nativity scene on public property? Did we see Ohio legislation passed compelling any specific prayer being recited in schools? Did we see legislation passed compelling ANY Christian actions?

So much for that so-con state governor having the “legislative agenda of evangelical types.”

And Jack H., a so-con if there ever was one, pointed out to you:

And here’s another quote of yours that has me baffled:

[quote=“Cactus_Jack, post:72, topic:39741”]
RET is an extremist with a black and white view of the world. I don’t think anything terrifies me more than those who see the world in black and white. Everyone is either good or evil, white hats or black hats, with you or against you. Just can’t fathom that kind of thinking. So limiting.
[/quote]You seem to have a black and white view of so-cons. Apparently then you CAN “fathom that kind of thinking.”

So why are you so concerned about so-cons, especially considering that in the REAL WORLD they have passed no “evangelical legislation” as detailed above, and also considering Jack H’s stated position? And what about the contradictions that I see? I am not claiming that they are contradictions in fact, just that I see them that way.

Your thoughts?

Finally, an issue totally unrelated to this so-con stuff, but one that has always remained a question in my mind. So maybe you can answer this for me.

Atheists always want to get rid of any reference to the name “God” in public places and pledges. Now a lot of the national monuments in Washington, D.C., have the word “God” inscribed . . . the Jefferson Memorial having inscribed, “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” and the Lincoln Memorial having his Gettysburg address inscribed with this phrase included, “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom . . .”.

These monuments are viewed by gazillions of school age children every year. Atheists clearly don’t like the idea of children being “indoctrinated” and introduced to “God” in public places. And wouldn’t viewing an inscription with the word “God” in it sometimes be akin to young minds learning “dogma”, which as I understand it, you’re dead set against?

So what do atheists propose to do here? Sandblast the word “God” out of the stone or forbid their children from viewing certain national monuments?


#2

`
I gotta feeling this can turn out to be a super great thread. You had a good idea here, BobJam.

Where are you Cactus Jack? I know you’re out there some where!! … lol … :freaked:

Hey Cactus Jack, let me just say up front that, “You can just relax and enjoy your days, and stop constantly looking over your
shoulder, 'cause I do NOT want to put you in jail.” :howler:

♫ ♫ ♪ ♪

PS
Prediction: The A-Team (atheists) and their co-horts will NEVER give up there alledged “fear” of the so-called SoCons because doing that would
mean they would no longer have their “Great Big Pseudo Boogie Man” to rant and rave about and accuse of being guilty of Authoritarianism! … lol …

CJ: You’re guilty of Authoritarianism!

Jack: What?

CJ: Authoritarianism!

Jack: Duh, whas’ that?

CJ: You want to put me in prison!

Jack: For what?

… lol …

… to be continued …


#3

It’s not really contradictory. Politically motivated so cons are authoritarians, and are a threat to liberty, but at the same time they are also losing relevance. Younger conservatives are decidedly libertarian in outlook. They have grown up without fearing homosexuals or understanding the so con obsession with the failed war on drugs. Things are changing, but slowly.

Firstly, Roe vs. Wade will never be overturned. It’s not that Reagan didn’t want to do it, he couldn’t. However, he did usher in two pro-life cornerstones of U.S. policy. The Hyde amendment and the Mexico City Policy executive order. He did what he could, but was limited in what he could achieve.

Yes, I say that.

How much can really be achieved in four years? But that doesn’t mean they weren’t screaming for their agenda to be pushed, as this article from 1997 makes clear:

Ralph Reed, executive director of the powerful Christian Coalition, put it starkly this week: “If I have a message today for the Republican Party, it is that the most dynamic issues, the winning issues, and the cutting-edge issues in American politics today are moral and cultural, they are not fiscal and economic.”

Only 80 days into the session, the Christian right can point to legislative victories: The House passed a bill to ban so-called partial-birth abortions. It also passed a nonbinding resolution to support the public display of the Ten Commandments in government buildings. A bill to bar use of federal funds for doctor-assisted suicide is winding through Congress.

In addition, Christian conservatives are strongly backing a bill that would allow government vouchers for religious schools and government funds for religiously based drug treatment. And this week, religious conservatives unveiled what some call the most important bill of all: a constitutional amendment to allow prayer in public schools.

“The religious right is more aggressive in this Congress than ever, period, even compared with the early days of the Reagan administration,” says Barry Lynn, head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a constitutional watchdog group that ardently opposes the religious right.

“But how it will turn out is uncertain,” Mr. Lynn adds, noting that with President Clinton still in the White House, social conservatives will have a hard time enacting their agenda.

Religious Right Extends Its Reach - CSMonitor.com

It’s not that the so cons haven’ wanted to push their religious authoritarian agenda, they just haven’t been that successful at it.

Kasich is definitely a “soft” social conservative. Politicians like Trent Franks are far more extreme. Besides, I have made the point before that there are two types of social conservatives, activist social conservatives and those that aren’t. The ones that aren’t, live as social conservatives but don’t try and force it on others. There are many of these, but these social conservatives are not the ones I fight against.

Jack is far from being an activist social conservative. RET423, Tiny1, Susanna and Fantasy Chaser are better examples of authoritarian social conservatives on RO. But even Jack has his authoritarian moments. He believes that those who produce pornography involving consenting adults should be locked up and the key thrown away.

RWNJ is an example of a so con who has absolutely no interest in forcing his values on others. In fact, he is probably the best example of a so con I have absolutely no problem with. He lives his life by socially conservative values but believes that others should be allowed to live their lives according to the values they choose… as long as they don’t violate the rights of others in the process.

I don’t have a black and white view of so-cons. I have already clearly distinguished between two very different varieties. I do think authortiarian, activist so cons are a threat to liberty, but so are many on the far left. Extremist ideologues are dangerous no matter what their political leanings. I just happen to have good reason to talk a lot about authoritarian so cons here at RO, because they are so prevalent.

BTW, I was referring to RET’s entire world view, which is built around a black and white view of everything. There are no shades of gray in his world, while mine is filled with them.

Your argument seems to be that because activist social conservatives have failed to legislatively enact their agenda that I should just ignore that they are trying to do it. That because they haven’t been able to legislate their religious authoritarianism that they don’t want to. I disagree. You could make the same point about those on the extreme left. They haven’t had much luck in pushing their far left agenda but that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be opposed or fought against. And before you accuse Obama of being on the extreme left, he is far from being far left. The far left despise him because he is so far to the center.

I don’t speak for all atheists, but I believe that government should be entirely secular. I believe that government should not endorse any religion, nor favor one over the other. A completely secular government is the only way to guarantee freedom of religion, as then government cannot be used as a tool by one religion to discriminate against others. The only way to ensure that sharia law never gains a foothold in government is an unbreakable separation between church and state.

I don’t necessarily object to the non-religion specific historical mentions of god on monuments but I don’t agree with it being in the pledge of allegiance, nor on the currency.

But atheists are not some homogenous group. They are incredibly diverse and will have widely divergent opinions on the topic.


#4

How much can really be achieved in four years?

Jack: Nothing good if Obama is President!


#5

Libertarian does not mean socially Liberal, fiscally Conservative. There is no Libertarian position on gay marriage. And I know many social conservatives who oppose the war on drugs.

Firstly, Roe vs. Wade will never be overturned. It’s not that Reagan didn’t want to do it, he couldn’t. However, he did usher in two pro-life cornerstones of U.S. policy. The Hyde amendment and the Mexico City Policy executive order. He did what he could, but was limited in what he could achieve.

The Sun never sets on the British Empire!


#6

I agree with that, I’d say a few of the Middle East states are a very good example as to why religious governments are a bad idea…no matter the intentions they cannot be impartial in respect to religious minority.

Meh, those are such minor issues, separation of church and state ain’t going to die because of it; besides “God” can be interpreted very widely in both instances depending on the person.


#7

[quote=“Lord_Brennus, post:5, topic:39858”]
Libertarian does not mean socially Liberal, fiscally Conservative.
[/quote]That’s very good. You are quite correct. Libertarianism merely provides the illusion of just that given that the current paradigm is a left-right, liberal-conservative, Democrat-Republican jumble where both sides approve of the “mixed economic system” and bring us a mix of authoritarian and libertarian ideas shoved contradictorally into one of the two packages.

[quote=“Lord_Brennus, post:5, topic:39858”]
There is no Libertarian position on gay marriage.
[/quote]Yes, there is. You won’t find many libertarians who disagree with the following statement or some iteration of it: Government has no place in marriage. If the government (and the people) is going to insist on its right to sanction marriage, then it should be available equally to everyone.

[quote=“Lord_Brennus, post:5, topic:39858”]
And I know many social conservatives who oppose the war on drugs.
[/quote]There are always aberrations. Usually, such socially conservative folks (as opposed to political social conservatives) display many libertarian traits and really should start voting that way.

CJ, you mentioned the youngsters leaning libertarian. It seems to me they are, but it also seems to me they also are having a harder time separating the discussion about what should or should not be “legal” from an actual moral compass. I believe there is still immorality in self-destruction and victimless crimes. I believe that you can usually tell because the activities under discussion do cause harm, usually of a personal nature, often undetectable by the individual but manifesting in emotional and mental hangups and problems.

Folks seem to have a harder time distinguishing between the idea that “there should be no law” constitutes some moral justification for the action, as in there’s nothing wrong with recreational drug use (which is generally the most obviously self-destructive). Many conservatives have always had this problem, assuming that since I oppose all laws governing currently controlled substances should be abolished then I am in favor of drug use and abuse. It seems like the youngsters are looking at it from the other direction. It’s all anecdotal, but I’ve seen it here and among the kids I encounter offline.

Among the concerns I have about this at a personal level is that some of them will decide or learn the hard way, oh, this activity does cause problems, real ones, bad ones. A skip and a jump, and they’re calling it immoral; and then they resort to that ol’ government gun. Maybe this isn’t new at all. Look at the regulators today and who’s trying to keep marijuana illegal.


#8

BobJam: this thread is an excellent example of how to start a discussion on another member’s beliefs without making it an attack on the member himself. Kudos and thanks :slight_smile:


#9

Hello Cactus,

** Abortion. **

I’m on record here at RO as supporting laws against doctors performing abortions except to save mother’s life or health and that to be determined by a panel of say 12 medical doctors.

I would vote to criminalize the performing of abortions because that would be enforcable without turning America into a police state in order to enforce that law. America cannot jail millions of women without becoming a police state, focusing on the doctors would eliminate the “police state” problem and the certain-to-come “hopelessly clog the courts” problem.

There are not that many abortion doctors in America and certain jail time for them (say 10 years no appeal no parole, or whatever is needed to actually stop them) would save tens of millions of human lives. Facing 10,15,20, years in jail, the relatively few abortion doctors in America would stop their killing of human babies.

True, this law would NOT stop abortions. True this law would have problems attached to it. Tens of millions of dead human babies is ALSO a huge big problem.

Thats my position as stated previously here. I do not want to argue it. This is NOT another abortion thread.

** Porn. **

I am on record here at RO in support of criminalizing **the selling of pornography for money or anything of value. ** I would NOT criminalize the making of porn, the viewing of porn, and the owning of porn, because I do not believe that here in this 21st century culture that would be enforceable without turning America into a police state. Then there is that old “we’ll simply clog the courts” weapon that, imo, would be used to quickly null and void the law.

But if the selling of pornography for money or anything of value was criminalized then that would STOP this moral outrage here in America:

Laws that permit immature just-turned-18 year old girls, with no life’s wisdom, and often from broken homes, and often adrift alone with no money in America’s big cities, to be recruited by the Porn Kings and lured via large money $$ paychecks into a sex “career” where they make say 2 - 3 sex films per week over say a 30 year career and therefore end up having sex with some 4000 to 5000 strangers who have no love and loyalty to them and will not be there to help them when they contract STDs and have to face other life problems connected to their “sex career” and life’s problems in general.

When are you and the other secular “moralists” going to start publically proclaiming that the laws that permit these two things to occur in America are morally unconscionable?

I’ll be waiting to hear your moral outrage.


** Meanwhile, look right here: **
Write me a paragraph and defend the government’s moral right to enforce laws that protect young girls who are 6,569 days old from the Porn Kings, but lose it’s moral right to do that one day later when the girl is 6,570 days old. Following this principle on out to its compelling conclusion, we can say that all you who pretend to be so morally out-raged at AUTHORITARIANISM are against the porn kings hiring 13 year old girls to make porn …

… ** AREN’T YOU??? **


Re the porn makers: I never called for the key to be thrown away. What I called for was penalties severe enough to actually STOP the selling of porn for money or anything of value. If one year in jail would get it stopped, then one year is enough. If we need five, then five. If we need 10, then ten. Such a law would save the young girls (as described above) from the porn kings who would IMMEDIATELY STOP making porn once the money or anything of value as removed from their “industry.”


** Any Highly Selective “Moral” Code Is Pure Inconsistent Absurd Deliberate Hypocritical Nonsense: **

My view is that anybody that will not get on public record at least condemning as grossly immoral those two vile immoral entites up there, is a deeply immoral person and a bold proud hypocrite when he opens his mouth to condemn anything as being wrong or immoral, such as institutionalized slavery, proud bold Political Authoritarianism, stealing other people’s money, and denying other people their liberty. If you and anybody else will not condemn as grossly immoral Abortion and Porn as noted up there, then I will forever label you and them as bold proud deliberate hypocrites and will mock your pseudo moral code as being inconsistent absurd deliberate hypocritical nonsense.

Cherios.

♫ ♪ ♫ ♪

** Vital Points: **
PS
Those 2 laws as described above would make America a better country, save the lives of millions of human babies, and save thousands of young girls who would no longer have a huge money incentive to enter a “career” of having sex with some 4000-5000 stangers as I described above, and from making that decision at a time in their lives when they are very young and immature and very unwise being just-turned-18 year old young girls.

Would those 2 laws “fix America”? No! Why not? Because all human problems at root bottom are spiritual problems and there are no political or material-physical solutions to spiritual problems that can fix the problem at “the root.” The one and only way to permanently fix “the root” problem is John 3:3 (you must be born again__Jesus) and John 3:16 (to believe on the Lord Jesus as one’s personal Savior) and then to allow the Holy Spirit to teach you how to be a good Christian and manifest the fruits of the Holy Spirit as listed in Galations 5:22-23 “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.”

These are the two steps mentioned in BobJam’s OP, that is (1) John 3:16 and (2) Galations 5:22-23. These two steps can permanently fix “root” spiritual problems, whereas physical-material laws cannot do that. They can do a lot of good as I noted above, but the evil nature of men will breakout in some other form, and re-surface as some other type of problem that is springing from that same as-yet-unfixed “root” problem. As long as the “root” is bad, the fruit is going to be bad.

This is the solid absolute Biblical and Christian position: Citizens in a nation cannot skip over accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior and skip over being taught by the Holy Spirit how to be good Christians and then proceed to actually fix their many problems.

`


#10

:howler: All that up there is pure smoke and mirrors.

The Republican Party, as to legislating any type of so-called “SoCon” morality, is in complete shambles and a big national JOKE with regard to legislating your Big Boogie Man Fears.

The Democratic Party certainly is NOT going to do that, the Libertarian Party is certainly NOT going to do that.

The Ronulans are certainly not going to do that. … LOL …

… Why don’t you go attack the Westboro Baptist “Church” … THEY ARE THE ONES YOU SHOULD FEAR… LOL… all 24 of them!! /another :howler:

All this so-called fear of religious authoritarianism in America is a big pseudo Boogie Man designed to legitimize the “warnings” and therefore the $$$$$$ money career of the likes of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens (before he died) and David Silverman and all their ilk.

… LOL … As I said up-thread the A-Team (atheists) desperately needs a BOOGIE MAN to justify their continuing rants in threads on the web and in YouTube videos, and in their books and articles.

Where there is no BOOGIE MAN there is no DANGER and where there is no danger there is no MONEY … lol … and no JUSTIFICATION for the same rants in thread after thread after thread after thread after thread on the dangers of religious authoritarianism …

Every thread its the same old story : religious authoritarianism …religious authoritarianism …religious authoritarianism …religious authoritarianism …religious authoritarianism …religious authoritarianism …religious authoritarianism …

… You all … the A-Team have got religious-authoritarianism-on-the brain! … lol …

Get a life.

Start here:

Richard Clayderman & Nicolas de Angelis - L’amour Heureux - YouTube


#11

Write me a paragraph and defend the government’s moral right to enforce laws that protect young girls who are 6,569 days old from the Porn Kings, but lose it’s moral right to do that one day later when the girl is 6,570 days old. Following this principle on out to its compelling conclusion, we can say that all you who pretend to be so morally out-raged at AUTHORITARIANISM are against the porn kings hiring 13 year old girls to make porn …

Why in the world should someone selling herself for money either on film or in the bedroom be any of your business?

There are many things that would make this place “better” if we implemented them. I think a lot of smaller changes (if there were a way to cause them) to far more pervasive behavior would be far more effective at improving the moral character of the American people. We could ban divorce except in biblically permitted circumstances (although not all agree on those either). I can’t imagine why an atheist should ever agree to those terms. they have much different values and do not follow God’s laws. We are not compelled to compel them to follow God’s laws. Jesus own example is important. What did he tell the adulturess after he convinced the men not to stone her? What did he tell the woman, the Samaritan, at the well? Did Jesus promote new laws to keep these folks on the straight and narrow?

And the statement I quoted, Jack, what makes a day’s difference OK for a kid to decide to go kill or die on behalf of self-serving politicians or the highest, noblest ideals or any reason at all? Would you have a problem with a 30-year-old woman, with many life experiences, posing for porn? Why that day as opposed to the last at age 29?


#12

Jack, so-called fear of religious authoritarianism? You just told the man you want to ban pornography. If enough folks agreed with you, the First Amendment would be out on its ear, and they would be forced to live in compliance with your values. I know I feel threatened when the homo crowd tells me I must participate in homosexual activities against my will. I find that very threatening, and Jazz has enough folks to vote his way and force me to do it. That’s the only political difference between you and Jazz on issues like these. The only reason you aren’t a “threat” is because you don’t have enough votes.


#13

Very true.

Yes, there is. You won’t find many libertarians who disagree with the following statement or some iteration of it: Government has no place in marriage. If the government (and the people) is going to insist on its right to sanction marriage, then it should be available equally to everyone.

Having government define marriage isn’t Libertarian, so the Libertarian position essentially runs against the two mainstream positions.

There are always aberrations. Usually, such socially conservative folks (as opposed to political social conservatives) display many libertarian traits and really should start voting that way.

I consider myself Socially Conservative, but agree with the Libertarian Party on most issues. I’m very fiscally Conservative, anti-Interventionist, oppose the War on Drugs, oppose PATRIOT Act, any form of government surveillance.

This test says I’m a Libertarian:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/images/graphImages/90_100.png


#14

RWNJ,

Edit: /grin … you oughta give this a slow careful read, its air-tight. ( … lol … you just think its too long, its not. You can do it all the way to the end. I’d do it for you … lol …

/Big Grin … Ha, the following on “what business” is going to sound hostile because I wrote the essense of it to an unpleasant fellow awhile back, he was not a good fellow, so I did not put any pleasantries in it, and I’d rather just announce that up front rather than have to re-work my answer to the web’s eternal question about “What business is it of yours?” as applied to people Sexual Liberty.

Here is my answer to that question:

The phrase “what business is it of yours” obviously means “how does it concern me personally?” and “how am I personally involved in it?” If I can demonstrate that I am involved in it and if I can demonstrate that it does concern me, then I have been successful in demonstrating that it is indeed “my business” when people exercise their Sexual Liberty.

You have heard it all before, but it will never go away as long as it remains the truth, and here is the truth: The Federal Leviathan forces me at gunpoint to give them my money (taxes) that I worked for with my sweat and tears and then they take my money and use it to either pay for, clean up, or alleviate the huge social mess and economic cost created by people exercising their Sexual Liberty in America.

America’s Sexual Revolution has various aspects and they are all tied together and they feed and fuel the new Sexual Liberty. These various aspects are the liberty to fornicate, the liberty to adultrate, the liberty to pornicate, the liberty to make sex films, the liberty to have sex and risk getting STDs (treatment often paid for the government taxes) the liberty to have sex and risk getting pregnant and thus create babies that the mother cannot take care of economically and that will end up being taken care of by the government (my tax dollars) the liberty to have sex and get pregnant and then decide that they want an abortion often paid for by the government (my tax dollars), the liberty to publish abroad the eternal web question “What business is it of yours what I do with my body sexually as long as it does not concern you” and thereby encourage other people to believe that lie and go out and do all that stuff I just listed up there on the incorrect assumption that their Sexual Liberty is no body’s concern but there own.

All this Sexual Liberty up there is practiced by huge numbers of Americans that do not earn enough money to pay 100% of the economic cost that occurs directly because they choose to exercise their Sexual Liberty.

Who pays for their freedom to choose to exercise their Sexual Liberty? Answer: The American taxpayer uses their money to pay for the Sexual Liberty of millions of other people, many of who have the nerve, brass, and gall to ask the question, as they cash their government welfare checks, "What business is it of yours what I do with my body sexually as long as it does not concern you?

It takes some real nerve, brass, and gall to ask that question while they are cashing a government welfare check that is money that they did not work for, rather its money that belonged to somebody else other than them, who did work for it.

The total yearly economic cost of the Sexual Liberty exercised by many Americans is billions of dollars annually fanned out for free medical treatment, free housing, free clothing, free eye care services, free psychological treatment services, free Rx prescriptions, free dental services, free food, free transportation, free air conditioning and heating, free everything. It cost a huge amount of money to pay for the up keep of just the babies that are born because of the choices made by millions of women to exercise their Sexual Liberty. This is not to mention the cost of the up-keep of the females who mothered these children and are getting all that free stuff I just mentioned up there.

They do not use their money to pay for the cost of their choice to exercise their Sexual Liberty, other people use their money to pay for the cost of it.

How then can anyone seriously ask the question, “What business is it of yours what I do with my body sexually as long as it does not concern you?”

Nothing that can be said with words can ever make the above facts go quietly away into the night.

**As long as the Federal Leviathan forces me at gunpoint to give them my money (taxes) and they use my money to help pay for the economic mess created by people’s choice to exercise their Sexual Liberty, then it will always concern me, I will always be involved in it, and therefore it will always be my business.
**
**
People choice to exercise their Sexual Liberty will cease to involve me, will cease to concern me, will cease to be my business on the day that the people that choose to exercise their Sexual Liberty use their own money to pay 100% of all the cost associated in any way with the exercise of their Sexual Liberty.
**

One last point: That answer up there is the specific answer to the specific question, “What business is it of yours what I do with my body sexually as long as it does not concern you?”

** Now this question can be spun into “other questions” and onto “other subjects”, but note that the answer up there was to that one specific question **(in blue ink) ** and NOT an answer to “other questions” and “other subjects” that can be spun off the specific question asked in blue ink. **

**That last paragraph means that I am going to stay 100% focused on the specific issue of how I am involved, how it concerns me, and what business is it of mine when my money is used to either pay for, clean up, or alleviate the economic cost-mess made when people use their freedom to exercise their Sexual Liberty. That means that any spin off issues has NOTHING to do with this SPECIFIC QUESTION in blue ink.

The Sexual Liberty exercisers either pay 100% of the cost of their Sexual Liberty, or they don’t. The fact is they don’t. End of story. Period. There is no where to go here to wiggle out of this. How my money is used concerns me, involves me, is my business. No way to wiggle out of that fact.**

I, and other Americans, have paid untold thousands of dollars over the years in taxes and I have demonstrated that the exercise of the new Sexual Liberty does concern me, that I am involved in it, and therefore it is “my business” when people exercise their Sexual Liberty and my money is used to either pay for, clean up, or alleviate the economic cost-mess made because they exercised their Sexual Liberty.

/grin … Regarding your comments up there ↑ I know I write long posts and I don’t blame people for not reading them all, but to be sure you neglected to read the closing paragrpahs in my post # 9 to which you responded. I wrote:

** Vital Points: **
PS
Those 2 laws as described above would make America a better country, save the lives of millions of human babies, and save thousands of young girls who would no longer have a huge money incentive to enter a “career” of having sex with some 4000-5000 stangers as I described above, and from making that decision at a time in their lives when they are very young and immature and very unwise being just-turned-18 year old young girls.

Would those 2 laws “fix America”? No! Why not? Because all human problems at root bottom are spiritual problems and there are no political or material-physical solutions to spiritual problems that can fix the problem at “the root.” The one and only way to permanently fix “the root” problem is John 3:3 (you must be born again__Jesus) and John 3:16 (to believe on the Lord Jesus as one’s personal Savior) and then to allow the Holy Spirit to teach you how to be a good Christian and manifest the fruits of the Holy Spirit as listed in Galations 5:22-23 “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.”

These are the two steps mentioned in BobJam’s OP, that is (1) John 3:16 and (2) Galations 5:22-23. These two steps can permanently fix “root” spiritual problems, whereas physical-material laws cannot do that. They can do a lot of good as I noted above, but the evil nature of men will breakout in some other form, and re-surface as some other type of problem that is springing from that same as-yet-unfixed “root” problem. As long as the “root” is bad, the fruit is going to be bad.

This is the solid absolute Biblical and Christian position: Citizens in a nation cannot skip over accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior and skip over being taught by the Holy Spirit how to be good Christians and then proceed to actually fix their many problems.

The issue I raised concerned the anti-Authoritarianism as held by Cactus Jack and others and it hinged on the assumption that they were all in support of government Authoritarianism exercised by the government to keep a 13 year old girl from being hired by the porn kings, or a 10 year old girl. I ended that section with the question, “Aren’t you?” and if their answer is "No, we want no government intervention to keep girls of any age from being hired by the porn kings, then they are consistent anti-Authoritarians.

I now ask them to get on record and answer that question: Do they want no government intervention to keep girls of any age from being hired by the porn kings? Again, if not then they are consistent anti-Authoritarians. If yes, then we’re merely arguing about when and where to apply their accepted principle of government Authoritarianism.

I’m guessing they will not answer that question, but I could be wrong.

/Grin … You will recall from my post 9 that my plan leaves all ages free (with regard to the laws I’m calling for) to make all the sex porn they want to make, to own porn and to view porn, and to share it with their friends and neighbors. My plan calls for nothing but the criminalization of selling porn for money or anything of value. My motive for wanting this law is that I know it would STOP the porn industry in its tracks dead still, and overnight the huge money incentive put in front of young immature females would be gone. Would this stop porn in America? No. But it would reduce by thousands and thousands the number of young women ages just-turned-18 to 27 (or whatever) from being enticed into the porn business by what they perceive as “quick easy money.”

Cheers.

♫ ♪ ♫ ♪


#15

/grin … take a closer look at post 9

**
Even if that were true, one great guarantee of real and true Liberty is the Liberty to lobby for restrictions on Liberty. Its called democracy. If I am wrong or immoral to do that, then the American Liberty you and others praise is an absurd joke, because here on your “Liberty”, Liberty is determined by “your values” and the rest of us are “forced to live in compliance.”

True or false?

:smiley: **

/Big Grin again … Ha, on my best knowledge the only two laws I have called for since I have been at RO are presented in my post 9 and I believe you fully agree with 50% of the laws I have called for … lol …

True or false?

Cheers.

♫ ♪ ♫ ♪

Abortion 50%
Porn 50%


100%


#16

Just gonna hit it section by section, Jack. I see nothing particularly hostile in your response, btw.

  1. That’s a very short answer you gave. It comes down to we pay for them. Now you have legitimized Michael Bloomberg’s campaigns. Consistency will recognize the government’s necessary intervention in our refrigerators, all that we smoke, all that we drink, even all that we do. Why? Because the government (you) is going to pay for those who take it too far and can’t live a good, healthy, safe life. You have justified the Nanny State in every facet of our lives. If you wish for economic liberty, you must support liberty, period. Any excuse for authoritarianism on either side of that coin is an excuse for authoritarianism on the other side. They are inextricably intertwined, something our liberal buddies can’t ever seem to comprehend.

  2. I discussed what would be better. I agree about what would fix it. I suggested examples of laws similar to your proposal that you might find, well, wrong; but would easily make our country “better.” You are concerned about unwise 18-year-olds? Do you then recognize the right 30-year-old to engage in sex for money being as she is older and wiser and still incentivized?

  3. I should have added “for money.” I was thinking it was a given, I guess. So, banning a behavior would largely stop an industry (aside: economics will differ with your reasoning here and possibly create a much more rapacious state of affairs, consider how prostitution works today with its black market profit incentives – and porn’s a lot easier to manufacture and distribute without getting caught), you could stop any industry that way. You could stop soda manufacturers instantly with a ban (and you wouldn’t get much of a black market by comparison). Unhealthy soda abusers would no longer encumber the taxpayer, ending the same harm by which you justify your ban on porn. are you consistent? Do you want to ban soda? Mayor Bloomberg would if he could, and he’d probably help you with your porn bill. No one would be enticed to produce or drink that sickness in a can while drawing free health benefits from a government program.

As for the age, you’ve gotta pick a time when someone’s considered an adult free to make his or her own decisions. If an 18-year-old female is not eligible to figure life out on her own, then let’s not let her vote either, or join the military. Those politicians sure put a lot of incentives out there to take advantage of their untested young minds. Perhaps it’s too young. Maybe 21 is an appropriate time to allow children autonomy over their own lives. Your argument here just doesn’t make sense.

New observation: You argue the economic harm it causes you for supporting a ban, but you seem more concerned about stopping the victimized adults who respond to the incentive rather than the ravages to your checkbook. If the harm is the cause for your authoritarian position, then the age of the women lured by easy money is not relevant to the discussion. It’s a rabbit trail from the discussion.


#17

[quote=“Jack_Hectormann, post:15, topic:39858”]
/grin … take a closer look at post 9
[/quote]What?

[quote=“Jack_Hectormann, post:15, topic:39858”]

**
Even if that were true, one great guarantee of real and true Liberty is the Liberty to lobby for restrictions on Liberty. Its called democracy. If I am wrong or immoral to do that, then the American Liberty you and others praise is an absurd joke, because here on your “Liberty”, Liberty is determined by “your values” and the rest of us are “forced to live in compliance.”

True or false?

:smiley: **
[/quote]Well, you absolutely can. I haven’t suggested a law that prevents you from arguing against the entire Constitution or the United States of America. You’re welcome to it, but it also means the First Amendment is not really among your values then. Right?

You seem to be saying since I value liberty and you work against it but have the liberty to work against, you’re living by my values. So are you saying you don’t value liberty?

In any case, I’ll exercise what little liberty I have remaining and work against authoritarianism.

[quote=“Jack_Hectormann, post:15, topic:39858”]
/Big Grin again … Ha, on my best knowledge the only two laws I have called for since I have been at RO are presented in my post 9 and I believe you fully agree with 50% of the laws I have called for … lol …
[/quote]Absolutely true. I fully disagree with the other one, and so do folks who like to sell pron. Guessing it’s their livelihood and freedom on the line, it shouldn’t surprise you to learn they feel threatened. You argued a harm as justification for your position. That would be in keeping with outlawing certain criminal behaviors that are already outlawed if the harm is actually there. The harm isn’t there. The cause of the harm is something wholly different: economic authoritarianism. The freebies you pay for are just a symptom of that.

Anyway, Jazz may agree with me on one or two tiny issues. I can’t imagine anyone further from me on this board. But 50 percent or 1 percent doesn’t mean much in this discussion. Even if he was 99-percent in agreement with me, his position is still a threat to me, and it has just about the same justification as your proposed attack on the freedom of thousands of young women lured by easy money into an immoral industry.

PS (not to you Jack)
While there is no way to prove this, I’ll put it out there anyway for those who confuse law for a moral compass. I do not look at porn. I do not buy it or use it or want it. I have as much use for porn as I do for a joint, a double oil valve inversion surgery or President Obama.


#18

Want to know a truly scary thought? Trekky, BOP, and myself probably agree with you on at least one or two tiny issues!


#19

Because of the often demonstrated and somewhat measurable harm to society. You speak of the ills of authoritarianism. I submit that in this regard, a little authoritarianism now can save a lot later (divide and conquer).

'Nutjob, you ought to know better than that; the 1st Amendment only applies to what Congress cannot do (and the Founding Fathers would be appalled at the notion that it permits porn). You can ban porn for profit without it having anything to do with the Feds.


#20

Thank God I’m a firm believer in a dictatorial Empire that encourages hatred and despair to feed the Dark Side of the Force.

:howler:

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.