Quantcast

Are Liberals Immoral?

Tasine 2012/05/31 15:55:54
You!
Add Photos & Videos
FTA
Yes, liberals are immoral. The liberal power elite are selfish, hypocritical, arrogant, self-righteous, and, worst of all, destructive of those around them. They are willing to saddle everyone else with rules and regulations that do not apply to them, and with higher taxes that they somehow escape paying. The Buffett Rule might sound like a great idea, but it would never apply to the Buffetts of this world. Or the Kerrys, Kennedys, or any other left-wing billionaire.
The
Liberal do-gooders are always coming up with lovely schemes for redistributing other people's money and managing other people's lives. The problem is that all of these schemes do more harm than good. Welfare, which redistributes wealth to those who cannot work but also to those who avoid working or underreport income, is funded on the backs of those who actually do work. "Saving the planet" costs jobs but never actually saves anything. Killing fossil fuels increases energy costs and triggers inflation across the board. Yet the liberal elite blithely support every cause that comes along with no consideration of the cost to ordinary people. In doing so, they pad their already inflated sense of self-importance, and at no cost to themselves.

What it all boils down to is an appalling contempt for life. As long as Obama can keep his nose elevated at a 45-degree angle, and get re-elected, he is happy. Happy, even if 25 million Americans remain out of work as a result of his environmental pipe dreams, happy if millions of seniors just go away and die, as his former Medicare director Donald Berwick suggested ("they just need the morphine and counseling that have been around for centuries").

The liberal elite appear callous even when the lives of those close to them are at stake.

If allowed to continue governing, they (liberals) will bring the country to a bad end as well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The article refers to "liberals". I personally don't view this as "liberal" behavior. I view it as "Progressive" or "collectivist" behavior. I believe Patrick Moynihan was the last living liberal on the planet. He was an honorable man. I have yet to meet or hear an honorable Progressive.

Read More: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/are_liberal...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • BrianD3 2012/05/31 16:28:14
    All liberals are immoral
    BrianD3
    +25
    ANYONE who wants stuff for free while I work and pay for it is immoral

    ANYONE who wants to call me intollerant but who wants to control how I live is immoral

    ANYONE who takes and does not give is immoral

    ANYONE who will take a political, economic or fiscal argument and turn it into a racial thing is immoral

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • John 2012/06/07 12:54:16 (edited)
    The elite liberals are immoral
    John
    +2
    I believe most of their leaders are immoral. And I believe most of their followers are ammoral, or at least profoundly ignorant.
  • STEVE 2012/06/06 15:22:07
    All liberals are immoral
    STEVE
    +1
    MORE LIKE, A-MORAL...THEY HAVE NO MORAL COMPASS,JUST LEFT ALWAYS LEFT,
  • Bibliophilic 2012/06/03 17:11:28 (edited)
    Most liberals are MORAL people
    Bibliophilic
    +2
    I am a moral law abiding person. I typically identify as liberal.



    I don't know what sort of conspiracy theories you're going on about. I'd like to live my life free from attacks on my race and sexuality by conservatives.

    Liberals are as moral as the rest of the population.
  • Tasine Bibliop... 2012/06/04 02:25:47 (edited)
    Tasine
    +2
    Morality is seen in the eyes of the beholder as well as the one doing the acting. Many things you see as moral, others see as immoral. Good grief! What race ARE you. I never see attacks on race on SH OR in person. Until Obama came on the scene, race was a solved issue to everyone I know. He has stirred it up.

    As to your sexuality - it wouldn't be attacked if you didn't flaunt it. No one ever talks about my sexuality because I don't share any details of it.

    Liberals are not as moral as the rest of the population. A goodly portion of the population wants to live free. Liberals want to control everyone, and that is decidedly against the US Constitution AND most see it as immoral. Liberals want law upon top of law upon top of law. Most of us would be content to have our laws consist of : illegal to murder someone. illegal to steal from others. illegal to do harm to others. illegal to abuse children (and that abuse would be spelled out). illegal to rape. illegal to damage other people's property.

    If we need any laws other than those, I don't know what they are and I challenge the usefulness of them.
  • jeepster4 Tasine 2012/06/04 03:56:08
    jeepster4
    Those darn Liberals and their making up laws for the bed room....what, those laws come from the Conservatives. As far as those other laws go, I do hope you never have to take out a loan and your source of food and medicine always follows the rules without any legal involvement. In my humble opinion, laws exist to help the honest stay honest. Your belief about the honesty of people that disagree with you shows more about your personal lack of intelligence than anything else.
  • Tasine jeepster4 2012/06/04 13:15:47 (edited)
    Tasine
    +2
    What laws about the bedroom came from conservatives? Who sponsored those bills? When did they pass? Are they in effect today?
  • John jeepster4 2012/06/07 17:15:39 (edited)
    John
    +1
    "...laws for the bed room....what, those laws come from the Conservatives..."

    And just what "laws for the bedroom" might those be?

    I'm a conservative, and I don't care at all what you or anyone else does in the bedroom.

    (As long as that sheep consents, and they don't expect my tax-money to support the little sheeple that may result.)
  • jeepster4 John 2012/06/07 17:54:40
    jeepster4
    Every state that has elected a Republican majority has wasted their time on morality laws...this is despite your view and that of other truly conservative and libertarians who figure that they can just ignore the laws on abortion, birth control, state supervised marriage, that they don't like, and celebrate the fact that no state laws are being passed that expand personal liberty.
  • John jeepster4 2012/06/08 12:31:56 (edited)
    John
    +2
    Excuse me, but your basic premise is somewhat flawed. Most laws do not "protect liberty." Most limit it. Sometimes liberty taken from one and given to another, but generally they limit or restrict it. Simple example using one of your own examples. Abortion became legal when laws prohibiting it were "over-turned," not enacted.

    "...they can just ignore the laws...that they don't like..." (Sort of like Obama's Justice Department ignoring federal laws regarding immigration, the Defence of Marriage Act, states' Right to Work laws, and others.)

    You said "...Every state that has elected a Republican majority has wasted their time on morality laws..." Yet you still don't site any examples. (Just as you still haven't cited any examples from your original post "...laws for the bed room... those laws come from the Conservatives.")

    B/t/w... I'm not a Republican. Most are little better than Democrats. And you obviously don't know the true meaning of conservative. Just the lib-definition, or going by many Republicans who call themselves conservative but really are not.

    Conservatism and Liberalism is directly related to the amount of governmentism one wishes to be applied to society. Think of it like gravy on mashed potatoes. Do you want your gravy (government) poured on your mashed ...

    Excuse me, but your basic premise is somewhat flawed. Most laws do not "protect liberty." Most limit it. Sometimes liberty taken from one and given to another, but generally they limit or restrict it. Simple example using one of your own examples. Abortion became legal when laws prohibiting it were "over-turned," not enacted.

    "...they can just ignore the laws...that they don't like..." (Sort of like Obama's Justice Department ignoring federal laws regarding immigration, the Defence of Marriage Act, states' Right to Work laws, and others.)

    You said "...Every state that has elected a Republican majority has wasted their time on morality laws..." Yet you still don't site any examples. (Just as you still haven't cited any examples from your original post "...laws for the bed room... those laws come from the Conservatives.")

    B/t/w... I'm not a Republican. Most are little better than Democrats. And you obviously don't know the true meaning of conservative. Just the lib-definition, or going by many Republicans who call themselves conservative but really are not.

    Conservatism and Liberalism is directly related to the amount of governmentism one wishes to be applied to society. Think of it like gravy on mashed potatoes. Do you want your gravy (government) poured on your mashed potatoes (society) liberally, or conservatively? (Myself, I prefer both my mashed potatoes and my society without gravy.)

    Liberals, most Republicans and pseudo-conservatives are all basically different sides of the same coin. They are all Statists. They might have differing agendas, but they're all Statists and ultimately share the belief in the power of the State over the freedom of the Individual.
    (more)
  • Tasine John 2012/06/08 12:36:00
  • jeepster4 John 2012/06/08 19:07:10
    jeepster4
    I'm sure glad there is a self defined libertarian available to explain conservatism to me. i suspect that the definition of political conservative has changed over the years. Dwight Eisenhower would not be considered a conservative but rather, a statist, by your definition. We tend to agree that conservatism today is just another form of neo conservatism or old time Liberalism. In today's world, a conservative approach to change is needed, but the world will change, no matter how much you want to go back to those heady days of Jeffersonian democracy. Harry Truman was just ahead of his time.
  • John jeepster4 2012/06/08 21:28:09 (edited)
    John
    +2
    Lets start with this..."Dwight Eisenhower would not be considered a conservative but rather, a statist, by your definition."

    Actually yes he was. He was a Democrat until the Republican Party because of his popularity decided to "draft him" as their presidential candidate.

    Probably the biggest Statist president we've ever had (even surpassing FDR, and possibly Obama) was Woodrow Wilson. (Funny, Obama has often publicly admired Wilson.) However today Obama has many more decades of the incremental growth of Statism in America since Wilson as a base for his own.

    Most politicians are Statists, or become that way. They believe in (whether consciously or subconsciously) in the growth of state power as the means of growing their own power. That's how we've gotten to where we are with the government involved in virtually every aspect of our daily lives. If a person who died in 1960 somehow could be brought back to life, he would probably think "Darn, Kruschev was right. They won."

    "... a self defined libertarian available..." How else would one define his political stance? B/t/w... I voted Libertarian in the first election to ever field a candidate under the name of the Libertarian Party in 1974. (The party was actually formed in '71 and even held a convention in '72, but the f...



    Lets start with this..."Dwight Eisenhower would not be considered a conservative but rather, a statist, by your definition."

    Actually yes he was. He was a Democrat until the Republican Party because of his popularity decided to "draft him" as their presidential candidate.

    Probably the biggest Statist president we've ever had (even surpassing FDR, and possibly Obama) was Woodrow Wilson. (Funny, Obama has often publicly admired Wilson.) However today Obama has many more decades of the incremental growth of Statism in America since Wilson as a base for his own.

    Most politicians are Statists, or become that way. They believe in (whether consciously or subconsciously) in the growth of state power as the means of growing their own power. That's how we've gotten to where we are with the government involved in virtually every aspect of our daily lives. If a person who died in 1960 somehow could be brought back to life, he would probably think "Darn, Kruschev was right. They won."

    "... a self defined libertarian available..." How else would one define his political stance? B/t/w... I voted Libertarian in the first election to ever field a candidate under the name of the Libertarian Party in 1974. (The party was actually formed in '71 and even held a convention in '72, but the first actual candidate under their name was in 1974 in the mayoral race in Ann Arbor, Michigan. (Where I was attending college at the University of Michigan majoring in political science.) I would guess most would think I'm a Libertarian, self-described or otherwise.

    You said "...no matter how much you want to go back to those heady days of Jeffersonian democracy..." as if it was a bad-thing. This is why Jefferson believed in part-time politicians who would only serve briefly and then return to the "real world."

    (And fearing things might not always work out that way, that's why he gave us the Second Amendment, our ballot-of-last-resort.)
    (more)
  • jeepster4 John 2012/06/08 22:08:13
    jeepster4
    Yip..if the only vote that counted were those of wealthy property owning white men, every thing would be okie doakie per the guy that decided he was a libertarian when the modern Libertarian party was formed. The modern Libertarian party is just old time classical liberalism dressed up in modern dress. It didn't work in the simple world of the 1800's and it still doesn't work. If you think I'm wrong, check with some of the voters that were considered property in those golden days of yore. At least the modern Democrats realize that Camelot was just a piece of fiction and never existed.
  • John jeepster4 2012/06/09 14:03:38 (edited)
    John
    +2
    I didn't realize it was only wealthy property owning white men who voted back then. (Apparently neither did the shop-keepers, clerks, small farmers, apprentices, indentured servants, blacksmiths, soldiers, liverymen, shipbuilders, butchers, bakers and candlestick-makers who also cast their ballots.)

    "...check with some of the voters that were considered property in those golden days of yore..."

    Ummm... I think they all are probably dead now. And their children. And their children's children. (What an asinine statement anyway.)

    Obviously there is a societal evolution that takes place in most societies. Every society has had legal slavery in its past, including Europe and in Africa and the Black slavers who sold most of the Black slaves to the Spanish and Portuges slavers-traders who met the requirement for "public consumption" back then. (Very small point-of-trivia. Did you know that 24% of all of the slaves owned in the sate of Mississippi at the outbreak of the Civil War were owned by Black plantation owners?) (I'm quite sure you didn't.)

    But I digress... However it was Republicans who for the most part were involved in granting both freedom and the right to vote to Blacks and other minorities from the 1860s to the 1960s. Democrats, after failing to block those measur...





    I didn't realize it was only wealthy property owning white men who voted back then. (Apparently neither did the shop-keepers, clerks, small farmers, apprentices, indentured servants, blacksmiths, soldiers, liverymen, shipbuilders, butchers, bakers and candlestick-makers who also cast their ballots.)

    "...check with some of the voters that were considered property in those golden days of yore..."

    Ummm... I think they all are probably dead now. And their children. And their children's children. (What an asinine statement anyway.)

    Obviously there is a societal evolution that takes place in most societies. Every society has had legal slavery in its past, including Europe and in Africa and the Black slavers who sold most of the Black slaves to the Spanish and Portuges slavers-traders who met the requirement for "public consumption" back then. (Very small point-of-trivia. Did you know that 24% of all of the slaves owned in the sate of Mississippi at the outbreak of the Civil War were owned by Black plantation owners?) (I'm quite sure you didn't.)

    But I digress... However it was Republicans who for the most part were involved in granting both freedom and the right to vote to Blacks and other minorities from the 1860s to the 1960s. Democrats, after failing to block those measures initially time and again, instead decided to use a new tactic of control through dependency and shifted those voting blocks (voting Blacks) from the cotton plantations and share-crop farms of the old days to new urban-plantations. Their new best-buddies. Toss a few crumbs, buy their votes. Keep them dependent, keep them down and keep them voting for the promise of a few more crumbs.

    B/t/w... You've still ignored answering my response to your original post(s) regarding supposedly conservative laws regarding the bedroom and other "wasted time" on issues of morality.

    And obviously you won't cite examples, because there are none. Typical lib response, change the subject and go off into some other nebulous direction.

    Later, Comrade. Ever forward!
    (more)
  • jeepster4 John 2012/06/10 03:09:44
    jeepster4
    Even a doctrinaire RWNJ, if he/she has the benefit of any knowledge of the past, knows that only property owning white males could vote in Thomas Jefferson"s time. http://www.infoplease.com/tim... The reason I haven't answered your response to Republican's wasting time on bedroom and mortality issues is simple. You think that time spent on abortion, birth control, etc doesn't amount to meddling in folks personal business. You are wrong...what's to discuss? On the other hand, maybe you were just unaware that this republic began with only the top 10 to 15 percent of adult property owning white males being allowed to vote.
  • John jeepster4 2012/06/11 13:08:15 (edited)
    John
    +2
    "You think that time spent on abortion, birth control, etc doesn't amount to meddling in folks personal business. You are wrong...what's to discuss?"

    Liberals spend waaaaay more time on these issues. Republicans basically don't think taxpayers should be paying for these personal choice decisions. That's not "meddling." To the contrary, liberals want to "meddle" in the wallet of the taxpaying public. Most Republicans or conservatives really don't care at all what you or anyone else "does in the bedroom."

    You keep bringing up "in Thomas Jefferson's time" as if it really has much of anything to do with this subject. For the record, "in Thomas Jefferson's time" the individual states had a relatively free hand in deciding who could vote. Some states had property ownership requirements and some did not. Some states allowed free Blacks to vote and some did not. It was a new nation with new never before tried individual freedoms and limitations on government. Many things were still being worked out. If you have any questions about Jefferson's or any of the Founding Fathers' intentions, there are many letters, articles, essays and other correspondence that describe their intent and what they hoped would evolve and transpire, including an end to slavery. The Jeffersonian concept of ...







    "You think that time spent on abortion, birth control, etc doesn't amount to meddling in folks personal business. You are wrong...what's to discuss?"

    Liberals spend waaaaay more time on these issues. Republicans basically don't think taxpayers should be paying for these personal choice decisions. That's not "meddling." To the contrary, liberals want to "meddle" in the wallet of the taxpaying public. Most Republicans or conservatives really don't care at all what you or anyone else "does in the bedroom."

    You keep bringing up "in Thomas Jefferson's time" as if it really has much of anything to do with this subject. For the record, "in Thomas Jefferson's time" the individual states had a relatively free hand in deciding who could vote. Some states had property ownership requirements and some did not. Some states allowed free Blacks to vote and some did not. It was a new nation with new never before tried individual freedoms and limitations on government. Many things were still being worked out. If you have any questions about Jefferson's or any of the Founding Fathers' intentions, there are many letters, articles, essays and other correspondence that describe their intent and what they hoped would evolve and transpire, including an end to slavery. The Jeffersonian concept of the right to vote was not based on property ownership so much as it was on educational qualifications anyway. By Jackson's time virtually all exclusions regarding property were eliminated.

    You said only the "...top 10 to 15 percent of adult property owning white males being allowed to vote." Sorry, almost all white male property owners who were American citizens were allowed to vote, although some states also required voters to be able to read and write. And even excluding the property-ownership requirements of some states that 10%-15% figure is inaccurate, unless you factor in American Indian tribes (which liberal-lwaning sites do), and then it's still kind of high.

    Back to the original subject and your point about Republicans and/or conservatives passing laws about what you can do in your bedroom... (B/t/w.... Many antiquated and long since repealed old laws regarding sodomy, adultery, etc were passed in generally Democratic-majority states.)

    Bottom line... Most Republicans and conservatives really don't really care who or where you poke your pee-pee into, or vice versa, or how often. They just don't wanna pay for the ramifications around that decision or when liberals "run it up the flagpole" be forced to "salute."

    These are matters of personal choice, and the costs regarding those choices are the responsibilities of the individuals involved who make those choices. It's no more a matter that taxpayers should cover or subsidize those choices than it is to subsidize my preference for Chimay Grand Reserve over Bud-Lite.
    (more)
  • Tasine John 2012/06/11 14:41:35
    Tasine
    +2
    You did it again, John! Outta the park!
  • jeepster4 Tasine 2012/06/11 18:11:51
    jeepster4
    John is substituting BS for research. His research comprises reading all the old, disapproved libertine propaganda off like it had some meaning. Obviously you're part of his cheering section.
  • uguess Tasine 2012/06/04 11:53:32
    uguess
    +2
    “The Modern Liberal believes in the supremacy of the state, thereby rejecting the principles of the Declaration and the order of the civil society, in whole or part. For the Modern Liberal, the individual’s imperfection and personal pursuits impede the objective of a utopian state. In this,

    Modern Liberalism promotes what French historian Alexis de Tocqueville described as ‘soft tyranny’, which becomes increasingly more oppressive, potentially leading to a hard tyranny (some form of totalitarianism). As the word ‘liberal’ is, in its classical meaning, the opposite of authoritarian,


    it is more accurate, therefore, to characterize the Modern Liberal as a Statist.”
    ref: Mark R. Levin, Liberty and Tyranny, (New York: Threshold Editions, 2009), p. 4.
    MARIXST OBAMA
  • John uguess 2012/06/08 12:06:45 (edited)
    John
    +2
    Well said. (I too am a fan of Mark Levin (and de Tocqueville).

    Just to let you know, there's a site/organization called The Gutenberg Project (and its related site librivox.org more audio-related) whose goal is to copy a great many important (public domain, expired or uncopyrighted) written works for free access to the general public. When it was first begun several years ago it used text-files but now uses sound-files.lt has both volumes of de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" available (which I copied for my kids, I having already read them many years ago in college Poli-Sci). Anyway, that site has a wealth of great literature available free for copying. (I have a long commute and often pop in a CD-book for my drive.)

    Anyway, good post.
  • Bibliop... Tasine 2012/06/07 18:18:15
    Bibliophilic
    You never see attacks here? HAHA! I see lots of racist attacks by conservatives here. You're fortunate not to have them directed towards your race- you're white right?

    I do not flaunt my sexuality. I mention it if it applies to the situation.

    I do not want to control anyone. I want to live my life in peace. There are other worthy laws- unless of course you see nothing morally wrong about discrimination.
  • Tasine Bibliop... 2012/06/08 12:42:01
    Tasine
    You may have seen attacks, but I don't view stating facts the same as attacking. An attack is when people get wrongly accused . People feel attacked when the truth is told them or when an opposing view is voiced.
  • Jamieevvie Tasine 2012/06/12 13:02:58
    Jamieevvie
    +2
    You don't think that mine owners should be forced to comply with the Mine Health and Safety Act 1977, which enforces health and safety precautions so that people who work in the mines are less likely to die or be horribly injured in mining accidents? Do you believe the "freedom" of the mine owner to turn an even greater profit by cutting back on safety precautions outweighs the right of the mine workers to have a safe working environment? Most people would agree with the assertion that for the overall good of society the right to not be likely to die at work is more important than a bit of extra profit for an owner. The USA had many more mining accidents, deaths and injuries before the introduction of this law. If you believe that this law is useless I'd be interested to hear your case as to why.
  • Tasine Jamieevvie 2012/06/12 13:23:09
    Tasine
    Did I say anything about the Mine Health and Safety Act of 1977? I know nothing about it and suppose it may be a good law, but since you brought it up, let me say what I believe. I believe if a job has more negatives than positives, the worker should leave and find other work. I believe if a person knows there's a danger, does it anyway, he is as much at fault as is the employer. I believe people should be taking care of themselves. If a job is dangerous, don't get into that line of work. No one in this country HAS to work in mines. But they do. NO one in this country HAS to work as a fireman or a cop. But they do. No one in this country must drive on the freeways, but everybody does - and FAR more people die on the freeways than in mines. It is impossible to legislate safety because all safety is relative, and total safety is impossible to achieve. I realize that sounds cold and heartless, but it's fact, nevertheless.
  • Jamieevvie Tasine 2012/06/20 12:41:34
    Jamieevvie
    It certainly sounds rather disjointed since you've jumped from one point to another but I'll try and answer coherently. It seems my response was added to the wrong response of yours. The answer I meant to respond to was the post where you said that you believed that there should be no laws other than a few laws to outlaw obviously criminal behaviour (murder, assault etc). My point was that each law that is passed is intended to meet a specific need. We cannot simply rely on the good character of mine owners to spend more money to improve their mine safety as demonstrated by the number of accidents and deaths before mine safety laws were introduced. You are right that it is impossible to completely remove the risk of an accident, but it's clear that you can achieve greater safety by regulating mine owners than by just hoping they will do so themselves. Now, with that in mind I'd appreciate an answer to my original question - do you think the freedom of the mine owner to make a larger profit by cutting back on safety precautions is more important than the right for mine workers to have a safe working environement?
  • Tasine Jamieevvie 2012/06/20 13:37:08 (edited)
    Tasine
    I believe the mine owner can do as he pleases re safety in his mine. I think mine workers should have a safe working environment (I wasn't aware that mining HAD any safe working environments).

    So it should be assumed I believe people should choose their work and their working environments based on THEIR needs rather than dictate to the owner of a business to do things THEIR way. And I believe mine owners should be prepared to have the socks sued off them should any employee suffer injury because of unsafe practices - similar to other vocations' circumstances. That way both win or both lose.
  • John Bibliop... 2012/06/07 16:47:49 (edited)
    John
    +1
    You probably are, but I would bet much of it is what is often called "situational morality." Not a hard and fast, right-or-wrong kind of thing. Lots of shades of grey. You probably think it's wrong to take by force what someone owns or earns, but not if it's done for "good intentions" or to be more "fair" or "for the greater good." You probably believe everyone should have the right to control their own property, but not for a business owner to deny service to whoever he might want to for whatever reason he may have, or to allow his employees to smoke or not smoke as they so choose on his property, or a landlord to choose to rent or not to rent to someone for whatever personal reason he might have. You believe a land-owner is entitled to the right to use and control his own property, but you have no problem with the EPA confiscating it, and fining or imprisoning him if he fills in that 10' x 20' low area in the corner of his backyard that floods in the Spring (a "wet-land" LOL). You probably believe in the right to choose abortion or use birth-control, but not in the right of a doctor or a pharmacist to refuse to provide those services if it violates his own sense of morality.

    I'm not making a moral judgement at all on any of those things above. That should be left to the in...



    You probably are, but I would bet much of it is what is often called "situational morality." Not a hard and fast, right-or-wrong kind of thing. Lots of shades of grey. You probably think it's wrong to take by force what someone owns or earns, but not if it's done for "good intentions" or to be more "fair" or "for the greater good." You probably believe everyone should have the right to control their own property, but not for a business owner to deny service to whoever he might want to for whatever reason he may have, or to allow his employees to smoke or not smoke as they so choose on his property, or a landlord to choose to rent or not to rent to someone for whatever personal reason he might have. You believe a land-owner is entitled to the right to use and control his own property, but you have no problem with the EPA confiscating it, and fining or imprisoning him if he fills in that 10' x 20' low area in the corner of his backyard that floods in the Spring (a "wet-land" LOL). You probably believe in the right to choose abortion or use birth-control, but not in the right of a doctor or a pharmacist to refuse to provide those services if it violates his own sense of morality.

    I'm not making a moral judgement at all on any of those things above. That should be left to the individual. My judgement is against those who believe they have the right to force others who may disagree with them to obey their specific sense of morality under threat of force, seizure or imprisonment. And that is what changes ones morality into immorality.

    There are of course "shades of grey" in everyone's sense of right and wrong, but liberals seem to generally have much much broader areas of grey between black and white.

    Most liberals are not content for someone to say simply "I really don't care what you do as long as it doesn't hurt me, and I demand the same from you." They want the force of government to compel others who disagree to... whatever... participate, subsidize, equalize, kowtow, defer to, recognize, follow and obey.
    (more)
  • Tasine John 2012/06/07 23:55:17
    Tasine
    +1
    Wow, John. Just wow! You can speak for me any day of the week. You say so beautifully what I say less graciously. That's exactly so. Liberals have to FORCE their desires with LAW under threat of fines or imprisonment. Very few conservatives do that and seldom is it done by them. When a conservative comes out against something it is almost ALWAYS in response to liberals demanding it be put into law.
  • John Tasine 2012/06/08 12:48:15
    John
    +1
    Thanks, Tasmine. You have a great way with words too. They're always dead-on and I always enjoy reading your posts.
  • Joe C Sr 2012/06/03 00:21:50
    The elite liberals are immoral
    Joe C Sr
    +1
    When Biden said the "Only elites could qualify to be President",isn't this kind of an immoral statement.Where is the Liberty for all in that quote?
  • Red 2012/06/02 18:32:56
  • Tasine Red 2012/06/02 18:57:00
    Tasine
    +1
    Thanks, Red, for the input and for the links, but I WILL. ,-)
  • Rural Charmer 2012/06/02 11:32:44
    None of the above
    Rural Charmer
    +1
    Don't you mean conservatives did all that?
  • klausd11 2012/06/02 02:40:05
    The elite liberals are immoral
    klausd11
    +2
    Well, either immoral or unbelievably stupid!
  • in vino veritas 2012/06/01 23:10:15 (edited)
  • Tasine in vino... 2012/06/01 23:14:31
    Tasine
    +2
    Hard to beat Ayn Rand. John Kennedy is probably rolling over in his grave. He was no conservative, but he could at least THINK.
  • in vino... Tasine 2012/06/01 23:24:20 (edited)
  • Tasine in vino... 2012/06/03 00:57:13
    Tasine
    Yep, sure did.
  • scbluesman13 2012/06/01 22:32:38
    Most liberals are MORAL people
    scbluesman13
  • Tasine scblues... 2012/06/01 22:49:18
    Tasine
    +2
    Liberals broke the back of America - and we see the results now. They spent us into the hole. Thanks, you wonderful, generous people who had to break us to drive all jobs out of America with your taxes to pay for SS, Medicare, Welfare for half the nation, abortion clinics, Medicaid, clean air, etc. If you want these programs, you could pay for them yourselves, but you pass laws that ALL OF US have to pay for them, and slowly but surely, large segments of liberals are now alive thanks to conservative taxpayers who feed, clothe, house, and medicate them.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 14 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/02 06:24:08

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals