Are Liberals Immoral?

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.

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.)

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!

"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.

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.