• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

Tucker Case said:
I think welfare should be a state issue, not a federal one. If a state wants to have welfare, they would need to fund it form their own taxes. Of course, this would probably mean that most rich people who would receive the brunt of the taxes would move, but so be it. That would be the result of it.
Click to expand...
Make it illegal for rich people to move.
:mrgreen:
 
Tucker Case said:
LOL. That would be something I'd fight tooth and nail because agian, it removes choice.
Click to expand...
Yes, well -- its probably crossed the mind of more than one liberal.
 
Tucker Case said:
He's pretty liberal in regards to many other issues as well. "Social conservativism", when applied federally, is really just liberalism from the other side of the fence.

For example, a constitutional ban on gay marriage is liberal as it sees moral issues as being something that should be dictated to the states instead of being dictated by the states.

The myth that being socially conservative is somehow also politically conservative is exactly how the neo-cons got ahold of the party.

One can be a social conservative as well as being politically conservative, just as one can be socially liberal while still remaining politically conservative.

The two things are not connected.

I get called a liberal, even though I'm anti-federalist, which is very politically conservative, simply because I have no issue with my state allowing abortion or allowing gay marriage and such.

I'll argue philosophically on the reasons in favor of these issues, but I would never argue for a national standard regarding these issues because of the 9th and 10th amendments.

For example, I'm against Roe v Wade, but not because I disagree with abortion (i.e. NOT because I disagree with the right it grants), but instead because I disagree with the rights it REMOVES (i.e. the rights of the states to decide the issue). Even though I personally am in favor of abortion rights in my state, I do not think the methodology of grranting those rights in my state are appropriate. It should be solely within the realm of the state to decide.

This view puts me firmly on the side of conservativism, not liberalism. Although the lines have been blurred to the point where I get labelled incorrectly more often than not.

Bush has never shown me that he is anything but a liberal in nature.
Click to expand...

You're too damn complex, Tuck! :mrgreen:

With regards to the gay marriage issue, this is how I, as a conservative, reconcile. COTUS Article IV Section I First Part requires each State to grant "full faith and credit" of whacko Massachusetts and California laws; therefore Congress needs to negate the offending acts for the other States via Article IV Section I Second Part.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress
may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and
Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Click to expand...

An amendment ain't necessary.
 
Tucker Case said:
Personally, I agree as well, and I would lobby my local government to take such a stance, but I don't feel that my views should hold any sway in, let's say, Texas. Thus, I do not think that I have a right to enforce my view on morality there.

But if a law is passed that bans dancing from all people of all genders or races, then it is OK.
Click to expand...

What is really the difference if dancing is prohibited locally or at the state level or at the federal. The way I see it it is still a forced morality of one group on another. The only difference is scale.
 
winston53660 said:
What is really the difference if dancing is prohibited locally or at the state level or at the federal. The way I see it it is still a forced morality of one group on another. The only difference is scale.
Click to expand...
Its pretty clear that forcing morality on others is unacceptable only when you disagree with the morality being forced.
 
winston53660 said:
What is really the difference if dancing is prohibited locally or at the state level or at the federal. The way I see it it is still a forced morality of one group on another. The only difference is scale.
Click to expand...
The difference is if the Feds did it they broke the highest law in the nation and the People have no recourse except to go through an onerous process of voting the old bums out and having the new bums change the law. If the States do it they might break their own Constitutional laws, but those affected can simply opt out and move to another State. *shrug*
 
Goobieman said:
Its pretty clear that forcing morality on others is unacceptable only when you disagree with the morality being forced.
Click to expand...

If there is an absence of an anti dancing law does that force anti dancers to dance the night away?
 
winston53660 said:
If there is an absence of an anti dancing law does that force anti dancers to dance the night away?
Click to expand...
Not sure how that relates to my statement.
 
Goobieman said:
Not at all sure how you make that connection.

The welfare state is people being forced to provide charity to others because, boiled down, 'its the right thing to do' -- that is, it is forcing morality onto others.

So, if you disagree with legislating morality at any level and if you believe that people can't have morality thrust upon them, then you must oppose the welfare state.
Click to expand...

independent_thinker2002
No response?
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
What is really the difference if dancing is prohibited locally or at the state level or at the federal. The way I see it it is still a forced morality of one group on another. The only difference is scale.
Click to expand...

At the local level, one can make the choice and has a legitimate ability to exact change in legislation they find unjust.

At teh state level, they have the same thing, but to a lesser degree and they would need to move furhter in order to do so.

At the federal level, all ability to choose to remain in country has been removed and they have no legitimate ability to have their voices heard as they can only vote for 3 out of 535 representatives no matter where they live in the nation.


The scale is not the only difference, the ability to exact change is significantly reduced as the sphere of influence increases in scale.

That's why I am in favor of this type of legislation only being enacted at the most local of levels, not at the greater levels. At each expansion of geographic authority, we reduce the rights of the people to influence their own demographic and further reduce their personal choices.

If I need to move one town over in order to dance, my life is interupted far less significantly than if I need to change states or even countries.

Conversely, if I want to have the right to live in a dance-free environment, my life would be far less intereupted if I only had to move one town over to do so.

If enough people want the right to live in a dance-free environment enough, towns will be created that cater to this desire.

Who am I to say they don;t have the right to live in a dance-free environment?

This is where I differ form most people. I define rights as including both views. I think people have a right to choose live in a place that has the same morality as they do. I don't think we have a right to prevent them from making this choice.

I believe that the right to choose extends far further than those choices I think are appropriate or valid.
 
Goobieman said:
Not sure how that relates to my statement.
Click to expand...

I find dancing perfectly moral anti-dancers don't. In the absence of a law what are the anti-dancers forced to do?
 
This is just a stunt for PJTV like it was for the rest of the media. It wasn't the fact that he asked a question, it's the fact that the media created a huge wave out of it in order to debias it's pro obamaness.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
I find dancing perfectly moral anti-dancers don't. In the absence of a law what are the anti-dancers forced to do?
Click to expand...
Still not sure how this relates to what I said.

The jist of my statement is that those that preach that 'you cannot legislate morality' almost always support legislating morality of some sort -- what they -really- oppose is the legislation of morality they don't agree with.

This is illustrated by the exchange between IT2002 and myself.
 
Tucker Case said:
Who am I to say they don;t have the right to live in a dance-free environment?
Click to expand...

They can make a choice to live in a dance free envir. Join groups that are anti dancing and agree with their views. But I see no reason why my next door neighbor should force anti dancing on me.
 
Goobieman said:
Not at all sure how you make that connection.

The welfare state is people being forced to provide charity to others because, boiled down, 'its the right thing to do' -- that is, it is forcing morality onto others.

So, if you disagree with legislating morality at any level and if you believe that people can't have morality thrust upon them, then you must oppose the welfare state.
Click to expand...

Goobieman said:
independent_thinker2002
No response?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I missed your post.

I think a case can be made for helping out those who can't help themselves without it being a moral decision. I think society benefits from this regardless of whether it is "right" or "wrong".

It's cheaper to provide preventive health care than to let a health issue become something major and then they can't pay so the cost gets passed on to everyone else. Should education be pay as you go?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Sorry, I missed your post.
Click to expand...
No prob.

I think a case can be made for helping out those who can't help themselves without it being a moral decision. I think society benefits from this regardless of whether it is "right" or "wrong".
Click to expand...
So... legislating morality IS OK -- so long as you think it is a good idea.

Your opposition to legislating morality is, therefore, situational rather than absolute.
 
Goobieman said:
No prob.


So... legislating morality IS OK -- so long as you think it is a good idea.

Your opposition to legislating morality is, therefore, situational rather than absolute.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's legislating morality, unless you mean that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is the morality supported by the social contract. Then I guess you have a point. But that wasn't what I was getting at. Taxes are a necessary evil.

I suppose all laws can be interprited to be legislating morality. That isn't what I am talking about though. What my original comment was intended to mean was that legislating victimless behaviors is what I stand against.
 
winston53660 said:
They can make a choice to live in a dance free envir. Join groups that are anti dancing and agree with their views. But I see no reason why my next door neighbor should force anti dancing on me.
Click to expand...

If the pro-dancing neighbor chooses to dance in the street, then the anti-dancing neighbor is being forced to live in a pro-dance environment. What gives you the right to force him to live in a pro-dancing environment?

If someone is anti-dancing, they have a right to try and promote legislation that dictates that dancing should not be allowed in the environment in which they live. If someone is pro-dancing, they have just as much of a right to try and promote pro-dancing legislation.

I'm not against forcing morality upon others at the local level, I'm against forcing morality of any sort on the federal level.

Doing so on the federal level removes the choice form the local person to promote their beliefs through legislation.

I would never support an anti-dancing law, In fact I would ardently oppose such a law.

The is that by forcing people to live in an environment that they are morally opposed to, by way of federal legislation, you effectively remove their right to choose. If the nation has a pro-dancing law, then that ther is no place within that nation that allows for people to live in a dance-free environment.

If a person finds residing in a pro-dancing environment immoral, they are having the opposing morality forced upon them.

It is not simply a matter of "If you don't like X behavior, then don't engage in X behavior".

Some people legitimately feel just LIVING in an enviroment that promotes X behavior is immoral.

by removing their ability to live in an anvironment that is freee form X behavior, you in fact force them to engage in something that they find immoral.

That is forcing one's own morality upon others.

By allowing each local area to decide the matter for themselves, we in effect lessen the degree upon which morality is forced upon others.

By allowing choice, we do NOT force morality upon others, we force CHOICES upon others.

If your local area decides to ban X behavior, you are now faced with three choices:

1. Move to an area that allows X behavior.
2. Choose to say but lobby to get the local ordinances changed to allow X behavior.
3. Deal with it because you choose NOT to engage in 1 or 2.

All three are legitimate choices.


Now, the reverse is also true. If a person wants to ban X behavior, but locally X behavior is allowed they now have three choices to make:

1. Move to an area that does not allow X behavior
2. Choose to stay but lobby to get the local ordinance changed to not allow X behavior
3. Deal with it because they choose NOT to engage in 1 or 2



If this practice is adopted nationwide, and kept as local as possible, the end effect is that NOBODY, of any stripe, has ANY morality FORCED upon them. They ALL have choices that they can make.

Even if the three choices are unappealing to the person in question, the fact is that choice does exist.

To me, forcing things upon people is the removal of the ability to make some sort of choice. Morality cannot be forced upon someone if the country were to adopt, because there would always exist a choice.
 
Tucker Case said:
If the pro-dancing neighbor chooses to dance in the street, then the anti-dancing neighbor is being forced to live in a pro-dance environment. What gives you the right to force him to live in a pro-dancing environment?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry I was going on the premise that this was a free country and freedom of expression was allowed:roll:
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I don't think it's legislating morality
Click to expand...
"Its the right thing to do" is a moral position.
Basing legislation on a moral position is legislating morality.

I suppose all laws can be interprited to be legislating morality. That isn't what I am talking about though. What my original comment was intended to mean was that legislating victimless behaviors is what I stand against.
Click to expand...
So, as noted, your opposition to legislating morality isn't as wholesale and plenary as your originally stated.
 
winston53660 said:
I'm sorry I was going on the premise that this was a free country and freedom of expression was allowed:roll:
Click to expand...

How is free expression denied if Town X decides to ban dancing? Could not all those who choose to engage in dancing do so in some place other than Town X?

If so, then free expression is not denied.
 
Tucker Case said:
How is free expression denied if Town X decides to ban dancing? .
Click to expand...

Because they banned dancing which is a form of expression. And if the anti-dancers don't like it they can choose to protest, damn the dancers to hell or just not look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom