[That isn't the extent of the First Amendment and it does apply to the states.]
It only applies to the states thanks to the false interpretation by the Supreme Court known as the Establishment Clause. But the actual 1st Amendment does not refer to the states. If it were the intent of the Founding Fathers, they would have put it in there.
[Yet, you're the one still touting states rights and less government restriction. Just because conservatives don't push to lower the drinking or smoking age doesn't mean they don't want to rid the country of all other government restrictions, which they do.]
All? Most, maybe. But you and Ike expect an "all or nothing" approach from conservatives and my point was that that's an unrealistic expectation. You can't expect a conservative to want limited or no government on every issue. Just like I wouldn't expect a liberal to be in favor of "big government" on every issue.
[Again, you only support the laws and the government overreach that fits your agenda.]
So what? You support laws that fit your agenda as well.
[You don't want government legislating Obamacare, but you do want government legislating your particular view of morality. It's complete hypocrisy.]
I'm against Obamacare because it's a horrendous law. I'm also against it because I still believe that it violates the Constitution. Too bad we can't put it up for a national vote. If we could, it would be soundly defeated.
[It makes no difference what the vote was. It was deemed Constitutional.]
True. But the courts have gotten it wrong before. Why John Roberts issued the opinion that he did is beyond me. This should have been a 5-4 vote swinging the other way.
[Having 4 SCOTUS judges on your side doesn't make the law unconstitutional.]
But I can still agree with them, can't I? It's not cut and dry, otherwise the vote would have been 9-0.
[How do you determine what is a "right law" then? Your or my morality cannot and will not be legislated into law. First Amendment, remember?]
But your statement about murder and stealing implies that we CAN legislate morality. I guess it's okay so long as it's not exclusive to one particular religion?
[A) It’s a false equivalency; Ie. comparing apples to oranges.
B) Smoking & aren’t safe.
MickeyRat, my comment about safety was not meant to say that smoking and drinking are "safe" like the Plan B pill. My safety comment was in regard to Ike's statement that the Plan B regulation change should be supported simply because of its safety. My response to that is that the safety of the pill alone shouldn't drive the support of its use. There are other factors to consider such as the morality of its use and whether it's okay to let teenagers (a.k.a. children) purchase the product without parental approval.
To me, it's less about how much government restriction there is and more about what is the right law. That's why I threw in the smoking and drinking age laws...you don't see conservatives (or rather libertarians) actively pushing to get those repealed solely for the sake of less government restriction. The reason is that some government restrictions are good and the support of those things is not necessarily un-conservative.
["Crafting laws that reflect Biblical principles and/or the Christian worldview" IS unconstitutional. It's called the First Amendment. Look it up.]
The 1st Amendment limits Congress's power in crafting certain laws. It says nothing about the states. Plus, it says nothing about passing general laws that reflect a Biblical worldview. For example, the Bible says murder and stealing are wrong. Do our country's laws against murder and stealing "establish a religion"? Didn't think so.
[It's a strawman argument.]
[By asking why there was no push to lower the drinking and smoking age?]
Ike reasoned that a "conservative" would want to reduce government restrictions, not support them. I was making the point that if that were true, then conservatives would be pushing to reduce the restrictions on things like the drinking and smoking ages. But you don't see that happening. My point was that you can be a conservative and support certain government restrictions.
[It's hypocrisy. You can't cry for small government, less restrictions, etc. and then try to use government overreach. Are you a conservative or not? You can't have it both ways.]
There's no hypocrisy. Small government doesn't mean no government. The federal government can and should make laws, but there are boundaries. States and local municipalities can and should make laws but they also have boundaries. That said, I can support whatever law I want.
[Obamacare is constitutional and well within the limits of what the Federal Government is allowed to do.]
Obamacare was controversially determined to be constitutional with a 5-4 Supreme Court vote that included a surprising "yes" from the conservative John Roberts. But I side with the 4 members of the Court who agreed that the law is unconstitutional.
[Were you unaware of that fact?]
[He is doing his best to spread the message about the urgency of ushering in an era of clean energy when we will no longer have to leave a dirty, toxic footprint caused by fossil fuels.]
Rick, Gore could do it better. How about conference calling and/or Skyping in order to save on jet fuel? How about driving cross-country in an electric vehicle to get to his speaking engagements? These aren't unrealistic options.
[That's not the case in this situation. The previous age limit of 17 was lowered to 15 and females are the only people that benefit from Plan B. That isn't anyone and everyone.]
Fine, but my statement was to dismiss Ike's logic.
[The legal drinking age changed in 1984. That law is enforced differently in different states. Same goes for the smoking/tobacco age limit. Different states have different rules.]
Fine with that too. I was making the point that I'm okay with certain government restrictions.
[Only when they fit your agenda, right?]
What's wrong with that? Whether they admit it or not, everyone has an "agenda".
[Then why the fuss over Plan B?]
I was thinking of things like "let's pass it then read it" Obamacare.
[Nearly all things are.]
[Romney is a religious person, Gore is not. That is why MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the left loons here hate Romney and worship Gore.]
JR, Romney is criticized because he's a Republican. Al Gore is lauded because he's a Democrat. Period. The liberal media also ignores the hypocrisy of Gore's non-green travelling excursions to advocate all things green. But as Easy said, Gore hasn't been relevant for a while anyway (thank goodness).
[Is this not what the TeaParty wants? Less Gov restrictions? Make up your minds, y'all.]
Ike, I don't think anyone in their right mind is against at least some form of government restrictions. (Well, maybe except for Drew Johnson, but that's another story.) As a Christian conservative, I see no problem with crafting laws that reflect Biblical principles and/or the Christian worldview so long as they are not unconstitutional.
[This was your complaint when Bloomberg imposed his silly size restrictions on soft drinks.]
It was silly because I'm not sure it will be effective. But I commend him for at least trying to do something about the ever-growing problem of obesity and diabetes. Hey, another option could be to simply ban the sale of all sodas. But I don't think that's the right solution.
[Using your original logic, you should be pissed that Obama and Sebelius insisted that it have a 15 year age restriction. The FDA said it is safe for any age that may be sexually active.]
Just because the FDA says it's safe to use doesn't mean that it's right to allow anyone and everyone to use it. There's a bigger picture to consider. We have a drinking and smoking age, but there's no push to get those changed. Why not? As stated above, you can be a conservative and still be in favor of government restrictions. I think that the beef a lot of conservatives have is with the federal government passing laws that it has no business passing. There are some things that are best left up to the states.
[(Granted, we believe that it had the feel of Game 1 of the 2001 NBA Finals when the 76ers won at L.A., then the Lakers won the next four, but it still gives hope for a knockdown series.)]
I was thinking the exact same thing last night. The Lakers were coming off a long rest following a series sweep (just as the Heat were last night). And Philly was fresh off a grueling 7-game series (just as the Bulls were). The Heat looked rusty at times, but when the game was tight at the end, you expected the King to finish it off. Didn't happen. I expect LeBron to be more assertive overall in the next game.
Hats off to Nate Robinson for a great game and a clutch finish despite having to get his lip stitched mid-game after a collision with LeBron.
I enjoy watching Curry play and he delivered once again last night. But it's worth noting that he plays in the perfect offense to suit his talent. He's got the green light to fire away when he sees fit. If he played for a team like Chicago, for example, he wouldn't appear to be as good. Thoughts?
[NBA??? The NEVERENDING BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION...when WWE has bigger viewership...enough said]
OG, based on what I've seen, the ratings are neck and neck. But it's sad that it's even that close...sad that anybody still watches WWE at all.
The Knicks are trying to give the series away apparently. An all-Sunday elimination day would be cool. If the Bulls can get past the Nets, do you think Rose will try to come back for the series against the Heat? Either way, that one should be interesting to watch.
The architectural firm needs to make sure the new Falcons stadium is built to last a good 10 years at least. Maybe 20. No matter how good it ends up being, it will be time to tear it down and start over sooner than later. Sad reality of today's world.
[That is a common psychological projection from religious people.]
Lol. It has nothing to do with me being religious. Non-religious folks can easily agree with that statement as well. And..."psychological projection"? Wow.
[I haven't presented any beliefs. I've presented facts.]
Why would you present and defend facts if you didn't believe them?
[I do not care if you find me rude or take offense to being called what you are.]
I'm not offended at all by your comments. I'm secure enough with my beliefs to not take your comments personally. I just think that you could debate in a more civil way (not just with me but with everyone else) and it would result in a better overall discussion.
[This isn't a courtroom. However, I would be delighted to litigate a case with you as my opposition.]
I think you'll be a great lawyer.
[They propose one sometimes if the House fails to, but it's just a suggestion; it has no force of law behind it.]
Then why would King Obama make his promise to cut the budget deficit in half in his first term? Sure we know he can't do it himself, but the expectation is that he will show some leadership and do what he can to help facilitate the process to meet that goal. Unfortunately over the last 4+ years, he has failed at leading and instead has chosen to play the blame game (either blame Bush or blame the current Congressional Republicans).