yeah but not the new southern style ones

they're too soggy

I brought up abortion because you said freedom might extend only to the point where irresponsibility takes over. Well, considering that 9/10 abortions in this country are birth control decisions, I'd say we're facing an irresponsibility crisis in that regard. Thus, I see no reason why would shouldn't abrogate this "freedom" to put a halt to it.

Being a good neighbor has nothing to do with making others middle class. It also has nothing to do with massive governmental taxation and intervention. If you want to be a good neighbor, I don't think anyone is stopping you. If you want to go find 10 underprivileged people and purchase them healthcare, go right ahead. I salute you in your efforts to help fellow Americans. My problem is when you think others should be forced to do the same.

The Republicans blocked the windfall profits tax because it is the biggest load of $%&@ we've encountered recently. Even NPR noted that this was 99% political posturing. It is a blatant attempt by Democrats to blame this energy crisis on the industry, thus garnering political points by inciting class dispute. It is pure dog crap, and every elected Democrat knows it.

What freedoms of yours were infringed by this "lawless" administration? Please provide a list of YOUR civil rights which were violated by the Bush administration. Also, even if your charges are true, how is this a sound argument? Someone violated your civil rights, so we should extend that lawlessness as far as possible? Give me a break.

I absolutely agree that taxation is necessary. My problem is with the rate of taxation and who receives the benefit of that taxation. I'm not a diehard libertarian who thinks I should get to decide how every dollar is spent, but I do believe the government has done a piss-poor job with entitlement programs, and the idea of increased social welfare is bound for failure. There are things the government absolutely should provide for, like the common defense. It is the absurd extension of "general welfare" that I'm concerned with. It not only strips away the autonomy of citizens to determine who they wish to be charitable to, it also engenders subordination and personal irresponsibility. Further, it strips individuals of the responsibility they have to take care of their fellow Americans. That responsibility entails not only generosity, but also requires them to monitor how their resources are being managed by the recipient. This is the aspect of welfare at which the government so blatantly fails.

Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it irresponsible.

Abortions aren't wrong just because some slack jawed "pastor" says so.

Increasing the human population in the name of your "god" is irresponsible.

What? Seems like a bit of a contradiction.

Thanks for the stunningly brilliant analysis.

Irresponsibility will always be subjective. I was responding to an assertion that freedom should sometimes yield when conduct becomes irresponsible, and presenting the possibility of a double standard.

that was point, thanks for playing along

So should laws be subjective?

All laws are subjective, and because I believe in a society with laws, my answer is yes.

So, if the law were reversed, and abortions were required in 9 out of 10 cases, would you still believe that? Or only this time because you agree with the subjectivity of the subject law?

Would I still believe what?

I'm having a hard time following, but what I *think* he was posing was, if abortion were made illegal to the extent that it couldn't just "be birth control", as you said, and only allowed in situations it was deemed necessary, if in 9 out of 10 cases it was determined abortion was absolutely "necessary", would you then still believe in the law that allowed abortion in those cases?

I think, anyway, I actually just confused myself typing it a little... maybe he'll come back and clarify.

Would you still think laws should be subjective, if the law was not in your favor, basically.

Laws ARE subjective, and no, I'm not in favor of them when they disagree with my interpretations. Perhaps I can think of laws which I dislike but still think are important, but then my favor has changed. Or perhaps some public referendum that I disagree with, but personally wouldn't overturn because the people have made that decision.

Well...people have made the decision that abortions are a woman's choice, you seem to be trying to overturn that.

Uhhhh . . . yeah, I think that's exactly what is going on.

I mean, "people have made a decision" is the silliest justification in the world, and the whole point of having a malleable and legislative code of laws is to, y'know, change them when they suck.

When did people decide this? Oh, they didn't. Now, polling indicates that this might happen, but who knows.

Also, I noted that me standing by the people's decision is a strong possibility, but not a certainty. If Americans suddenly decided to legalize something I think is absolutely wrong (subjective because it is my view, but absolute from my perspective), like rape or murder, I certainly wouldn't be able to yield to that opinion.

Further, there is a difference in trying to change the law by changing public opinion, and overturning the will of the public. I'm not sure what I'd do if the abortion decision came down to me and the public broadly supported the practice.