My fantasy. And a question for liberals

[Arthur Brain]

This unrealistic fantasy will never happen:

The US is already divided in half by the Mississippi river. Let's have all the lefties live to the west of the river and all the conservatives east of the river.

On the east side, abortion would be a capital crime. There would be no expensive prison system needed because crime would be punished by financial restitution, flogging, or capital punishment. Everyone above the age of 20 would be required to own a handgun. Islam (a religion that advocates murder) would be illegal. There would be no mandatory health insurance, no social security, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no "free" government indocrina...err...education, no welfare checks, no food stamps, etc. Also, everyone will pay the same percentage of income tax no matter how much they make and those taxes will be below 10%.

The left ...err west coast wouldn't have to even think about building a wall on the Mexican border anymore. They could make any laws they want with absolutely no obstruction from conservatives because there wouldn't be any conservatives. They could have themselves so much fun taxing the hell out of each other!

Question for liberals: Wouldn't that be wonderful?

Hmm, rather ironic that the 'lefties' have the West side as living in the West means we have the freedoms that the East don't allow. Russia would be proud of you to an extent I'm sure.

 

[Rusha]

No, let's assume something that's already a crime, like assault. You have a choice. Twenty lashes or five years in prison. Which would you choose?

I wouldn't have to make that choice for myself. In regards to assault, easy. I prefer they stay locked away.

 

[Rusha]

I have quite a few quotes that show him siding with you on the issue of "consenting adults" if you would like to see them Sandy.

Post away ... it will still not change that fact that he would willingly condemn legal consenting adults to death (for homosexuality) IF he was able to change the laws.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I wouldn't have to make that choice for myself. In regards to assault, easy. I prefer they stay locked away.

Even if that's your preference, it doesn't change the fact that it wouldn't be abusive to whip them. You're arguing that its too easy, which is a different issue (I love how secular humanists are too confused to be able to decide if God's laws are too harsh or too easy )

 

[Christian Liberty]

Post away ... it will still not change that fact that he would willingly condemn legal consenting adults to death (for homosexuality) IF he was able to change the laws.

Prove that that's wrong. Logic and ethics only, no emotional appeals/whining.

You can't prove it without foundational assumptions that are erroneous.

 

[Granite]

Even if that's your preference, it doesn't change the fact that it wouldn't be abusive to whip them. You're arguing that its too easy, which is a different issue (I love how secular humanists are too confused to be able to decide if God's laws are too harsh or too easy )

This is the sort of stuff you guys daydream about when the topic's running your own country.

And you wonder why so many people consider you so dangerous.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Prove that that's wrong. Logic and ethics only, no emotional appeals/whining.

You can't prove it without foundational assumptions that are erroneous.

Consenting adult relations don't violate others or cause harm. Ethically it's none of your business what adults get up to in private provided they're not breaking the law. Next...

 

[Rusha]

Prove that that's wrong. Logic and ethics only, no emotional appeals/whining.

You can't prove it without foundational assumptions that are erroneous.

:chuckle: How quaint ... for you to demand that I prove it is wrong to make laws based solely on your religion.

 

[Christian Liberty]

This is the sort of stuff you guys daydream about when the topic's running your own country.

And you wonder why so many people consider you so dangerous.

Meh, secular humanists hating God's law is par for the course. What's more distressing to me is how most Christians feel about it.

Consenting adult relations don't violate others or cause harm. Ethically it's none of your business what adults get up to in private provided they're not breaking the law. Next...

Not only did you make an assertion without proof, but "unless they're breaking the law" is purely arbitrary since laws change. I'm advocating making homosexuality against the law. What's your argument now?

:chuckle: How quaint ... for you to demand that I prove it is wrong to make laws based solely on your religion.

Yeah, prove it. Especially since you want to make laws based on yours...

 

[Rusha]

Yeah, prove it.

I don't *have* to prove anything. Perhaps you missed the fact that it's up to you to come up with a valid reason to change the existing laws.

So sorry you have failed.

 

[This Charming Manc]

Not mine to give or take away, just pointing out that Jefferson views would freak an awful lot of conservatives out.

Would you give the 0.5% that are that "crazy" 0.5% of America? Or would you kill them all if they tried to revolt against your statist tyranny?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Id live in a theocracy.

 

[annabenedetti]

Just so I get California ...

I'll even share.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I would be willing to bet that most liberals would not want to live in a country that was designed around liberal ideology.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I would be willing to bet that most liberals would not want to live in a country that was designed around liberal ideology.

Id be willing to bet youre right. I know of a small town that was voted in usa today as one of the safest cities in its state and one of the best places to live in america, a bunch of liberals moved there, then started whining about how things were done there, wanting to change everything. Then they were reminded of why they moved there to begin with, it wasnt liberal policies that made it that way.

 

[WizardofOz]

Prove that that's wrong. Logic and ethics only, no emotional appeals/whining.

You can't prove it without foundational assumptions that are erroneous.

That's not the way the burden of proof works. :nono:
Make your case.

I honestly wish that Christians would stop trying to apply the laws given to theocratic Israel to sins committed outside of theocratic Israel. The nation of Israel, as a theocracy, came to its end about AD 70. It has not returned. Christianity is not a continuation of that theocracy - it is a religion of freedom in which the law of God is written on our hearts. And that law is a more perfect law, having been answered in full by the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. All eternal penalty for sin has been paid, and all temporal penalties for sin are found in natural consequence and those that governments set up.

Our government is one that protects the freedom of religious expression - within the bounds of lawful living. That means that Christians who think we need to set up our criminal justice system to match the one-time Israeli theocracy have no right to force that on those Christians who think we should let mercy guide judgment. It means that not all of your religious beliefs become law, and not all of my religious beliefs become law. We decide together - and that includes people of all religions who are citizens - what will and will not become law.

I hate legalism.

:first:

From here

 

[Arthur Brain]

Not only did you make an assertion without proof, but "unless they're breaking the law" is purely arbitrary since laws change. I'm advocating making homosexuality against the law. What's your argument now?

Two adults have consenting homosexual relationship. Harm caused to me: 0

That's proof enough for me and advocate away. Ain't gonna happen.

 

[republicanchick]

This unrealistic fantasy will never happen:

The US is already divided in half by the Mississippi river. Let's have all the lefties live to the west of the river and all the conservatives east of the river.

On the east side, abortion would be a capital crime. There would be no expensive prison system needed because crime would be punished by financial restitution, flogging, or capital punishment. Everyone above the age of 20 would be required to own a handgun. Islam (a religion that advocates murder) would be illegal. There would be no mandatory health insurance, no social security, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no "free" government indocrina...err...education, no welfare checks, no food stamps, etc. Also, everyone will pay the same percentage of income tax no matter how much they make and those taxes will be below 10%.

The left ...err west coast wouldn't have to even think about building a wall on the Mexican border anymore. They could make any laws they want with absolutely no obstruction from conservatives because there wouldn't be any conservatives. They could have themselves so much fun taxing the hell out of each other!

Question for liberals: Wouldn't that be wonderful?

Y do u bother to even engage liebarrels

I mean, do you want to hear their lies and truth distortions?

I don't


__

 

[fool]

But I don't want to live east of the Mississippi.

Well.... Florida is pretty great. I guess I will go there.

Have you ever been to Florida?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Id be willing to bet youre right. I know of a small town that was voted in usa today as one of the safest cities in its state and one of the best places to live in america, a bunch of liberals moved there, then started whining about how things were done there, wanting to change everything. Then they were reminded of why they moved there to begin with, it wasnt liberal policies that made it that way.

Without a link there's little to comment on.