PDA

View Full Version : The only thing that should trump our Freedoms is family



Larrymc
12-01-2012, 11:28 AM
Most of this country's issues, Social, Crime, Sexual Deviancy, could be solved by one simple thing, make every thing in public, TV, Radio, Internet, ect ect appropriate for Family, namely Children, Now before people start up about there Freedoms, im talking about Public, no one cares what you do in privet our at an Adult venue,

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
12-01-2012, 12:12 PM
Most of this country's issues, Social, Crime, Sexual Deviancy, could be solved by one simple thing, make every thing in public, TV, Radio, Internet, ect ect appropriate for Family, namely Children, Now before people start up about there Freedoms, im talking about Public, no one cares what you do in privet our at an Adult venue,

Larry, I can not wait to see the replies to this suggestion. The leftist ,deviant liberal brigade should arrive in short order to string you up and behead you. How dare you suggest that they not be allowed their wicked pleasures..-;)--Tyr

aboutime
12-01-2012, 01:23 PM
Larry, I can not wait to see the replies to this suggestion. The leftist ,deviant liberal brigade should arrive in short order to string you up and behead you. How dare you suggest that they not be allowed their wicked pleasures..-;)--Tyr


Tyr. LET 'EM. They have nothing else to work with. If they come to defend any of what was said above. It's just proof we can use, and dare them to prove otherwise.

fj1200
12-01-2012, 03:48 PM
Most of this country's issues, Social, Crime, Sexual Deviancy, could be solved by one simple thing, make every thing in public, TV, Radio, Internet, ect ect appropriate for Family, namely Children, Now before people start up about there Freedoms, im talking about Public, no one cares what you do in privet our at an Adult venue,

Our country didn't have any issues, social, criminal, deviancy, otherwise in the 50's? Hmm, interesting hypothesis.

I suppose that would be your definition of family as well.

aboutime
12-01-2012, 03:51 PM
Our country didn't have any issues, social, criminal, deviancy, otherwise in the 50's? Hmm, interesting hypothesis.

I suppose that would be your definition of family as well.


fj. From which sentence, or statement did you arrive at that conclusion about the 50's?

fj1200
12-01-2012, 03:57 PM
fj. From which sentence, or statement did you arrive at that conclusion about the 50's?

Nothing, I just chose a period of nostalgic romance before the Internet, risque TV, etc. to test the theory.

Larrymc
12-01-2012, 04:07 PM
Larry, I can not wait to see the replies to this suggestion. The leftist ,deviant liberal brigade should arrive in short order to string you up and behead you. How dare you suggest that they not be allowed their wicked pleasures..-;)--Tyrlt probably will rattle some liberal cages

fj1200
12-02-2012, 06:04 AM
lt probably will rattle some liberal cages

Nah, they'll just shrug it off for what it is.

Larrymc
12-02-2012, 09:26 AM
Nah, they'll just shrug it off for what it is.so you think they will, just agree and shrug it off????

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
12-02-2012, 11:33 AM
so you think they will, just agree and shrug it off????

THEY MAY CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT BUT THEY WILL NOT AGREE WITH IT. -Tyr

fj1200
12-02-2012, 04:37 PM
so you think they will, just agree and shrug it off????

They will not agree to your definitions and shrug off what your true intentions are. Do you think we should provide stable family environments for children?

Kathianne
12-02-2012, 04:44 PM
The genie cannot be returned to the bottle. Sort of like the knowledge of germs, once one understand, they keep washing their hands.

Larrymc
12-02-2012, 06:57 PM
They will not agree to your definitions and shrug off what your true intentions are. Do you think we should provide stable family environments for children?in public places were children or welcome yes absolutely, any place you can go with your children should not be detrimental to them, Family and is family and children, do your have various definitions

Larrymc
12-02-2012, 06:58 PM
They will not agree to your definitions and shrug off what your true intentions are. Do you think we should provide stable family environments for children?in public places were children or welcome yes absolutely, any place you can go with your children should not be detrimental to them, Family and children is family and children, do your have various definitions

Larrymc
12-02-2012, 08:24 PM
Our country didn't have any issues, social, criminal, deviancy, otherwise in the 50's? Hmm, interesting hypothesis.

I suppose that would be your definition of family as well.im sure we did, those issues have always been a part of society, but to what, do you attribute to the Moral and Traditional values decay in this country, i mean in Texas its still against the law to use foul language in the presents of women and children, that seems useless now, sense they are some of the worst offenders

Robert A Whit
12-02-2012, 08:52 PM
Our country didn't have any issues, social, criminal, deviancy, otherwise in the 50's? Hmm, interesting hypothesis.

I suppose that would be your definition of family as well.

I had planned to just read this thread until that was stated.

I lived in those days. As a Teen.

Show me where the OP made the statement you just made? TY.

I had more time for family as a Teen because I did not have a computer to dick around with all day long. When I was in High School, I learned what a TV was and Dad got a 12 inch set. Black and White. Try watching that all damned day long.

Playing sports with my pals was more interesting. We used to spend a lot of time in our local hills and camping out. Kept the fat off. Nobody ran around then whining the country was obese.

While there was crime, we often left doors unlocked since the fear was very minor. I went to church too. With the family.

fj1200
12-02-2012, 10:13 PM
in public places were children or welcome yes absolutely, any place you can go with your children should not be detrimental to them, Family and children is family and children, do your have various definitions

I was referring to family as a unit. You know with kids, should they have a stable home environment? I'm out with my kids all the time in situations I do not feel is detrimental to them. If I felt otherwise I could take them somewhere else.


im sure we did, those issues have always been a part of society, but to what, do you attribute to the Moral and Traditional values decay in this country, i mean in Texas its still against the law to use foul language in the presents of women and children, that seems useless now, sense they are some of the worst offenders

Bad government. They have essentially destroyed the lower class with bad policy that greatly minimizes employment opportunities. That and school monopolies granted by government.

So in TX no one swears in front of kids? I'm sure that gets enforced all the time. :rolleyes:

fj1200
12-02-2012, 10:15 PM
I had planned to just read this thread until that was stated.

...

Show me where the OP made the statement you just made? TY.

You should have kept reading; it was answered.

Larrymc
12-02-2012, 10:37 PM
I was referring to family as a unit. You know with kids, should they have a stable home environment? I'm out with my kids all the time in situations I do not feel is detrimental to them. If I felt otherwise I could take them somewhere else.



Bad government. They have essentially destroyed the lower class with bad policy that greatly minimizes employment opportunities. That and school monopolies granted by government.

So in TX no one swears in front of kids? I'm sure that gets enforced all the time. :rolleyes:did i not say its useless anymore, the point being that we used to have respect for women and children, but the rolling of the eyes tell me you are clueless about such things, which is really the point of my post

fj1200
12-02-2012, 10:41 PM
did i not say its useless anymore, the point being that we used to have respect for women and children, but the rolling of the eyes tell me you are clueless about such things, which is really the point of my post

Yeah, "it seems useless." :rolleyes: still works. I have respect and I know many people with respect and I'm sure there were plenty that didn't even back then but what you're proposing is instituting your opinions and definitions on everyone. Yeah, I'm clueless but you think you can legislate respect.

Larrymc
12-02-2012, 10:42 PM
I was referring to family as a unit. You know with kids, should they have a stable home environment? I'm out with my kids all the time in situations I do not feel is detrimental to them. If I felt otherwise I could take them somewhere else.



Bad government. They have essentially destroyed the lower class with bad policy that greatly minimizes employment opportunities. That and school monopolies granted by government.

So in TX no one swears in front of kids? I'm sure that gets enforced all the time. :rolleyes:point is you shouldn't have to leave, people should respect your kids, but im guessing you don't do much leaving for your kids sac??

Larrymc
12-02-2012, 10:44 PM
point is you shouldn't have to leave, people should respect your kids, but im guessing you don't do much leaving for your kids sac?? i agree with you on the bad Government

fj1200
12-02-2012, 10:46 PM
point is you shouldn't have to leave, people should respect your kids, but im guessing you don't do much leaving for your kids sac??

My kids "sac"? :confused:

So I take my kids into a biker bar, they should have to change their behavior because I take my 5-year old in or I should know what to expect in a biker bar? Hmm, seems the latter.

Larrymc
12-03-2012, 08:24 AM
My kids "sac"? :confused:

So I take my kids into a biker bar, they should have to change their behavior because I take my 5-year old in or I should know what to expect in a biker bar? Hmm, seems the latter.sorry some times i draw a blank, kids sake, if you take your kids into a biker bar, that's your on stupidity, i tried to stop you from wasting our time, did i not say im not talking about adult venues,

fj1200
12-03-2012, 08:39 AM
sorry some times i draw a blank, kids sake, if you take your kids into a biker bar, that's your on stupidity, i tried to stop you from wasting our time, did i not say im not talking about adult venues,

Gee, it's a good thing I don't go into any biker bars with my kids then. :rolleyes: So when are you going to define your versions of family, appropriateness etc.? Are you in favor of a stable home environment for kids?

Larrymc
12-03-2012, 09:09 AM
Gee, it's a good thing I don't go into any biker bars with my kids then. :rolleyes: So when are you going to define your versions of family, appropriateness etc.? Are you in favor of a stable home environment for kids?of course kids also need a stable home environment, Family a mom a dad and children, but i think your trying to force an opinion on Gay's with kids, so hear ya go, kids are resilient and can do ok in many diverse situations, it will never be a Traditional family, and will never be as optimal for raising children, sense the optimal way is influence from a Mom and a Dad

fj1200
12-03-2012, 09:31 AM
of course kids also need a stable home environment, Family a mom a dad and children, but i think your trying to force an opinion on Gay's with kids, so hear ya go, kids are resilient and can do ok in many diverse situations, it will never be a Traditional family, and will never be as optimal for raising children, sense the optimal way is influence from a Mom and a Dad

That's a fine opinion. So what's your rationale for not providing a more stable home environment for kids with two moms?

aboutime
12-03-2012, 09:37 AM
That's a fine opinion. So what's your rationale for not providing a more stable home environment for kids with two moms?



Better yet, fj. How bout you tell us about your TWO MOMS, and how life has been for you....without a Father figure?

Larrymc
12-03-2012, 09:39 AM
That's a fine opinion. So what's your rationale for not providing a more stable home environment for kids with two moms?were have i advocated for not providing a stable home for any children, i have in fact advocated for stable environment for kids even in public, so IDK what your talking about

fj1200
12-03-2012, 09:50 AM
Better yet, fj. How bout you tell us about your TWO MOMS, and how life has been for you....without a Father figure?

It took you long enough to start in with the unsubstantiated, and false btw, claims. You must have been chomping at the bit.


were have i advocated for not providing a stable home for any children, i have in fact advocated for stable environment for kids even in public, so IDK what your talking about

You are against marriage for some who are raising kids together and you have yet to set forth your definitions by which to legislate.

Larrymc
12-03-2012, 10:15 AM
It took you long enough to start in with the unsubstantiated, and false btw, claims. You must have been chomping at the bit.



You are against marriage for some who are raising kids together and you have yet to set forth your definitions by which to legislate. the fact that two people are raising kids together, don't change or have anything to do with marriage and the definition of it, legislate by what is or is not detrimental to children in public, actually like i told you before there are still such laws on the books in some places, we just don't enforce them, also the FCC was established for the same reason, but has become another Government wast of money, see i would like to be able to take my kids to a Restaurant, Ball Game, or pump gas without people around use spewing filthy language, or have it thumping from there cars radio, but people like you are why we have to deal with it, because you have shown that you have no respect or use for Family or Traditional values, i know it wont help them but, i do fell sorry for you kids if you have any

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
12-03-2012, 11:26 AM
the fact that two people are raising kids together, don't change or have anything to do with marriage and the definition of it, legislate by what is or is not detrimental to children in public, actually like i told you before there are still such laws on the books in some places, we just don't enforce them, also the FCC was established for the same reason, but has become another Government wast of money, see i would like to be able to take my kids to a Restaurant, Ball Game, or pump gas without people around use spewing filthy language, or have it thumping from there cars radio, but people like you are why we have to deal with it, because you have shown that you have no respect or use for Family or Traditional values, i know it wont help them but, i do fell sorry for you kids if you have any

Diversity, inclusiveness , limitless tolerance and the great liberal "enlightenment" is so misunderstood these days!
Get with the program, anything goes no matter how filthy and degenerate it may be.. To ask for even basic standards of decency is simply intolerable now, so say the supposed "enlightened" better people that we should strive to imitate!!
In a pig's eye we should!--Tyr

fj1200
12-03-2012, 02:53 PM
the fact that two people are raising kids together, don't change or have anything to do with marriage and the definition of it, legislate by what is or is not detrimental to children in public, actually like i told you before there are still such laws on the books in some places, we just don't enforce them, also the FCC was established for the same reason, but has become another Government wast of money, see i would like to be able to take my kids to a Restaurant, Ball Game, or pump gas without people around use spewing filthy language, or have it thumping from there cars radio, but people like you are why we have to deal with it, because you have shown that you have no respect or use for Family or Traditional values, i know it wont help them but, i do fell sorry for you kids if you have any

:laugh: You have no idea what I have respect for and who what I don't.

You're the one, among others, who stated that you think kids should have a stable home environment, marriage would provide that. You also haven't yet proffered the definitions that you would use in your legislation. Is it just the foul language or is it any man-on-man contact that makes you uncomfortable?

BTW, I don't think there should be any state-sponsored marriage; it's nothing but a private contract IMO. Are you willing to give up all your marriage benefits?

aboutime
12-03-2012, 03:44 PM
It took you long enough to start in with the unsubstantiated, and false btw, claims. You must have been chomping at the bit.



You are against marriage for some who are raising kids together and you have yet to set forth your definitions by which to legislate.


fj. As expected. And as the good liberal lamb you appear to be. You are just following the Liberal, DNC rules about NEVER answering any question without FIRST, asking another question to distract attention from your lack, or unwillingness to answer the first.

Even if I am, or was...chomping at the bit. YOU still haven't answered my questions. Which tell me. You have no intention of doing so, and the DNC Talking Points manual you follow...has been exposed...again.

Larrymc
12-03-2012, 04:26 PM
:laugh: You have no idea what I have respect for and who what I don't.

You're the one, among others, who stated that you think kids should have a stable home environment, marriage would provide that. You also haven't yet proffered the definitions that you would use in your legislation. Is it just the foul language or is it any man-on-man contact that makes you uncomfortable?

BTW, I don't think there should be any state-sponsored marriage; it's nothing but a private contract IMO. Are you willing to give up all your marriage benefits?i think most of us here can pretty much guess what you don't have respect for, you make it pretty clear, and your right a marriage sense its between a man and a women would in most cases be a more stable environment for kids, your so obsessed with your deviant behavior, though i didn't mention it you admit it would be inappropriate around children, and your right i would include Homosexual behavior, which would include no Gay couples having children, you are an adult you can make a chose but involving kids is wrong, that's just another thing that Gay want that's unnatural they can't make kids so they shouldn't have any. better facepalm this one the girls will want to read it

aboutime
12-03-2012, 04:45 PM
i think most of us here can pretty much guess what you don't have respect for, you make it pretty clear, and your right a marriage sense its between a man and a women would in most cases be a more stable environment for kids, your so obsessed with your deviant behavior, though i didn't mention it you admit it would be inappropriate around children, and your right i would include Homosexual behavior, which would include no Gay couples having children, you are an adult you can make a chose but involving kids is wrong, that's just another thing that Gay want that's unnatural they can't make kids so they shouldn't have any. better facepalm this one the girls will want to read it


Larrymc. As you can see. fj is just another Obama wannabe sponsor. Along the same lines as jafar, and gabby in many respects.
They make spit-balls, or mud-balls. Drop in, and lure others to play their silly word games, with plenty of false rhetoric. Then they hide in waiting...until they can launch their Liberal Mud-ball examples of ignorance, and stupidity...hoping nobody will notice how dumb they are. But so far.
It hasn't worked for them. So...watch out for more of the same. Nothing, from Nothing..equaling NOTHING...liberally speaking.

Larrymc
12-03-2012, 06:07 PM
Larrymc. As you can see. fj is just another Obama wannabe sponsor. Along the same lines as jafar, and gabby in many respects.
They make spit-balls, or mud-balls. Drop in, and lure others to play their silly word games, with plenty of false rhetoric. Then they hide in waiting...until they can launch their Liberal Mud-ball examples of ignorance, and stupidity...hoping nobody will notice how dumb they are. But so far.
It hasn't worked for them. So...watch out for more of the same. Nothing, from Nothing..equaling NOTHING...liberally speaking.its ok i know i gave the benifit of the boubt, before i drew any conclutions, that was for me not him

Kathianne
12-03-2012, 06:09 PM
fj. As expected. And as the good liberal lamb you appear to be. You are just following the Liberal, DNC rules about NEVER answering any question without FIRST, asking another question to distract attention from your lack, or unwillingness to answer the first.

Even if I am, or was...chomping at the bit. YOU still haven't answered my questions. Which tell me. You have no intention of doing so, and the DNC Talking Points manual you follow...has been exposed...again.

FJ is not a 'liberal lamb' or liberal anything. He is really the one adhering to the Constitution, however disarming that may be.

aboutime
12-03-2012, 08:32 PM
FJ is not a 'liberal lamb' or liberal anything. He is really the one adhering to the Constitution, however disarming that may be.


And how would that be Kathianne? Please explain 'adhering to the constitution'.

Kathianne
12-03-2012, 08:35 PM
And how would that be Kathianne? Please explain 'adhering to the constitution'.

You need to follow along here, if not you'll be left behind. In other words, follow the lede.

aboutime
12-03-2012, 08:54 PM
You need to follow along here, if not you'll be left behind. In other words, follow the lede.


No Kathianne. You have told other members their interpretations are wrong. Now you are avoiding answering the question by telling me I have been left behind?
I want an honest answer. That's all. You want us to believe you are qualified to tell anyone...they have interpreted the meanings wrong. So. Please explain what you meant?

fj1200
12-05-2012, 10:53 AM
fj. As expected. And as the good liberal lamb you appear to be. You are just following the Liberal, DNC rules about NEVER answering any question without FIRST, asking another question to distract attention from your lack, or unwillingness to answer the first.

Even if I am, or was...chomping at the bit. YOU still haven't answered my questions. Which tell me. You have no intention of doing so, and the DNC Talking Points manual you follow...has been exposed...again.

Please provide evidence of my "appearance" of liberalness. Please point out which questions I have not answered. A simple post number will suffice. I'm also guessing that you would be surprised how many of my questions go unanswered around here.


i think most of us here can pretty much guess what you don't have respect for, you make it pretty clear, and your right a marriage sense its between a man and a women would in most cases be a more stable environment for kids, your so obsessed with your deviant behavior, though i didn't mention it you admit it would be inappropriate around children, and your right i would include Homosexual behavior, which would include no Gay couples having children, you are an adult you can make a chose but involving kids is wrong, that's just another thing that Gay want that's unnatural they can't make kids so they shouldn't have any. better facepalm this one the girls will want to read it

Does Dick Cheney also have no respect for marriage? Does Ted Olson also have no respect for marriage?

Which deviant behavior have I admitted would be inappropriate around children?

Are you proposing a law that keeps gay people from having kids? How do you intend to enforce that?


Larrymc. As you can see. fj is just another Obama wannabe sponsor.

Please indicate my support for Obama.


And how would that be Kathianne? Please explain 'adhering to the constitution'.

Please show where marriage is defined in the Constitution. On what basis can the government restrict the liberties of its citizens?

fj1200
12-05-2012, 10:55 AM
No Kathianne. You have told other members their interpretations are wrong. Now you are avoiding answering the question by telling me I have been left behind?
I want an honest answer. That's all. You want us to believe you are qualified to tell anyone...they have interpreted the meanings wrong. So. Please explain what you meant?

What is so shocking about an interpretation being wrong?

Kathianne
12-05-2012, 04:48 PM
No Kathianne. You have told other members their interpretations are wrong. Now you are avoiding answering the question by telling me I have been left behind?
I want an honest answer. That's all. You want us to believe you are qualified to tell anyone...they have interpreted the meanings wrong. So. Please explain what you meant?

I've no beliefs that I'm qualified to do anything here. I've no 'magic powers.' Read if you wish Blast past, if you wish. I'm not responsible for your behaviors.

Robert A Whit
12-05-2012, 05:09 PM
FJ is not a 'liberal lamb' or liberal anything. He is really the one adhering to the Constitution, however disarming that may be.

I really still prefer the original meaning of the term Liberal over this crap democrats pulled to try to pull the wool over our eyes.

That aside, I judge FJ to be libertarian. I am one in fact. Voting republican only means I can't get libertarian candidates elected so I try to help the party most distant from socialism. Leaving me to vote republican.

I agree that if the Feds put in law, some benefit for a person, that benefit should also go to all other citizens. Marriage however is a very legal term. For me, it is not about the parties, but about the very word marriage. Some will snort and say, who cares about meanings.

We see this done all the time with the mexicans who have come to this country but democrats act as if they don't understand what a citizen is or the meaning of that word.

Democrats twist a lot of words to the point they are confusing when you use precise language.

The difference in me and FJ on issues over homosexuals is i see no need to change the word marriage to mean a new thing trying to bring in just one group.

Homoxexuals NEVER argue the greater principle.

The greater principle should be, does he, you or I have the right to create laws that include me and you but leave him out?

But marriage is more than a word, more than a right, it stands for a man and woman contracting under law for things that only affect the two of them.
Marriage has no law that says the Feds must have a tax law to favor marriage or not. That law has nothing to do with marriage as such. The congress had some goal in mind so crafted certain tax laws. Right or wrong, and mostly wrong, it does not mean you correct one wrong using another wrong.

It would be like telling a prostitute she has the same rights to the men that the other women in the mens lives have such as his wife or daughter or son.

We would laugh at any prostitute that demanded rights a wife has with the man.

Homosexuals stand alone. They don't even support polygamy nor adult to adult incest marriages. So long as they are that selfish, I see no need to help them out.

fj1200
12-06-2012, 06:23 AM
I see my questions go unanswered; They usually do.


I really still prefer the original meaning of the term Liberal over this crap democrats pulled to try to pull the wool over our eyes.
...
I agree that if the Feds put in law, some benefit for a person, that benefit should also go to all other citizens. Marriage however is a very legal term. For me, it is not about the parties, but about the very word marriage. Some will snort and say, who cares about meanings.
...
It would be like telling a prostitute she has the same rights to the men that the other women in the mens lives have such as his wife or daughter or son.
...
Homosexuals stand alone. They don't even support polygamy nor adult to adult incest marriages. So long as they are that selfish, I see no need to help them out.

They don't support polygamy not adult incest marriages? Hmm, maybe they do have some respect for traditional values after all. That being your evidence for their "selfish" position is pretty weak. Prostitutes? :confused:

The root problem is that the State has co-opted a legal meaning where they shouldn't have. It's understandable given its history but when State benefits are tied to that meaning then don't be surprised when those who are left out start demanding access to that meaning.

aboutime
12-06-2012, 03:05 PM
I've no beliefs that I'm qualified to do anything here. I've no 'magic powers.' Read if you wish Blast past, if you wish. I'm not responsible for your behaviors.


If that last line is true Kathianne. Thanks. Never suggested you were. But trying to tell others how they should think, and scolding them for being different as you have done recently. Goes 180 degrees out from what you told me here.

Pointing out the errors of others with whom you disagree, in patronizing ways. Tells me, and some others. You do feel more qualified to talk, or discuss certain topics than the rest of us. But in your own way. You belittle, and sound like a scolding teacher to your students. And you wonder why they ignore you.

Kathianne
12-06-2012, 06:03 PM
If that last line is true Kathianne. Thanks. Never suggested you were. But trying to tell others how they should think, and scolding them for being different as you have done recently. Goes 180 degrees out from what you told me here.

Pointing out the errors of others with whom you disagree, in patronizing ways. Tells me, and some others. You do feel more qualified to talk, or discuss certain topics than the rest of us. But in your own way. You belittle, and sound like a scolding teacher to your students. And you wonder why they ignore you.

I don't mean to, however totally respect everyone's right to ignore anyone they wish.