Our puritanical progressives

[PJABBER]

Absolutely. That's why Republicans no longer seek to outlaw abortions nor strive to prevent same-sex marriage. They're only opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage on a PRIVATE level.

How apropos that your example includes two of the three puritanical "progressive's" pet causes. If you had simply addended the words "while high" you would have captured all three.

 

[JSt0rm]

It's so tiring and pointless arguing with you twats.

Smoking is a health issue that effects others besides the smoker. You cant have someone work in a environment with second hand smoke for 8 to 10 hours.

Saying HIV is the reason health care costs are sky rocketing is pointless strawman garbage.

There are just so many ways to refute your talking points that its not even worth the time to do it because i dont even think you believe in them. The main idea is to posture and create doubt about "progressives" so your "team" can come out ahead. Its mindless attacks on your perceived enemy. fucking stupid.

 

[IBMer]

Like Tipper Gore, and the Moral Majorities PMRC?

PMRC was for limiting profane language in music. Sound pretty conservative to me.

 

[shira]

Absolutely. That's why Republicans no longer seek to outlaw abortions nor strive to prevent same-sex marriage. They're only opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage on a PRIVATE level.

How apropos that your example includes two of the three puritanical "progressive's" pet causes. If you had simply addended the words "while high" you would have captured all three.

How apropos. You've cleverly addressed my shredding of your absurd claim.

Oh, wait.

 

[Amused]

Ya know, once you sweep the ad hominems aside, the only argument is "yeah, but what about the right going against gays and abortion?"

Well, what about the left being liberal on ONLY gays and abortion???

The left has, repeatedly, shown us that it is ANYTHING but liberal. It is, in fact, authoritarian and with the exception of gays and abortion, has not seen a right or freedom it did not want to regulate, limit or ban in one way or another.

We have PJ's example here (Democrats in CA trying to ban violent video games), Tipper Gore, Happy meal bans, fat taxes, safety laws, guns... and the list goes on and on and on...

No, the Republican party is no great savior of freedom or rights. But it is a HUGE mistake to think the Decocrats are. A HUGE mistake indeed.

What America needs is a TRUE liberal party. Not libertarian, just liberal. Because the dems sure as fuck ain't it anymore.

 

[xj0hnx]

PMRC was for limiting profane language in music. Sound pretty conservative to me.

Except it was started and run by liberal democrats, the Moral Majority. [snicker]revisionist history indeed[/snicker]

 

[IBMer]

Except it was started and run by liberal democrats, the Moral Majority.

You call it "liberal" when its a "conservative" action. You guys suck as using correct labels. You are so stuck at labeling things as absolutes. There are conservative and liberal Democrats, and just the same for republicans. The PMRC was a conservative group regardless if Tipper Gore was a democrat or not.

Ya know, once you sweep the ad hominems aside, the only argument is "yeah, but what about the right going against gays and abortion?"

You are sweeping a lot more than ad hominems aside. PJ is trying to pin older nanny state movements on old generation "progressives"/democrats. What he forgot is these people joined the Republican party.

 

[Amused]

Except it was started and run by liberal democrats, the Moral Majority. [snicker]revisionist history indeed[/snicker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resource_Center

The formation of the PMRC began in 1984 after Tipper Gore, along with her daughter Karenna, heard Prince's song "Darling Nikki". This track, which appears on the soundtrack to the film Purple Rain, contains references to sex and masturbation ("I knew a girl named Nikki/I guess you could say she was a sex fiend/I met her in a hotel lobby/Masturbating with a magazine").

Gore watched other rock music videos and concluded: "The images frightened my children, they frightened me! I am frightened! Way frightened! The graphic sex and the violence were too much for us to handle."

 

[Amused]

You call it "liberal" when its a "conservative" action. You guys suck as using correct labels. You are so stuck at labeling things as absolutes. There are conservative and liberal Democrats, and just the same for republicans. The PMRC was a conservative group regardless if Tipper Gore was a democrat or not.



You are sweeping a lot more than ad hominems aside. PJ is trying to pin older nanny state movements on old generation "progressives"/democrats. What he forgot is these people joined the Republican party.

The Gores are Republicans???

Wow.

The current Dems in CA who are trying to ban violent video games are Republicans now???

Wow.

It's time to admit the very basic fact that the Democratic party is NOT liberal. Not in any way, shape or form, but is authoritarian and believes all social ills can be cured by force of law. This means taking your rights and freedoms away for your own good.

 

[xj0hnx]

You call it "liberal" when its a "conservative" action. You guys suck as using correct labels.

You suck at making shit up, it isn't a "conservative" action just because you pout about it, fact is it was done by liberal democrats, and all the stomping your feet, and trying to revise history will not make it change.

 

[IBMer]

The Gores are Republicans???

Wow.

The current Dems in CA who are trying to ban violent video games are Republicans now???

Wow.

It's time to admit the very basic fact that the Democratic party is NOT liberal. Not in any way, shape or form, but is authoritarian and believes all social ills can be cured by force of law. This means taking your rights and freedoms away for your own good.

Thank you for confirming that the Gores and the democrats in CA that are wanting to ban video game violence are the only Democrats in the whole country. I never knew.

 

[Amused]

Thank you for confirming that the Gores and the democrats in CA that are wanting to ban video game violence are the only Democrats in the whole country. I never knew.

Wow. Swing and a miss!

 

[xj0hnx]

Wow. Now you're just swinging wildly.

California Über Alles

 

[Amused]

California Über Alles

hehe I like my edit better.

 

[IBMer]

Fred Phelps was a democrat too. Are you now going to equate his movement with democrats and try to claim they are all like that?

 

[shira]

Ya know, once you sweep the ad hominems aside, the only argument is "yeah, but what about the right going against gays and abortion?"

Well, what about the left being liberal on ONLY gays and abortion???

The left has, repeatedly, shown us that it is ANYTHING but liberal. It is, in fact, authoritarian and with the exception of gays and abortion, has not seen a right or freedom it did not want to regulate, limit or ban in one way or another.

We have PJ's example here (Democrats in CA trying to ban violent video games), Tipper Gore, Happy meal bans, fat taxes, safety laws, guns... and the list goes on and on and on...

No, the Republican party is no great savior of freedom or rights. But it is a HUGE mistake to think the Decocrats are. A HUGE mistake indeed.

Create your straw-man "lefty" all you want, but the right I've observed in action wants exactly TWO freedoms: (1) The rich should be able to do anything they want to earn a buck, free from any regulation whatsoever. (2) People should have virtually unlimited access to any firearm they want.

As to your bogus claim about only "lefties" being against the freedom to sell violent video games, why don't you read the list of RED states who have filed friend-of-the-court briefs with the SCOTUS, supporting California's position:

Louisiana
Mississippi
Texas
Virginia

Oh, and let's not forget that bastion of liberal thinking, http://www.eagleforum.org/

A brief excerpt from their Amicus brief:
http://www.eagleforum.org/briefs/video-game-case-08-1448b.pdf

Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, rejecting claims that gruesome video games are somehow First Amendment free speech.

Oh, and you might be interested to know that THIS progressive is personally opposed to banning the sale of violent video games to the under-18 crowd. I'm also opposed to banning the sale of video games containing explicit sexual content to the under-18 crowd.

Now, why don't you tell us again how progressives have the market cornered on nanny-state attitudes?

 

[Genx87]

It seems a favorite thing of conservatives now is to drum up old "Democrat" view points and policies from the past. What they don't want to say and don't want people to know using this "proof" is that political parties significantly change over the decades. A lot of these same things they try to drum up and call "Democrat" are people and ideas that now belong to the Republican party...

Right those Republicans Al and Tipper Gore were made assholes by Dee Snider. Oh wait.....


This excuse is growing long in the tooth. Anything progressive democrats dont like about their party from decades past they try to pin on Dixiecrats. Wake the fuck up. Your party and ideology is failing you. They want a big intervening nanny in your life state as much as christian conservatives in the Republican party.

 

[Amused]

Fred Phelps was a democrat too. Are you now going to equate his movement with democrats and try to claim they are all like that?

Another swing and a miss.

So you pull up a nut case who couldn't get elected and try to compare that to the wife of the vice president and many sitting CA senators?

Wow...

 

[xj0hnx]

Create your straw-man "lefty" all you want, but the right I've observed in action wants exactly TWO freedoms: (1) Anyone with ambition to should be able to do anything they want to earn a buck, free from any regulation whatsoever. (2) People should have virtually unlimited access to any firearm they want.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Amused]

Create your straw-man "lefty" all you want, but the right I've observed in action wants exactly TWO freedoms: (1) The rich should be able to do anything they want to earn a buck, free from any regulation whatsoever. (2) People should have virtually unlimited access to any firearm they want.

As to your bogus claim about only "lefties" being against the freedom to sell violent video games, why don't you read the list of RED states who have filed friend-of-the-court briefs with the SCOTUS, supporting California's position:

Louisiana
Mississippi
Texas
Virginia

Oh, and let's not forget that bastion of liberal thinking, http://www.eagleforum.org/

A brief excerpt from their Amicus brief:
http://www.eagleforum.org/briefs/video-game-case-08-1448b.pdf



Oh, and you might be interested to know that THIS progressive is personally opposed to banning the sale of violent video games to the under-18 crowd. I'm also opposed to banning the sale of video games containing explicit sexual content to the under-18 crowd.

Now, why don't you tell us again how progressives have the market cornered on nanny-state attitudes?

Again, I NEVER claimed the republicans were any defenders of freedom.

I guess you missed that.

So pulling out republicans and saying "WHAT ABOUT...?" won't do jack.

The problem here is authoritarians claiming to be "liberal." Oh, and that the Democratic party is anything but liberal.

 

[IBMer]

Another swing and a miss.

So you pull up a nut case who couldn't get elected and try to compare that to the wife of the vice president and many sitting CA senators?

Wow...

I bet more people know who the Westboro Baptist Church is than could pick Tipper Gore out in a line up.

 

[cheesehead]

Only you would confuse the puritan freedomless goals of "progressives" with the propriety of exposing kids to pornography.

The only "freedoms" ever espoused by "progressives" are those which permit libertine indulgence in sex, drugs and abortion. Aren't all others eagerly proscribed, for the "good of society?"

You arbitrarily state that exposing children to pornography is bad. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

In any case, you have discouraged government officials from publicly consuming pornography. There is, of course, quite a lot of data to support this viewpoint, including the potential normalization of dangerous behavior and long-term body image problems. You're certainly not the only one to espouse it.

Thing is, most of the same authorities cited to back up this argument are the same authorities used to justify denying access to violent media - and, more often than not, for exactly the same reasons. Either the arguments are bunk, or they're not - you can't use an argument to support one statement and then deny it as bunk to reject another.

 

[Amused]

I bet more people know who the Westboro Baptist Church is than could pick Tipper Gore out in a line up.

Keep reaching...

 

[werepossum]

Seems to me that the attempts to control violent or sexually explicit media, especially keeping them from children, is about equally distributed between left, right and middle. If anything the right is probably more stringent about also keeping them away from everyone.

 

[Amused]

Seems to me that the attempts to control violent or sexually explicit media, especially keeping them from children, is about equally distributed between left, right and middle. If anything the right is probably more stringent about also keeping them away from everyone.

Agreed. However, the right doesn't claim to be liberal.