[AlexanderPalamayr]

While most people have basic right & wrong morals, there are inherent differences about the morality of the society that conservatives and liberals wish to live in. If we could send all the conservatives to one place to live the way they want and vise versa with the liberals I'd respect the way thye want to live. Unfortunately that is ot possible and we have the Republicans claiming they have a higher moral standing than the Democrats. Lets have a look at a few basic issues.

Gay Marriage: Republicans oppose this because it destroys family values. Can I ask how a gay couple going about their business affects someone else's family in any way whatsoever? Can I ask how it affects a straight couple that wants to get married? The answers are they don't. Gays will raise families weather they are married or not. Yet the rebublicans would have gays segregated from society much like women and blacks have been in the past because they don't like the idea of to men being intimate. Guess what..neither do I but I respect it. Scratch morals on that one.

Religion : Republicans love their religion. They want it in our government, in our schools and outside of our courthouses. I once heard a priest say that if your not christian then your going to hell when you die. Sounds to me like religion is just a human need to fill a void of intelligence. Believing in God is fine (I do) but having religion in public places is another issue of non-tolerance of other religions in the world and is again immoral to think for some reason yours is better.

Drugs: Republicans and conservatives think drugs are the devil and should be banend at all costs. While abuses of either could be damaging to some, they don't directly hurt anyone else except the user. Prohibition doesn't work. Instead, education should be used to avoid lives turning to shit early on. Throwing people in jail for indulging themselves in something that doesn't harm anyone else is immoral.

Abortion: While telling a woman what to do with her body is immoral, the same could be argued about taking potential the life of a fetus so I'll leave this one alone.

Stem Cell Research: The ability to save millions from disease is within reach but the republicans say its unacceptable to kill an embyro which is not even a fetus. Sorry thats crazy. The lives of the living are worth more than stem cells. These are people who'll probably get in their pickup trucks and go hunting on the weekend and kill a few beatiful animals because its fun. Morality? Scratch that.

War: We have all these soldiers who signed up to fight for freedom so by golly lets use em. A few thousand of their lives are worth securing a polluting energy source.

Environment. Tom Delay decalred a jihad on the EPA. Need I say more?

Guns: Everyone must own a gun because everyone else owns a gun. When the shit hits the fan like during a natural disaster its better to have the desperate and dying armed and dangerous so they can shoot at rescue helicopters. We'll back it up with sexed-up statistics that show neighbourhoods with lots of guns have no measurable increase in crime. Gimme a break.

I'm sure there is more but thats all I can think of. The next time you hear someone say Dems have no morals, use this post.

[infarrelisam]

I had no idea that they sold brushes that wide. All this does is show YOUR biases.

By the way, the Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act and George Wallace was a Democrat! Once again, your Canadian biases are showing, or are you talking about Canada?

[thomaskkk]

I had no idea that they sold brushes that wide. All this does is show YOUR biases.

By the way, the Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act and George Wallace was a Democrat! Once again, your Canadian biases are showing, or are you talking about Canada?

You lost me on that post. Sorry dude. I don't beleive I'm being bias. I want a morals debate. If you can hack it then bring it on because I feel the left is being cheated on the morals issue.

[AmericaAirline 111]

They've been cheated on morals since the 70s. They have none!

[malishka1025]

You don't want a debate. You just like to slam and smear the right. That's all that post was.

[Logaleta]

You don't want a debate. You just like to slam and smear the right. That's all that post was.

Pot calling the kettle black, that is.

[engideNedmupe]

Pot calling the kettle black, that is.

Carefully read the post that began this thread.

Carefully.

It makes my stomach rumble.

But, I like swiss cheese

[bettingonosports]

People who declare that "XXX group has no morals" are themselves on tenuous moral ground.

Matt

[sbrthrds]

Carefully read the post that began this thread.

To insinuate that I don't read threads carefully through - from the beginning - is an insult. And laughable.

[seosoftseo]

People who declare that "XXX group has no morals" are themselves on tenuous moral ground.

Matt

Interesting moral supposition. Care to defend it in an more appropriate thread?

It is logically circular, but I'm sure you knew that already...

[AmericaAirline 111]

If you are going to lecture those who disagree with you about their lack of morality, you should probably avoid offensive observations such as the following: Believing in God is fine (I do) but having religion in public places is another issue of non-tolerance of other religions in the world and is again immoral to think for some reason yours is better. This is a large planet, Danny, and you have to share it with others who do not share your beliefs and values. Attempting to destroy the credibility of others through ridicule and crude insults is merely a way of avoiding discussion. Wrapping your hysterical diatribe in a thread claiming that millions of people are immoral because of their faith and views is beneath contempt.

[Arrecteve]

People who declare that "XXX group has no morals" are themselves on tenuous moral ground.

Matt

True.

Also note the term "conservative killer" under his name - surely a case of hatred taken to extraordinary lengths. Somehow, it is difficult to take lectures on morality seriously from a poster intent on murder.

[SmuffNuSMaxqh]

This thread reminds me of Daryl's contribution to "define good and evil".

""Good = Us
Evil = Them""

Tim, you might have missed Mad_Michael's post. Someone saying ""People who declare that "XXX group has no morals" are themselves on tenuous moral ground"" is himself "someone who declares that XXX group has no morals". In other terms, by agreeing, you are admitting that you are on tenuous moral ground.

[pepBarihepe]

This thread reminds me of Daryl's contribution to "define good and evil".

""Good = Us
Evil = Them""

Tim, you might have missed Mad_Michael's post. Someone saying ""People who declare that "XXX group has no morals" are themselves on tenuous moral ground"" is himself "someone who declares that XXX group has no morals". In other terms, by agreeing, you are admitting that you are on tenuous moral ground.

What?

Oh, i just got it....I am never very good at word games, but you caught me, I admit it. (That's why I am avoiding that thread on defining good and evil - reducing truth and transcendent reality to atomized fragments.)

[Imagimifouxum]

Interesting moral supposition. Care to defend it in an more appropriate thread?

It is logically circular, but I'm sure you knew that already...

Logically circular, paints with a huge brush. In other words, logically equivalent to the OP's premise.

Seriously, any time one declares "All (Democrats, Republicans, Blacks, Whites, Gays, Straights - pick one) are XXX", the statement reflects more on the person making it than on the target population.

Matt

[Ufkkrxcq]

SorryDANNY, but you are wrong , both sides have morals. It's just that you don't agree with theirs.

[Liaiskelile]

To insinuate that I don't read threads carefully through - from the beginning - is an insult. And laughable.

I wasn't insinuating man.

Just saying that with a careful READ .........

.......... well, you know what I was saying then.

Don't be gettin' all insulted and shit

Laugh all ya want though. I like swiss cheese

LOL

[Bejemoelemymn]

I understand that women that are democratic will have sex with ANYTHING at anyTIME.

Since the subject matter here is swiss cheese-n-all

[detskpit]

I understand that women that are democratic will have sex with ANYTHING at anyTIME.

Since the subject matter here is swiss cheese-n-all

(LOL) Good one.

[Forexampleee]

While it appears many of you think my post is beneith contempt, I'm only trying to level the playing field. I see posts by Gadlfy and Little Acorn and all they do is attack the left over and over with ridiculous rhetoric that simply isn't true. I'm forced to make it appear that I'm a hardliner nutcase just to keep up. I'm really just an average guy who leans toward the center.

But you do have a point to a certain extent. Most of you debate very calmly and I suppose the left has its nutcases as well. In the interest of good statesmanship I will change my conservative killer title to something a little less offensive to my comrades on the right.