Palin: a free society that is not moral will destroy itself

When you quote Sarah Palin, you have 0 credibility.

 

Stopped clock.

 

I'm sure if she can, she will.

The main point is social conservative loves to force their morality onto all. Yet they speak of individual freedom as vital. Hypocrite much.

 

"The first thing politicians ask after these tragedies is essentially: “What can we do to limit the freedom of the people?”

Freedom is chaos, I don't think conservatives want freedom at all.

 

Withnal and I! "Even a stopped clock is right, twice a day.."

 

Andrew Sullivan on Anderson cooper's show this week said something I totally agree with. there is really nothing we can do about these situations, he just wishes his fellow conservatives would own it.

own the fact that this is the cost of freedom. freedom to have guns means some nuts will slip through the cracks. just admit that.

honestly I feel that not allowing mentally ill people to have guns is constitutionally wrong. people who have mental issues who live on their own don't have a right to protect themselves?

 

An opinion written by Sarah Palin that quotes John Adams? There is a 100% chance that either the quote is wrong or Palin didn't write this.

But I do agree with the point that we have serious cultural problems in this country.

 

Violent crimes have been decreasing for the last 20+ years in the country. The only thing that has increased is the media coverage and the number of people who figured out that the easiest way to be the center of national attention is to kill a bunch of random people. If there were no 24 hour news coverage of such events, the events would happen a lot less often.

 

Your rationale implies that if we could some how curb gun violence, then the crime problems in the United States would drop significantly.

If you would check your European utopia model, you would find that crime is out of control there too. Stopping the couple mass shootings a year will not fix our problem

 

Murderers, drug pushers and other criminals agree with this wholeheartedly.

 

The guy was nuts, and he had a history of both erratic behavior and violence. Most of these shooters were known to be oddballs, yet not much was done to remove them from society. If you're looking for an answer, it might be found in doing checkups on people who've been flagged for bizarre behavior. If the checkup raises more red flags, involuntary confinement should be an option.

 

Would we? Violent crime as a whole is hard to measure because every country counts different things. But homicide rates are easier:

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

Per capita, the US is 4.8 per 100,000 people. Western Europe is 1.0. Northern and Southern Europe are 1.5. Only Eastern Europe is worse than the US (at 6.4). Canada is 1.6. Australia 1.0. Asia as a whole is 3.1.

 

I'm betting that's what she wrote this with.

 

Old but still relevant.

 

You're letting facts get in the way of their convictions, Major. Shame on you! ;-)-

Truly an excellent post, rockbox. Not what some want to hear, but right on target. Well done! -

 

I don't things look too good then, since we are not and have never been a particularly moral people. After all, this is the nation of slavery, Jim Crow, the Trail of Tears, the atom bomb, and so on. Same with every nation on earth. So how can anyone live in freedom?

But, maybe the standard isn't too high. Maybe we can go on with our infidelities and the coveting in our hearts so long as we stop making violent video games and rapping about shooting cops. But what if we look around and we 'ask the hard questions' and discover that we really don't measure up? Then what do we do? (Because honestly, if we're relying on our morality to preserve freedom, freedom is indeed doomed.) Is it just a fight between the people who hide behind the first amendment and those who hide behind the second amendment?

Or, is it maybe possibly just a bunch of empty rhetorical bull****?

Since it's almost certain a ghost-writer put that together for her, OP should be okay.

 

Religious libertarians don't make any sense.

case in point. conflict between mommy Palin and daddy Paul.

Violence in media has no significant correlation between violence in real life. In fact, as more and more violence and p*rnography has spread, sexual violence and violence as a whole has decreased.

but don't let that stop you from thinking society is falling apart because of taxes and 300. I suppose if there is one thing that links this contradictory chain of beliefs, it is an absolute refusal to look at the data, and to make wild statements with little to no evidence.

 

Her name is familiar but I'm otherwise drawing a blank. Pron?

 

Who's morals, yours, mine, the Christian Right/Left???

The definitions of morality and immorality will be different depending on who answers.

Even a simple form of morality such as the Golden/Silver rules, has it's flaws. How can we presume how others want to be treated or more simply how do i know you want what i want and vice versa?

If I chose to not follow your morals, does that make me immoral?

 

lol Sarah Palin. That's rich.