Scott Bradley: 'Should We Try To Legislate Morality?'

Source:Freedoms Rising Sun- Moot question. 

Source:The New Democrat 

“Should We Try to Legislate Morality?"

From Scott Bradley

To answer Scott Bradley's question: no we should not try to legislate morality. At least when it comes to personal behavior and how free adults conduct themselves in their personal lives.

It's sort of a moot question anyway because every civilized country in the world with a functioning government whether it's a developed country or developing country, legislates morality at least in the sense that it lays the rules for how people can interact with each other. To put it simply, we're not allowed to hurt innocent people. We're not allowed to rape each other, physically attack each other, steal from each other murder each other, kidnap each other, commit fraud against each other. We're not allowed to commit these acts and other dangerous acts against innocent people and if we do we face steep legal consequences for doing these things. Which is why we have jails and prisons because we have people who hurt innocent people everyday and have to pay a justifiable price for them.

But that's not my main interest here anyway, because I'm more interested in what government's role if any is when it comes to how people conduct themselves in their personal lives. I'm not talking about people hurting innocent people, but I'm not talking about who people act and do with their own lives and conduct themselves in their personal lives and how much freedom should we have in our own lives. When people can have sex, what we can eat and drink, smoke, the types of entertainment that we can listen to and watch, what we can do with our own bodies and what we can put into our own bodies.

Government already legislates morality and I think Scott Bradley is at least smart enough understand that at least, if he doesn't already know that. The real question is to what extent and should we remain liberal democratic republic or not where personal freedom and autonomy is vast, even if some of our personal choices and activities offends others religious and cultural values. Or do we want big government coming in and telling us who we can have sex with, when we can have sex, who we can marry, what we can put into out bodies, do in the privacy of our own homes and tells us this is what moral and what's not based on some religious and moral code. And even if what we're doing is not actually hurting anyone, it still has to be illegal, because it's immoral according some people's religious and moral values.

And as a Liberal myself I believe it's not the job of government to try to protect us from ourselves, but to protect innocent people from predators and predatory behavior. And as long as people aren't hurting innocent people with what they're doing, government should stay out of the way and allow for free adults to live their own lives and deal with the consequences of their own decisions. Instead of big government coming in and telling us what we should believe and how we should think and this is how we should live our own personal lives.

Amelia Nell & Vocalocity: Rita Hayworth as Gilda- Best Moments

Source:Amelia Nell & Vocalocity- The Love Goddess Rita Hayworth, as Gilda. 

Source:The Daily Review

Gilda, is a very good if not great movie that is sort of a great soap opera or dramatic comedy that has everything from mystery, to crime drama, to comedy even. But if you take Rita Hayworth out of the movie and replace her with an ordinary looking woman, or a woman who is pretty and maybe even sweet looking as well, but nothing special, I believe Gilda becomes a very mediocre movie. I believe there a lot of guys who could've played the Johnny character ( played by Glenn Ford ) and I believe Ford does a great job as well, but a lot of guys could've played Johnny.

Source:Load MP4- The Love Goddess Rita Hayworth, as Gilda 

Imagine Myra Breckinridge without Raquel Welch or Hart to Hart without Stefanie Powers, The Killers without Ava Gardner, they would still be good movies perhaps, Hart to Hart perhaps not because I don't believe would be a good show without Stefanie Powers, but there certain actresses and actors that without them the complexion of the movie or show changes dramatically. Sort of like a great basketball team without a certain player on the team, because they have this presence that is not just memorable, but unforgettable.

Source:Juliet in Paris- The Love Goddess Rita Hayworth, in Gilda 

Rita Hayworth wasn't called The Love Goddess because someone in Hollywood went through a whole book of nicknames to give a random actress and decided that The Love Goddess was the best from the book to give any actress. She was The Love Goddess because millions of men in America and outside of America all wanted her and to be with her and be the Mr. Rita Hayworth the top pinup from the 1940s, a big reason why millions of American soldiers wanted to return from Europe and Japan in the 1940s and come back to America to see and listen to Rita Hayworth.
Source:Amelia Nell & Vocalocity

Bernard Goldberg: 'We Love Free Stuff- As Long As Someone Else Is Paying For It'

Source:Zazzle- Truer words have never been said.

Source:The New Democrat

“It’s become Democratic Party orthodoxy, at least if you’re a progressive running for president: First, you righteously demand that the richest Americans pay their “fair share” which is a top tax rate of at least 70 percent. Then you promise “free” college at public universities for everyone. After that, you say that health care is a right and demand “Medicare for all.” For good measure you throw in that everyone who wants a job will be guaranteed a job, maybe even a guaranteed annual income, and of course, in the short run, an increase in the minimum wage.”

From Bernard Goldberg

"Milton Friedman Replies to a Socialist about the cost of free stuff."

Source:Simply Explained- Listen to Uncle Milton, instead of Uncle Sam. 

From Simply Explained

Socialists whether they're democratic or not or self-described like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria O. Cortez or closeted like Elizabeth Warren and others, would have a lot more respect and credibility in America and perhaps even followers and believers if they were upfront and completely honest about what they're talking about. And instead of arguing that all these new public services that they want and new investments in current public services would be free, because they would be provided for by the Federal Government or any other government and just be honest about that and say, "government can do all these things, but they'll come with a cost and real cost at that."

Source:Crush The Street- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and U.S. Representative Alexandra O. Cortez: self-described Democratic Socialist Members of Congress 

The only things that are free in life once you're parents are no longer supporting you, is death and things that you win in contests. Coupons that you get at stores from being first time or regular customer at your stores. Everything else comes with a cost in life, even for people who live off of public assistance. You might argue that low-income people get things like Food Assistance and Medicaid for free, but the fact is the price they pay for getting those services is a steep and very expensive one, which is living in poverty. If you pay taxes for the public services that you get in life, you don't need to be an accountant or lawyer to realize that you're paying for those so-called free services. Whether it's Medicare or national defense or anything else that the U.S. Government provides for their people.

What Socialists in the Democratic Party do whether it's Senator Bernie Sanders ( no longer the only self-described Democratic Socialist in Congress ) or Representative Alexandria O. Cortez or any other Socialist in Congress, ( again, whether they're self-described or closeted ) is saying that Uncle Sam is going to give every American is who is not rich all of this free stuff, because Uncle Sam is friends or partners with Santa Clause and his helpers and everyone is going to get free health care, health insurance, college, pension, a job, income even for people who only don't work, because they don't want to work. And that the rich are going to pay for all of this taxpayer funded free stuff. Even though anyone who is familiar with the American economy knows the way the rich avoid taxation especially high taxation, is by taking their money, investments, and property outside of America and investing in other countries with lower taxation, or start those new investments in those countries.

If you want free stuff in life, win your state lottery, became a professional gambler, or rob a bank. None of these suggestions I would actually recommend, other than maybe winning the lottery if you know something about the lottery that no one else does. Otherwise come back down from your Planet Mars marijuana high and back down to Earth and realize that life is not free. It's okay to be a Socialist, even though I don't agree or even like socialism, but you at the very least be honest about it even at the risk of losing political support. And say, "of course all these public services aren't going to be free, but they're affordable and yes taxes on the middle class will have to be raise either through new payroll taxes, income, or new sales taxes, but the investments will be worth it for you."

The problem with my own argument here is that once Socialists start talking honestly about their socialism, the popularity and approval of democratic socialism in America would drop faster than a bus going off a bridge into a lake. Americans would actually wake up to the fact that, "wait, I actually have to pay for all these new government services. I thought Uncle Sam or Bernie, or Aunt Alexandria, or Elizabeth were going to give me these services for free." Even the most Far-Left amongst us once they start actually having to pay taxes, especially new taxes tend to not like high taxes. Especially if they're trying to buy their first home, looking to get married and have kids, maybe starting their own business. But at least these Socialists would no longer sound like politicians and instead like people who are actually trying to lead and believe in their own politics.

Harley Davidson & The Marlboro Man (1991) Mickey Rourke & Mitzi Martin

Source:Tenor- Mickey Rourke & Mitzi Martin. 

Source:The Action Blog

If you like action films, especially action/comedy I believe you'll really like Harley Davidson and The Marlboro Man. Which is really about two underachieving and immature drifters ( played by Mickey Rourke and Don Johnson ) who come from humble backgrounds, who grew up together and both end up back in their hometown together and find out that their friends are in trouble and their favorite hangout is going out of business, unless it comes up with a lot cash in a short period of time. They're not career criminals, but they're not angels either and end up stealing money from a bank that's run by crooks and the local mob there to save their bar.

Source:GFYCat- Mickey Rourke & Mitzi Martin 

Neither Harley Davidson ( which is Mickey Rourke's real name in the film ) or Marlboro ( which is Don Johnson's real name in the film ) are meant to be one place for a long period of time, or even weeks. Especially Harley who is not just a biker, but is a drifter who takes off every time he gets bored and gets into trouble or something happens to him that he can't deal with, because he's so immature. Which is why the last scene in the movie after the heroes save the day ( so to speak ) is so great, because what is Harley doing, but taking off again and picking up a young woman ( played by Mitzi Martin ) who is also a drifter and they ride off into the sunset together.
Source:Nick Nevler