I really like your point of view on many things. If there was a republian candidate that thought more along the lines as you, they would have my vote in second.

Romney time machine

I would totally chg up how the airways go. I would have certain television stations that you don't have to extra for like Showtime or HBO

These would be regular channels that offer more graphic scenes. I don't just mean nudity, but can you imagine 24 even more violent? Greys Anatomy to have nudity? CSI with more graphic scense and course language? I would like to have that choice. I would like to have the strongest password protection, so kids do not watch it.

On certain stations, they would not be allowed to show any smut and only respect good old fashioned familiy oriented programs like the Brady bunch.

As far as prostitution and drugs go, I would like to have a every city allowed to have sort of like a red light district much like they do in Amsterdam.

I would like gays to be more excepted in society.

I would hope they allow euthanisa as well.

That is my perfect scenario on that topic Trach.

meant to put it under Unsane's, above.... :p

First of all, I want to define the term “right,” as I think
many confuse this term with “entitlement.” My “rights” do not cost other people
money. It is just that simple. When my “rights” do begin to cost others money,
then they have ceased being rights and are now an “entitlement.” Entitlements
are another discussion entirely, so I will refrain from venturing there.

I base my views on freedom squarely upon the libertarian
model, as this, in my judgment, is the only model going that truly does justice
to my idea of what true freedom actually is, and should be. I am of the
considered belief that people should be able to do whatever they like, as long
as what they do does not interfere with the life, rights or property of other
people. Most people in the country today honestly believe this country is, in
fact, free. Phooey. We are nowhere near.

Every July 4th, I see all these people walking
about with their little flags, enthusiastically waving then and smiling to all
they meet. I see their kids sporting their red, white and blue accessories, the
Styrofoam Flag-patterned coolers, and watch them all stand there clapping and
cheering for the fireworks display they have just witnessed. It’s enough to
make we want to puke.

Let’s face facts here. We live in a nation of busy bodies.
These people aren’t just positioned politically on the left or the right, but
all across the spectrum. There are many among who just cannot keep their noses
out of other people’s business (or wallets). They get an idea in their minds
that they don’t like or approve of what someone else is doing, and then seek
ways to force those acting in ways that do not like to conform to whatever
standards they want. If you have ever run afoul of your friendly neighborhood
Homeowner’s Association Nazis, you know exactly what I am talking about.

For one of many examples, at this time in my home state of
Georgia, I cannot go out on a Sunday and purchase a bottle of wine. Suppose I
have company show up from out of town and I decide to make a nice dinner but I
have no wine in the house? Well, I am essentially SOL here. The reason for this
lunacy is rather simple. Somebody, somewhere, decided that they did not like
the idea that people (like me) might actually purchase alcohol on a (gasp!)
Sunday. They went to their local state legislator and convinced them that my
purchasing alcohol (a legal commodity) on a Sunday was somehow a threat to the
republic, and therefore the state should use the force of law to prevent me
from undertaking what is simply a business transaction on a Sunday. My guess is
that this hideous law was originally conceived by a group of Baptist ministers
somewhere in Central Georgia who have no-doubt well-stocked wine cellars, not
to mention fully supplied wet-bars.

To me, there is no difference between this prohibitive law
and one that a group of Islamist’s might attempt to pass somewhere in this
country (Michigan?) that outlaws the sale of bacon because their religion
believes it a sin to consume pork. If you do not agree, due to your religious
beliefs, or whatever, with someone buying alcohol on a Sunday, then don’t buy
any. If I decide to do so, how is that affecting you, or anyone else, for that
matter?

It is not okay for you to employ the police powers of government
to impose your religious beliefs on others. That is not freedom.

While I have no problem with laws that prevent smoking in
automobiles while children are present, we are now seeing laws passed in this
country that make it illegal for people to smoke in their own homes. Here
again, somebody, somewhere decided that they didn’t want other people smoking
in their very own homes, so they went to the government to impose their beliefs
on others. The Health Nazis and Pleasure Police are now reaching into our
abodes! This should infuriate those who really care about true freedom. The sad
thing is, many of those same nitwits who support this sort of tyranny (and that
is exactly what it is) will be among those aforementioned people cheering on
the fireworks next 4th of July.

Now we have the government forcing us to wear seatbelts in
our cars. Ah, but it saves lives, you say. Perhaps so, but that isn’t the job
of the government. The government’s job is to ensure my rights are protected,
period. If I make the choice not to wear a seatbelt in a car, I may be stupid,
but I am hurting no one other than myself. I feel the same way about mandatory
helmet laws for motorcycle riders, as well. The one catch here is that I do not
support the taxpayers or your fellow insurance customers picking up the tab if
you get injured in an accident due to the fact that you were not wearing a
helmet or a seatbelt. If one is stupid enough to do either of the above, they
should have to sign a waiver.

I could provide hundreds of more examples here without even
breaking a sweat, but I think you are getting the idea of how I view the
concept of freedom, and why I am of the opinion that this nation is becoming
less free as each day passes.

___________________________

Civil unions: I have no problem with homosexuals living
together or whatever, and I am not going to venture into whether or not
homosexuals are born that way or make it a conscious choice to be gay. Suffice
it to say that they are out there, and always will be. I do not, however, feel
that “gay marriage” is necessary, as there are usually no children involved,
which is what the institution of marriage was created for.

As far as having their “civil partners” on their insurance
policies and such, that is getting into “entitlement” territory, but that
should still be up to the individual companies involved, as well as the other
policy holders. If you do not agree with companies deciding to insure gay
partners, then you have several courses of action available to you, such as not
doing business with these companies. The government, particularly at the
federal level, has absolutely no business being involved in this one way or the
other. Neither do we.

I find it astounding that so many are getting their boxers
in a bunch over a group that makes up only 5% of the overall population. Right
now, we are facing a criminal invasion from our southern neighbors which shows
few signs of letting up, a bunch of bass-ackward, 7th Century
illiterate barbarians who are trying to figure out a way to nuke a US city, a
hideous medieval federal tax system that has driven $13 trillion (so far) from
our shores, a bankrupt SS system that is going to soon drag us all into the
financial abyss, a federal government that is having to borrow billions from
the Chicoms just to keep operating, and you are worried that a few gay
Americans are going to wind up on their partner’s insurance policies? Get a
grip.

Euthanasia: As far as having a bunch of Kevorkians (who I
believe to be mentally ill, incidentally) running around offing people in the
middle of the night, well, that gives me the creeps. However, given that the
bulk of the money that is going to be forked out to pay for yours (and my)
health care will occur during the last year or so of our lives, I am not all that
sure that keeping us going via artificial means is the correct course of
action.

As someone who is probably going to be faced with this
gut-wrenching decision in the very near future, do I have a right to impose
such a crippling financial burden on the rest of my family? Do I have a right
to force others outside of my family to foot the bills here, just to buy a few
more months of life for family members who are going to die anyway? I don’t
think I do.

It is really easy to say that we should go to whatever
means required to keep the terminally ill alive just because they are alive.
Usually, those who say this aren’t facing the financial ruin that often
accompanies the treatment of terminally ill people. Sure, there were elderly
relatives of mine who passed that I miss horribly, but would keeping them
around a few more months be right, particularly when you consider the
exponential rise in the cost of doing so? If you do, then PM me, and I will let
you know where you can begin mailing the checks to.

Adult entertainment: A no-brainer here for sure. What people
watch in the privacy of their own homes is their business. If they choose to
view adult films in their homes, they are in no way endangering the lives,
rights or property of other people. It is not my business, your business, or
the government’s business. If you see these materials as being immoral, then
don’t view them.

If you do not want your children seeing this stuff, be it
on TV, the Internet, or via whatever media, then take it upon yourself to see
that they don’t. There are all kinds of technologies out there that can be
employed to keep this stuff away from children. Use them. Do not tell me how
conservative you are, and how opposed you are to the creeping “nanny state”
then turn right around and tell me that you want the government to act as your
nanny. You brought those children into the world, not the government. They are
your responsibility.

Oh, for some of you parents who are upset that your child
saw a (gasp!) exposed breast on the tube as they walked by the den one evening,
then the next day you go out to buy yet another violent video game for that Xbox
360 you bought for that same child just a couple of months ago, why are you
complaining? And I know some parents who have done this. Several times.

Drug use: The hideous, poorly thought-out “War on Drugs”
must end. There is no shortage to the atrocities that government has committed
when it comes to our rights as citizens, all in the name of fighting this
stupid war. We have spent billions on this insanity, and have made not so much
as a measurable dent in their use. The parallels between this and prohibition
are startling, yet we continue to throw piles of money down this rat-hole.

All we have really managed to do is drive up the street price,
which attracts more players, and gotten a lot of innocent Americans killed,
either in the crossfire in the streets or when the police storm the wrong house
and shoot eighty year-old grandmothers who they feel are resisting unduly. We
have filled our prisons to capacity, all because these people did something
many of us do not like and don’t think they should be doing. Throwing people in
jail for non-violent drug use clearly does not work. Treatment stands a much
better chance here. Our prisons should be reserved for violent criminals who
are a threat to other people, not some guy sitting in his own house burning a
joint one afternoon. Clearly, the prohibition fiasco taught us nothing as a
nation.

Prostitution: Would someone please explain to me why it is
that, if two strangers meet and just happen to have sex, that is okay in the eyes of the government. However, if any money changes hands in the process, then here comes the government, in the form of the police, and throws both
parties into the slammer? How much money and precious law-enforcement resources have been wasted here?

-Well, I guess that about covers it.

Proud member of the "Rough Republican Attack Machine."

First of all, my post and question was for TWC.

Second of all, I resent the implication that I was trying to be condesending to TWC, he is definitely on of my favorite people on this site. I can give as good as I get, but he has never been disrespectful and I meant every word of what I said.

Third of all, he is not a soft target. My good friend Blonde gave me some advice one night. I was getting into it with someone. She is not one to mince words and she told me I should log off for the night because I was acting like a troll. I asked her why I was acting like a troll. She told me because I was doing what liberals do, keep answering questions with asking my own questions. I resented it at first but then it made a lot of sense.

I know when I patiently tell you how I would reshape the FCC and exactly what the boundries are, you have to go off and ask inane questions. Why would you want to look at a donkey butt? What would a un cut version of Scaface be like? What morals are you talking about shawn? Why would you stop with your boundries shawn? I like debate and after debating you, I understand Blondes frustrations.

If you want to debate one of my points without asking 3 of your own, I am more than willing.

Trach, seriously you need to study the entire old testament and see the pattern of faith verses rebellion toward God. When Israel sought the Lord in earnest they prospered. When they worshipped idols and spilled innocent blood, God cursed their land. If you think God is different today than he was, then you are mistaken. I have no pastieness about my faith. I like Shawn and care about him and others like him because I'm commanded to.

Shawn, sorry It's been so long. I've been very blessed at work and have only a little spare time these days to lurk on Newsbusters. The bible doesn't really have a lot to say about freewill other than that we understand we have it. No person in their right mind would be willing to be destroyed in order enjoy the pleasures of what God's standard says sin is. And sadly for us that standard is a whole lot more strict than ours. There is a way that seems right to a man but it's foolishness to God.

The only way we'll ever see this nation prosper again like it used to is through true repentence. We need to turn away from the senseless murder of millions in the womb, addiction and idolatry (which is any thing that is put above God) If you have interest in seeing what God can do with repentence look up the revivals in Cali, Colombia where a multi-billion dollar drug cartel was shattered because of prayer or the entire nation of Fiji where they are now 100% professing Christian. God blesses those that love Him. America has certainly fallen out of love with God and you can see from the growing despair in our land He's taken His hand off of us.

If we allow and condone rebellious behaviors towards God, we'll never be restored as a nation. That's why I can not condone any thing that is on your list.

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Winston Churchill

I didn't realize you had started this until just now. *blushes at seeing herself referenced as a cool conservative*

Anyway, I thought I'd add my two cents to the topics at hand.

-Civil unions: I assume you mean for gay people and the like? Personally I don't mind gay people living together, doing taxes together, getting next of kin rights, etc. I guess that's what civil unions are all about? What I don't like is emphasis removed from mothers and fathers/family units.

-Voluntary euthanasia is fine by me. What I object to is a questionable case where there is no DNR order and a family member with suspicious motives is pushing for it. Euthanasia only with an abundance of evidence that the sick person wanted it. Otherwise, err on the side of life.

-Adult entertainment, the more the merrier as long as it's behind closed doors.

-Drug use is sticky because technically the government is dictating what people can do, but on the other hand drug dealers get kids hooked on it fast. IMO make things like pot legal but enforce harsh laws against anyone caught selling to a minor.

-Prostitution in itself is harmless enough, but like drug use, it tends to invite trouble around it. Teen girls getting beaten and forced to go along with it, homeless girls getting diseases because it was their only source of income, etc. Also the thought of every corner in America hosting a prostititute does not sound very good to me. I lean on the side of keeping it illegal, but not fervently.

-Protecting the unborn is still a big deal to me. It's not about a woman's right to choose. It's coming to the rescue of a little person with no voice at the mercy of an apathetic mother.

Laws should not be formed by random moral codes, but by common sense desires for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Anything that hurts society, directly or indirectly, must be dealt with.

For example, porn and free speech. Back in the day porn was available for adults who knew where to get it. Getting into Rated R movies was harder for kids to do. Kids grew up learning the birds and bees through whispered rumors and lectures from parents.

The past 20 years has seen a boom in sex and profanity made available to children. These days, kids as young as nine and ten speak in vulgar language, know as much about sex as I do, think school is a joke, and enjoy random violence. We are raising a new breed of airheads and this will hurt our society in the long run.

So everything has to be considered through that lens. 

I am responding down here because it was getting awfully skinny up there:-)

You present you points very well and I understand you pov on protecting our children. Your right maybe 5-9 yr olds might not know how to get past a v-chip, but a older child might.

I concede I am selfish and I want it both ways, to be able to watch what i want and protect out children at the same time.

IMO opinion with what you propose about paying extra for Showtime or HBO is they are subsciption channels.

They get all their money from people that pay for their service and that is it. The way I would do it is, people can choose whatever the stations they want individually and that would include NBC, CBS, FOX and ABC. These channels would no longer have to worry about the FCC, because I would takeway the restrictions that have no re: obsenity. How is this different than HBO or Showtime? FOX, ABC, NBC etc have paid advertising. That is where the really money comes from for a budget. Shows like CSI and Grays Anatomy have a lots of money because their sponsors are willing to pay the small fortune it takes to buy a commercial.

Like I was saying earlier, If I ran the FCC, people can have whatever channels they want within reason. Christian, Wholesome, Music Channel.s. The government would not be involved either, PBS will be a thing of the past.