Cuccinelli: We're Positioned to Shock the Political World

[No1butPaul]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/01/Cuccinelli-Were-Postitioned-to-Shock-Political-World

[cjm]

in before "he's not a liberty candidate"

[eduardo89]

in before "he's not a liberty candidate"

in b4 "he wants to ban oral sex"

[FrankRep]

Ron Paul to campaign for Ken Cuccinelli in Richmond on Monday 11/4
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?431938-Ron-Paul-to-campaign-for-Ken-Cuccinelli-in-Richmond-on-Monday-11-4

http://i40.tinypic.com/nx5l5j.jpg

[AuH20]

in b4 "he wants to ban oral sex"

in b4 somebody tells me that "he's hiding under your bed with a warrant."

[AuH20]

Haven't you heard?

http://specularphoto.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/RandPaulVisitsVirginia.jpg

[eduardo89]

http://specularphoto.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/RandPaulVisitsVirginia.jpg

I'd agree with banning all those apart from oral sex, just because that would be impossible to police.

[Rocco]

You would ban contraception?


I'd agree with banning all those apart from oral sex, just because that would be impossible to police.

[eduardo89]

You would ban contraception?

Yes, I support a ban on contraception.

[AuH20]

You would ban contraception?

And no fault divorce?

[No1butPaul]

This kind of reminds me of the old days - going to see Ron Paul!

http://i40.tinypic.com/nx5l5j.jpg

[FrankRep]

I'd agree with banning all those apart from oral sex, just because that would be impossible to police.

Cuccinelli agrees?


Cuccinelli and other defenders of the law, including local prosecutors, have said that it is a vital tool for stopping child predators. Cuccinelli has said that the law “is not — and cannot be — used against consenting adults acting in private.”

SOURCE:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-10-07/local/42786051_1_terry-mcauliffe-child-predators-virginia-s


Washington Post
October 07, 2013

[AuH20]

Yes, I support a ban on contraception.

Isn't that kind of Draconian?

[matt0611]

Haven't you heard?

http://specularphoto.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/RandPaulVisitsVirginia.jpg

When the $*%& will lefties stop repeating the "you say you want liberty but want to ban abortion!" canard?

That's because we consider it murder you idiots! Ugh!! :mad:

And what does so called "gay marriage" have anything to do with liberty?

I agree with being against the ban on contraceptions and oral sex though. No way to ban them really and why would we want to anyway?
(I'm assuming its just lefties misconstruing Cucinelli's positions though? I haven't looked into em personally).

[FrankRep]

Yes, I support a ban on contraception.

Are you trolling?

[eduardo89]

Are you trolling?

No. I think contraceptives are an intrinsic evil, just like abortion and divorce and homosexual 'marriage.'

[AuH20]

When the $*%& will lefties stop repeating the "you say you want liberty but want to ban abortion!" canard?

That's because we consider it murder you idiots! Ugh!! :mad:

And what does so called "gay marriage" have anything to do with liberty?

I agree with being against the ban contraceptions and oral sex though. No way to ban them really and why would we want to anyway?
(I'm assuming its just lefties misconstruing Cucinelli's positions though? I haven't looked into em personally).

Pretty much. They enjoy tarring everyone as zealots.

[AuH20]

No. I think contraceptives are an intrinsic evil, just like abortion and divorce.

I respect your opinion & understand your logic, but by the same token, you can't physically force others not to use them. Nor can you go Eliott Ness on the nearest prophylactic factory.

[phill4paul]

And what does so called "gay marriage" have anything to do with liberty?

Unless you're as outspoken about ending government in marriage as you are with keeping gays from getting married then your pretty much just a douche pandering to Christian Conservatives.

[enoch150]

Cuccinelli agrees?


Cuccinelli and other defenders of the law, including local prosecutors, have said that it is a vital tool for stopping child predators. Cuccinelli has said that the law “is not — and cannot be — used against consenting adults acting in private.”

SOURCE:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-10-07/local/42786051_1_terry-mcauliffe-child-predators-virginia-s


Washington Post
October 07, 2013

Except the issue at hand is that he used the law to prosecute someone for having oral sex with a 16 and 17 year old. The age of consent in Virginia is 16. That's the age of consent in 30 states. People are young adults at that point, not children.

[cjm]

I agree with being against the ban on contraceptions and oral sex though. No way to ban them really and why would we want to anyway?
(I'm assuming its just lefties misconstruing Cucinelli's positions though? I haven't looked into em personally).

The contraception thing is a little more than "misconstruing." PolitiFact Virginia didn't rate that charge as "false" or "mostly false." They gave it the "pants on fire" rating:

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2013/oct/27/next-generation-climate-action-committee/no-basis-nextgen-claim-cuccinelli-wants-ban-all-co/

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Ftom-pantsonfire.gif

[FrankRep]

Unless you're as outspoken about ending government in marriage as you are with keeping gays from getting married then your pretty much just a douche pandering to Christian Conservatives.
I agree, There's nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government the authority to regulate marriage.

[r123]

Clenard Childress of BlackGenocide.org discusses how The Negro Project was the foundation of today’s industrialized abortion industry and how its pioneer, Margaret Sanger, who is still lauded by liberals as a human rights crusader, deliberately set out to sterilize blacks and encourage abortion of black babies in pursuit of a eugenicist drive to create a racially superior master race, a goal she shared with her close friend Adolf Hitler, and one that continues to reverberate through the generations as over 1,700 black babies are killed in the United States every day. Childress explains how the public school system’s encouragement of adolescents to have sex by handing out condoms is circumventing the authority of parents, which has led to an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies and promiscuity. Childress leads the fight against the normalization of abortion, noting that after just a few weeks it’s now established that babies in the womb have heart beats and brain waves. Childress highlights how the Negro Project, Margaret Sanger’s eugenics plan for black Americans, targeted the systematic genocide of blacks through the promotion of abortion.
Childress explains how Sanger, a devout racist who wrote letters to and received praise from Hitler, was an advocate of social Darwinism and believed that a master race should be bred while ethnic groups deemed inferior, including African-Americans, needed to either be exterminated or their numbers reduced greatly. Sanger’s sterilization and abortion programs targeting the African-American community were set up in such a way so that the victims did not become suspicious of her true intentions. Sanger knew that to offset any distrust of her motives she would have to hire black religious leaders to deliver her programs and message, which is exactly what transpired as Childress highlights.
The eugenics drive to cull the black population was also achieved by withholding benefits from blacks who refused to be sterilized or have their baby aborted, thereby using coercion to force compliance with eugenics programs. After the end of the odious Tuskeegee experiments, wherein which African-American sharecroppers were deliberately and unwittingly infected by the U.S. Public Health Service with syphilis and not treated, eugenics went underground and re-emerged through organizations like Planned Parenthood.
Sanger worked closely with members of the Third Reich and yet she is still celebrated and honored today by liberals as a pioneer of women’s rights. Childress labels Sanger’s origins and her background as “the best kept secret in America” but notes that people are gradually becoming aware of her providence and her deep connections to today’s neo-eugenics movement and its adjutant abortion industry.
Sanger’s legacy lingers on in the modern era now that the African-American birth rate has dipped below the replacement rate thanks to industrialized abortion. Childress labels this process “genocide” and points out that Sanger’s program has been successful – around 52 per cent of all African-American pregnancies now end in abortion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnjCUVgW0hc&feature=youtu.be

[AuH20]

When the $*%& will lefties stop repeating the "you say you want liberty but want to ban abortion!" canard?

That's because we consider it murder you idiots! Ugh!! :mad:

And what does so called "gay marriage" have anything to do with liberty?

I agree with being against the ban on contraceptions and oral sex though. No way to ban them really and why would we want to anyway?
(I'm assuming its just lefties misconstruing Cucinelli's positions though? I haven't looked into em personally).

Aside from certain legal benefits and property protections that come with the state's recognition of the union, gay marriage has little to do with the exercise of liberty. It's a bloody certificate from the state. Now if a gay marriage ban infringed on free association in some way, then it would be a gross violation of liberty.

[matt0611]

Unless you're as outspoken about ending government in marriage as you are with keeping gays from getting married then your pretty much just a douche pandering to Christian Conservatives.

Well I'd be fine with government "getting out of marriage". But as long as that doesn't happen I don't see why states should redefine the institution.

Marriage is between a man and woman though, its a redefinition of the term to say a man can marry another man or woman with a woman. On that basis alone I can't support it.

That just creates more government involvement as well. I'm for shrinking government. Not for getting them more involved in our lives.

I don't want to drag this topic into a gay marriage debate though. So its the last I'll say of it.

[CaptUSA]

This kind of reminds me of the old days - going to see Ron Paul!

http://i40.tinypic.com/nx5l5j.jpg

No kidding, right?! Geez folks, this is a time to flex a little liberty muscle. Even if you don't like Cuccinelli, the election has become a referendum on the power of our movement. Our enemies will certainly see this as a victory if they win. If our side wins (even if it's only a symbolic victory in many minds) we can at least take heart that the establishment didn't get their first pick. They will begin to understand our strength. At most, we will have more favorable conditions to win a vital state.

[gwax23]

Yes, I support a ban on contraception.

How can you consider yourself a Ron paul Supporter. I doubt you consider yourself a Libertarian but even still why are you registered on these forums (Which are very Libertarian leaning) if you think banning contraceptives is a good policy?

[phill4paul]

Clenard SNIP

Has fire11 made it to 126 posts?

[eduardo89]

How can you consider yourself a Ron paul Supporter. I doubt you consider yourself a Libertarian but even still why are you registered on these forums (Which are very Libertarian leaning) if you think banning contraceptives is a good policy?

I am not a libertarian, I never have been and hopefully will never be. I support Ron Paul because of his economic views, most of his foreign policy views, as well as his support for the Constitution, particularly states' rights. A state certainly has the right under the Constitution to ban contraceptives.

[r123]

Bill Gates said at a ted conference in 2010 that : “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/health-care/), reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent!” (About 1 Billion People!) Here is a 3 minute clip from the ted conference in 2010 of Bill Gates saying this: http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=a155d113455fac882a3290536575c723 Why African American women are 3 times more likely to have an abortion (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/) than white woman.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFvaLIO9tVc&feature=youtu.be Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/) provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn’t that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.” Is her vision being fulfilled today?: http://www.blackgenocide.org/planned.html

[enoch150]

Well I'd be fine with government "getting out of marriage". But as long as that doesn't happen I don't see why states should redefine the institution.

Marriage is between a man and woman though, its a redefinition of the term to say a man can marry another man or woman with a woman. On that basis alone I can't support it.


Government's don't define anything. Words mean whatever the majority wants them to mean. Dictionaries are updated after the fact.

The definition has already changed in the majority of people's minds (or close to a majority.)

[matt0611]

The contraception thing is a little more than "misconstruing." PolitiFact Virginia didn't rate that charge as "false" or "mostly false." They gave it the "pants on fire" rating:

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2013/oct/27/next-generation-climate-action-committee/no-basis-nextgen-claim-cuccinelli-wants-ban-all-co/

Doesn't surprise me at all. Thanks for the info.

[CaptUSA]

Is anyone concerned about the OP, or do you just want to bicker about your divisive issues? It'd be an awful lot more productive to discuss the unifying ones.

[AuH20]

Doesn't surprise me at all. Thanks for the info.

And they've circulated this type of garbage all over the state in terms of mailers and commercials. McAuliffe needs to go down for this and all his other previous crimes, which are too numerous to count. He'll be Jon Corzine #2 as governor.

[phill4paul]

Well I'd be fine with government "getting out of marriage". But as long as that doesn't happen I don't see why states should redefine the institution.

Marriage is between a man and woman though, its a redefinition of the term to say a man can marry another man or woman with a woman. On that basis alone I can't support it.

That just creates more government involvement as well. I'm for shrinking government. Not for getting them more involved in our lives.

If the institution of marriage is not something you are actively campaigning against then you're the individual I am referring to. You'd "be fine with it" "But as long as"...

Blargh, blargh, blargh.

It's bullshit. You're fine with the benefits afforded those in traditional marriage. You don't consider it a high priority mainly because you benefit from it.

[r123]

eclipse of reason. This film produced by Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D. documents the intra-uterine life of a little boy at 5 months of age as seen through a fetoscope - a camera placed inside the pregnant uterus. Riveting images of a late abortion are then shown with a camera both inside and outside the uterus. Consistently verifiable statistics emphasize that this horror takes place 400 times a day in the US alone. In addition, there are deeply moving interviews with the other victims of abortion, women who have been irreparably injured by abortion, physically and psychologically: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nff8I2FVnI

[matt0611]

If the institution of marriage is not something you are actively campaigning against then you're the individual I am referring to. You'd "be fine with it" "But as long as"...

Blargh, blargh, blargh.

It's bullshit. You're fine with the benefits afforded those in traditional marriage. You don't consider it a high priority mainly because you benefit from it.

No. Its not "bullshit". I don't agree with it and there's no reason to.

I don't benefit from it. I'm not married and don't ever intend to.

Where's my benefits? Can I get a tax exemption too?

So called "gay marriage" is already legal in the state where I live. So what would be the point of campaigning for it or getting government out of it?

I have a life and don't have time to go "campaigning" about these issues.

I'm not offered the choice of getting the state out of defining what marriage is unfortunately. I do wish we could do that though.

[r123]

The Silent Scream Complete Version - Abortion as Infanticide

Dr. Bernard Nathanson's classic video that shocked the world. He explains the procedure of a suction abortion, followed by an actual first trimester abortion as seen through ultrasound. The viewer can see the child's pathetic attempts to escape the suction curette as her heart rate doubles, and a "silent scream" as her body is torn apart. A great tool to help people see why abortion is murder. The most important video on abortion ever made. This video changed opinion on abortion to many people.
Introduction by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, host. Describes the technology of ultrasound and how, for the first time ever, we can actually see inside the womb. Dr. Nathanson further describes the ultrasound technique and shows examples of babies in the womb. Three-dimensional depiction of the developing fetus, from 4 weeks through 28 weeks. Display and usage of the abortionists' tools, plus video of an abortionist performing a suction abortion. Dr. Nathanson discusses the abortionist who agreed to allow this abortion to be filmed with ultrasound. The abortionist was quite skilled, having performed more than 10,000 abortions. We discover that the resulting ultrasound of his abortion so appalled him that he never again performed another abortion. The clip begins with an ultrasound of the fetus (girl) who is about to be aborted. The girl is moving in the womb; displays a heartbeat of 140 per minute; and is at times sucking her thumb. As the abortionist's suction tip begins to invade the womb, the child rears and moves violently in an attempt to avoid the instrument. Her mouth is visibly open in a "silent scream." The child's heart rate speeds up dramatically (to 200 beats per minute) as she senses aggression. She moves violently away in a pathetic attempt to escape the instrument. The abortionist's suction tip begins to rip the baby's limbs from its body, ultimately leaving only her head in the uterus (too large to be pulled from the uterus in one piece). The abortionist attempts to crush her head with his forceps, allowing it to be removed. In an effort to "dehumanize" the procedure, the abortionist and anesthesiologist refer to the baby's head as "number 1." The abortionist crushes "number 1" with the forceps and removes it from the uterus. Abortion statistics are revealed, as well as who benefits from the enormously lucrative industry that has developed. Clinics are now franchised, and there is ample evidence that many are controlled by organized crime. Women are victims, too. They haven't been told about the true nature of the unborn child or the facts about abortion procedures. Their wombs have been perforated, infected, destroyed, and sterilized. All as a result of an operation about which they they have had no true knowledge. Films like this must be made part of "informed consent." NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and Planned Parenthood are accused of a conspiracy of silence, of keeping women in the dark about the reality of abortion. Finally, Dr. Nathanson discusses his credentials. He is a former abortionist, having been the director of the largest clinic in the Western world: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gON-8PP6zgQ

[phill4paul]

I am not a libertarian, I never have been and hopefully will never be. I support Ron Paul because of his economic views, most of his foreign policy views, as well as his support for the Constitution, particularly states' rights. A state certainly has the right under the Constitution to ban contraceptives.

No. It fking does not. SMFH.

[eduardo89]

No. It fking does not. SMFH.

Yes, it does. The states have plenary police powers under the Constitution. Ron Paul would agree with me, just as he agrees that states have the constitutional right to ban sodomy if they so wish.

[FrankRep]

I am not a libertarian, I never have been and hopefully will never be. I support Ron Paul because of his economic views, most of his foreign policy views, as well as his support for the Constitution, particularly states' rights. A state certainly has the right under the Constitution to ban contraceptives.

I'm not a libertarian either (I'm a Constitutionalist), but banning contraceptives is a major abuse of power by the government. Pretty silly.

I highly doubt a state would try to ban contraceptives.



No. It fking does not. SMFH.

A state does have the authority to ban contraceptives, but that person would be quickly kicked out of office and the law repealed.

[AuH20]

Yes, it does. The states have plenary police powers under the Constitution.

Why would you even want to enforce such a rule? I think you have it all backwards. You need to try to FIX SOCIETY FROM WITHIN before even contemplating such nonsensical laws. This isn't the way you get to your goals. Promote self-respect and responsibility. But a law? Sheesh.

[Carlybee]

Yes, I support a ban on contraception.

Let's just ban sex altogether. 'Murica.

[eduardo89]

I'm not a libertarian either (I'm a Constitutionalist), but banning contraceptives is a major abuse of power by the government. Pretty silly.

I disagree, contraceptives are an intrinsic evil that lead to the destruction of the traditional family and study after study has shown a direct correlation between availability of contraceptives and increase in abortions.

[matt0611]

No. It fking does not. SMFH.

It does actually. The US Constitution in no way prohibits it.

Not that I would support doing it in my state though.

Not gonna happen anyway.

[eduardo89]

Let's just ban sex altogether. 'Murica.

Why? Sex between a husband and wife is a beautiful act. Contraceptives ruin the love, beauty, and intimacy of the act.

[Carlybee]

I disagree, contraceptives are an intrinsic evil that lead to the destruction of the traditional family and study after study has shown a direct correlation between availability of contraceptives and increase in abortions.

Yeah but you're obviously a lunatic.

[Carlybee]

Why? Sex between a husband and wife is a beautiful act. Contraceptives ruin the love, beauty, and intimacy of the act.


It was sarcasm Eduardo. That being said, thank God you can't run for office here.

[AuH20]

I disagree, contraceptives are an intrinsic evil that lead to the destruction of the traditional family and study after study has shown a direct correlation between availability of contraceptives and increase in abortions.

Taking away their contraceptives is going to suddenly change their behavior? Really? You're approaching this wrong.

[eduardo89]

Why would you even want to enforce such a rule? I think you have it all backwards. You need to try to FIX SOCIETY FROM WITHIN before even contemplating such nonsensical laws. This isn't the way you get to your goals. Promote self-respect and responsibility. But a law? Sheesh.

I partly agree. The laws reflect the morality of the people, but laws which promote evil (such as legal abortion) will always corrupt the morality of the people. I don't see it as an either/or question. When you allow evil acts to take place with impunity, our sinful nature will capitalise on it.

[FrankRep]

I disagree, contraceptives are an intrinsic evil that lead to the destruction of the traditional family and study after study has shown a direct correlation between availability of contraceptives and increase in abortions.

Not the Government's business.

[phill4paul]

No. Its not "bullshit". I don't agree with it and there's no reason to.

I don't benefit from it. I'm not married and don't ever intend to.

Where's my benefits? Can I get a tax exemption too?

So called "gay marriage" is already legal in the state where I live. So what would be the point of campaigning for it or getting government out of it?

I have a life and don't have time to go "campaigning" about these issues.

Then you have my apologies. "You're" not the type of people I was referring to. You did use some key words that set me off. And more to the point I was speaking about the pandering of politicians. Again. My apologies. :o

[gwax23]

Yes, it does. The states have plenary police powers under the Constitution. Ron Paul would agree with me, just as he agrees that states have the constitutional right to ban sodomy if they so wish.

Even if the constitution did allow states to ban things like contraceptives, that doesnt make it right.

[eduardo89]

Not the Government's business.

We disagree, I do believe the government has a role in upholding morality, you do not. I don't believe the federal government has that constitutional authority, so we agree there. I do think that states and local governments do have it.

Anyway, let's work together on the issues we do agree on.

[r123]

the view ron paul on abortion and immigration. (Tuesday December 4, 2007) Ron Paul defended his anti-abortion stance during an intense grilling from the women hosting "The View" Tuesday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlQNa0_Vn_I

[eduardo89]

Even if the constitution did allow states to ban things like contraceptives, that doesnt make it right.

It does. And you might disagree with it being right or not, but I do believe it is right.

[cjm]

A state does have the authority to ban contraceptives, but that person would be quickly kicked out of office and the law repealed.

Not according to Ken:


Dear Fellow Virginians,

I am going to make this Compass very short and straightforward.

Terry McAuliffe is lying about, among other things, contraception.

In T.V. ads, mail and during debates and forums, McAuliffe is telling two lies:

1) He is saying that personhood legislation that I have supported in the past would
have outlawed contraception, which is false; and

2) He is also saying - without citing much of anything - that I want to ban
contraception in the future.

Look, this is not one of those topics that anyone particularly enjoys discussing, so
let me be short and blunt.

No legislation I have ever supported would have - or even could have - "outlawed
contraception" as McAuliffe asserts.

And I do not support legislation banning contraception. Could I be any clearer?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I can.

You'll note that I said above that we couldn't have "outlawed contraception," even
if someone had wanted to. The reason for this is simple.

The U.S. Supreme Court held in two cases, Griswold and Eisenstadt, that the
government can't ban contraception. Those cases are decades old. This is a
long-settled area of law.

And Terry McAuliffe is a Washington, D.C. lawyer, so he is well aware that what he
is saying is false.

You got that right. He is knowingly lying to try and scare women to vote against me.

This is only one of the lies he is quite intentionally telling. I've never seen
anything like it in a campaign before, and I need your help to fight back.

I need you to forward this email to all the women you know in Virginia, and point
out to them that McAuliffe is telling a blatant lie and they need to know about it
for two reasons: first, if the issue is of concern to them, knowing the truth will
put their mind at rest; and second, they need to know that McAuliffe isn't making a
simple mistake. Rather, he's intentionally lying to the women of Virginia.

When you forward this email, please ask each woman you forward it to to send it on
to the other women they know in Virginia too.

Remember, there's two reasons this email is important: first, Terry is lying about
me and contraception; and second, this is not a mistake on his part, it is
absolutely part of his strategy. He is lying about numerous other issues as well,
and I know you will be shocked, but the media isn't doing much about it.

At www.Cuccinelli.com <http://www.Cuccinelli.com> , on the front page, is a big
button called the truth about Ken. It addresses this and other issues that Terry
McAuliffe is not being truthful about. Please use this resource as you work to win
last minute voters for us! Thank you!

Sincerely,

Ken

[enoch150]

... contraceptives are an intrinsic evil that lead to the destruction of the traditional family ...

The traditional family is a personal value system that you're trying to impose on all of society. It's a value that most people would agree with, but it there is nothing intrinsically good about a traditional family and some societies have made other arrangements.

[eduardo89]

Not according to Ken:

SCOTUS is wrong, just like it is wrong on Obamacare, wrong in Lawrence v Texas, Wickard v Filburn, Gonzales v. Raich, etc.

[matt0611]

SCOTUS is wrong, just like it is wrong on Obamacare, wrong in Lawrence v Texas, Wickard v Filburn, Gonzales v. Raich, etc.

What the SCOTUS says and what the Constitution says are often two very different things.

[eduardo89]

What the SCOTUS says and what the Constitution says are often two very different things.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to matt0611 again.

[gwax23]

We disagree, I do believe the government has a role in upholding morality, you do not. I don't believe the federal government has that constitutional authority, so we agree there. I do think that states and local governments do have it.

Anyway, let's work together on the issues we do agree on.

Thats so stupid.

What difference does it make if Washington or Sacramento "uphold morality" how about the government, federal or local, should not be in the business of regulating morality.

How can I work with someone who is so fundamentally and ideologically opposed to some of the most basic concepts of freedom.

[r123]

A film that finally puts the pieces of the puzzle together. If you've wondered why America has been falling apart from within, you will love AGENDA. AGENDA: Grinding America Down (Full Movie) : http://vimeo.com/63749370 eduardo 89 did you know that Zionists sacrificed jews to the Holocaust: http://henrymakow.com/2013/11/Zionists-Sacrificed-Jews-in-Holocaust%20.htmlZionists Sacrificed Jews to the Holocaust

Zionists Sacrificed Jews to the Holocaust

[eduardo89]

Thats so stupid.

What difference does it make if Washington or Sacramento "uphold morality" how about the government, federal or local, should not be in the business of regulating morality.

I was speaking constitutionally. The states have plenary police powers, the federal government does not.


How can I work with someone who is so fundamentally and ideologically opposed to some of the most basic concepts of freedom.

I wasn't speaking to you, I was speaking to Frank who I agree with very often.

[EBounding]

Since this thread is all over the place...

How does "straight only marriage" violate the non-aggression principle? What gun is being held to your head if only straight marriage licenses are available in your state?

[r123]

GOP Presidential Candidate Ron Paul explains to Piers Morgan his views on abortion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_iYEkA1rCg

[Carlybee]

We disagree, I do believe the government has a role in upholding morality.


Do you believe government should tell you what size soda you can buy?

[AuH20]

Since this thread is all over the place...

How does "straight only marriage" violate the non-aggression principle? What gun is being held to your head if only straight marriage licenses are available in your state?

Since you phrased it that way, I don't think it does violate the NAP. But in terms of benefits and certain property protections, you do understand the reasoning behind civil unions and/or gay marriage?

[eduardo89]

Do you believe government should tell you what size soda you can buy?

That is not a question of morality. There is nothing intrinsically evil about a large soda.

[enoch150]

It does actually. The US Constitution in no way prohibits it.

Not that I would support doing it in my state though.

Not gonna happen anyway.

The 9th amendment could come into play.

[gwax23]

I was speaking constitutionally. The states have plenary police powers, the federal government does not.



I wasn't speaking to you, I was speaking to Frank who I agree with very often.

Again the problem is GOVERNMENT having that power. Its irrelevant if its Federal or state, they are both government. Everyone should be free to do whatever they want so long as they dont infringe on anybody elses right to do the same or hurt somebody. So Fraud and all acts of aggression should be illegal. But preventing people from getting divorces, or banning condoms...there is no justification for these things.

[phill4paul]

What the SCOTUS says and what the Constitution says are often two very different things.

And the origination of what both fail to address fully is the simple fundamental. Small caveats, like bones, are thrown.

[gwax23]

That is not a question of morality. There is nothing intrinsically evil about a large soda.

Whats evil about condoms? Or 2 consenting adults divorcing?

[eduardo89]

Whats evil about condoms? Or 2 consenting adults divorcing?

You're a Jew, so obviously you won't accept my reasons.

[FrankRep]

You're a Jew, so obviously you won't accept my reasons.

That's not helping your argument, btw.

[eduardo89]

That's not helping your argument, btw.

I base my arguments on my Christian faith, which he won't accept as legitimate arguments since he is Jewish.

[phill4paul]

Since you phrased it that way, I don't think it does violate the NAP. But in terms of benefits and certain property protections, you do understand the reasoning behind civil unions and/or gay marriage?

In a way I suppose it does violate the NAP. In that forced taxation violates NAP. Teh Gheys are taxed for supporting a system that does not allow them equal benefits.

[AuH20]

Whats evil about condoms? Or 2 consenting adults divorcing?

He's saying that thanks to condoms and other contraceptives, sex becomes SOLELY AND ONLY about pleasure. It becomes a hollow experience over time. And he has a point quite honestly if you examine society and how screwed up it has become. I think there is a balance to maintain. We shouldn't be living like Puritans, but by the same token we shouldn't be the Romans before the fall.

[phill4paul]

I base my arguments on my Christian faith, which he won't accept as legitimate arguments since he is Jewish.

We know how you Catholics roll.....

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/aftermath-dares-unearth-terrible-secrets-651230

:p

[chudrockz]

You're a Jew, so obviously you won't accept my reasons.

I'm an atheist, and I don't accept them, either. ANY entity (government, whatever) that thinks it has any right to FORCE me to either abstain from sex or reproduce is WRONG and I'll fight it, Constitution be damned. We're talking individual, HUMAN rights.

To put it another way, my wife and I knew from the start that we did not want children. So I had a vasectomy. We've never been pregnant. Are we "intrinsically evil?"

If you're answer is yes, you're beyond help.

[r123]

Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion: http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/ ron paul on gay marriage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH0kHoWdK3M

[eduardo89]

He's saying that thanks to condoms and other contraceptives, sex becomes SOLELY AND ONLY about pleasure. It becomes a hollow experience over time. And he has a point quite honestly if you examine society and how screwed up it is. I think there is a balance to maintain. We shouldn't be living like Puritans, but by the same token we shouldn't be the Romans before the fall.

I'm not advocating we live like Puritans, but I think the way western society has decayed, particularly over the past half century, is absolutely appalling and frightening.

[AuH20]

I'm not advocating we live like Puritans, but I think the way western society has decayed, particularly over the past half century, is absolutely appalling and frightening.

It's not by accident. The elites want the masses living and behaving like animals because they are easy to control. Introduce certain stimuli and produce the desired behavior. People have no idea about the invisible strings attached to their mind and body. Conditioned like a lab rat.

[phill4paul]

He's saying that thanks to condoms and other contraceptives, sex becomes SOLELY AND ONLY about pleasure. It becomes a hollow experience over time. And he has a point quite honestly if you examine society and how screwed up it has become. I think there is a balance to maintain. We shouldn't be living like Puritans, but by the same token we shouldn't be the Romans before the fall.

After a certain age in ones life sex can become "SOLELY AND ONLY about pleasure." And it doesn't become "a hollow experience over time."

[r123]

Ron Paul on Abortion and Stem Cell Research : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8

[Carlybee]

That is not a question of morality. There is nothing intrinsically evil about a large soda.


The problem is that not everyone shares your views about what constitutes and does not constitute morality. As far as I am concerned legislating what people do in their own bedrooms or how they choose or not choose family planning is not much different than legislating what they choose to put in their bodies. As a matter of fact I find it a form of totalitarianism.

[eduardo89]

The problem is that not everyone shares your views about what constitutes and does not constitute morality.

And we're seeing how well moral relativity has been working out for the western world.

[speciallyblend]

this thread and rpf members reminds me of a circle jerk. continue,

[Natural Citizen]

Do you believe government should tell you what size soda you can buy?

This is kind of a catch 22 because we have private biotech industries basically influencing politicians to enforce the notion that it's none of your business what you're buying/consuming.

But this tyranny is lost when we see representatives standing around belching on big gulps for the camera. Fakes...all of them. Weapons of mass distraction.

[Natural Citizen]

this thread and rpf members reminds me of a circle jerk. continue,

Kock it off. Get back in the middle of the circle and shush....:D

[Carlybee]

And we're seeing how well moral relativity has been working out for the western world.


And we see how well legislating it works out in Sharia law in other parts of the world.

[Carlybee]

This is kind of a catch 22 because we have private biotech industries basically influencing politicians to enforce the notion that it's none of your business what you're buying/consuming.

But this tyranny is lost when we see representatives standing around belching on big gulps for the camera. Fakes...all of them.

When it comes to nannyism or legislating morality once you start setting precedent it's difficult if not impossible to reverse it.

[r123]

No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion.
Legislatio*n for abortion is not about a woman’s right or a man’s responsibi*lity
although it has been marketed that way. It is about a policy of long term
government sponsored population reduction for the sole purpose of resource
acquisitio*n and preservation. In other words, from a political viewpoint,
abortion has never been primarily about helping women although it may
incidental*ly help some women and it may hurt others, it most definitely
removes an unwanted “consumer.” Since 1973, 53 million consumers and their
potential offspring have been “legally” removed while the births of countless
others have been prevented by a public policy (beginning in grade school) of
indoctrina*tion and the promotion of chemicals and devices for birth control.
This has been a most successful policy. In 1974, within NSSM200, the following statement was made, “Only nominal attention is [currently*] given to population education or sex education in schools…*Recommenda*tion: That US agencies stress the importance of education of the next generation of parents, starting in elementary schools, toward a two-child family ideal. That AID stimulate specific efforts to develop means of educating children of elementary school age to the ideal of the two-child family: http://lazarus5712.wordpress.com/

[eduardo89]

And we see how well legislating it works out in Sharia law in other parts of the world.

And you advocate legislating secular humanism. Both are false theologies.

[Carlybee]

Is r123 a bot?

[AuH20]

When it comes to nannyism or legislating morality once you start setting precedent it's difficult if not impossible to reverse it.

Experience is the best teacher. Laws aren't in most cases. We need to take the training wheels off society and most of our problems would disappear. Obesity. Lust. Sloth. You name it.
The real world is self-regulating. The government is the perversion of the natural world and obscures the truth.

[AuH20]

And you advocate legislating secular humanism. Both are false theologies.

I think he's advocating common sense.

[Natural Citizen]

When it comes to nannyism or legislating morality once you start setting precedent it's difficult if not impossible to reverse it.

True. This illusion that every answer comes from a politician is very dangerous though. There are better avenues. And it's moving. Slowly.

[phill4paul]

And we're seeing how well moral relativity has been working out for the western world.

Because...


We know how you Catholics roll.....

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/aftermath-dares-unearth-terrible-secrets-651230

:p

[EBounding]

In a way I suppose it does violate the NAP. In that forced taxation violates NAP. Teh Gheys are taxed for supporting a system that does not allow them equal benefits.

Gays aren't taxed differently; single people (as defined by the state) are taxed differently. I agree that all government marriages violate the NAP since it gives certain benefits to a defined group of people. But if you assume all marriage licenses do not violate the NAP, then neither does a "straight only" marriage license.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that of all the issues, gov't marriage should be the one we are the least concerned about. State marriage isn't going away and no matter how it's defined, it ultimately doesn't affect anyone's human rights as far as I can tell. Yes there's tax inequality, but giving two same-sex people a marriage license doesn't solve that either because single people are still taxed differently.

[gwax23]

You're a Jew, so obviously you won't accept my reasons.

Good one.

Your reasons are based on religious doctrine. You want to live in a theocracy. You dont believe in freedom, you believe in doctrine. Strict and zealous adherence to said doctrine. Youll defend the constitution for its support of decentralization but Im sure when it comes to separation of church and state youll suddenly find disagreement.

Lastly I dont disagree with your crazy views because im Jewish I disagree with them because they are insane.

(Ironically Orthodox Judaism probably accepts your views)


He's saying that thanks to condoms and other contraceptives, sex becomes SOLELY AND ONLY about pleasure. It becomes a hollow experience over time. And he has a point quite honestly if you examine society and how screwed up it has become. I think there is a balance to maintain. We shouldn't be living like Puritans, but by the same token we shouldn't be the Romans before the fall.

Who cares? What gives the government the right to ban a piece of rubber? Who cares if he thinks sex becomes solely and only about pleasure?? Thats his view. No ones forces him to use a condom but he shouldnt stop me, or anyone else for that matter, from using one. Im not hurting anyone by using a condom nor am I limiting someone else freedoms, thus theres no just reason for it to be banned.

[eduardo89]

Good one.

It wasn't meant for you to take offensively, I base my views on my Catholic faith, you are Jewish so obviously you would not accept my arguments as having a valid basis.


Your reasons are based on religious doctrine.

Yes.


You want to live in a theocracy.

No. I do not believe the Church should be the civil authority. I do have some theonomist leanings, but I do not advocate a theocracy or ecclesiocracy.


Youll defend the constitution for its support of decentralization but Im sure when it comes to separation of church and state youll suddenly find disagreement.

I believe in separation of church and state, but I do not believe in it the way SCOTUS has defined it.


Lastly I dont disagree with your crazy views because im Jewish I disagree with them because they are insane.

I was not saying you would disagree with me because you are Jewish, I was saying you would disagree with my reasoning as valid because you are non-Christian.

[Carlybee]

And you advocate legislating secular humanism. Both are false theologies.

where did I say that?

[No1butPaul]

Is anyone concerned about the OP, or do you just want to bicker about your divisive issues? It'd be an awful lot more productive to discuss the unifying ones.

Well, I guess you got your answer...me thinks we've been infiltrated.

[CaptUSA]

Look at what you have done to this thread... Regardless of what your position is, you guys should be ashamed of yourselves.

[gwax23]

It wasn't meant for you to take offensively, I base my views on my Catholic faith, you are Jewish so obviously you would not accept my arguments as having a valid basis.



Yes.



No. I do not believe the Church should be the civil authority. I do have some theonomist leanings, but I do not advocate a theocracy or ecclesiocracy.



I believe in separation of church and state, but I do not believe in it the way SCOTUS has defined it.



I was not saying you would disagree with me because you are Jewish, I was saying you would disagree with my reasoning as valid because you are non-Christian.

My disagreement with your views has nothing to do with Religion. As I mentioned before Orthodox Judaism probably holds the same beliefs as you do. I disagree with your views because to enforce the policies you wish to implement, it would require force.

If your not stopping aggression or fraud, there is no legitimate use of force by government.

[eduardo89]

where did I say that?

You didn't need to, your 'live and let live' theology is rooted in secular humanism.

[phill4paul]

Gays aren't taxed differently; single people (as defined by the state) are taxed differently. I agree that all government marriages violate the NAP since it gives certain benefits to a defined group of people. But if you assume all marriage licenses do not violate the NAP, then neither does a "straight only" marriage license.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that of all the issues, gov't marriage should be the one we are the least concerned about. State marriage isn't going away and no matter how it's defined, it ultimately doesn't affect anyone's human rights as far as I can tell. Yes there's tax inequality, but giving two same-sex people a marriage license doesn't solve that either because single people are still taxed differently.

I dunno. I think everything is everything. One could argue that foreign aid is a drop in the bucket so why worry about it. My stance is end it or open it up. If yu open it up then maybe there will be a reaction from the right to end it for good. If Christians Conservatives are fighting for their gawd given rights and it is opened up to everyone perhaps they will retaliate and call for an end to it. I dunno.
Long ago I came up with the solution. Simply allow anyone to appoint anyone as their benefit designee. Could be a wife, husband, S.O. brother sister etc....

[phill4paul]

You didn't need to, your 'live and let live' theology is rooted in secular humanism.

As opposed to Joo murderin' Catholics?

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/aftermath-dares-unearth-terrible-secrets-651230

[Carlybee]

You didn't need to, your 'live and let live' theology is rooted in secular humanism.

We are not living in ancient biblical times which is what you seem to want to go back to. Live and let live is a tenet of libertarianism and I am a libertarian if not an AnCap so yes I totally disagree with your theocratic leanings, call it what you wish, it is what it is. There has been a lot of immoral acts committed in the name of religious doctrine, so I would be very careful about supporting religious doctrine as a moral compass personally. Plus I'm not brainwashed to believe that I need that doctrine to tell me when to cross the street. I am not an atheist but I will not live in a theocracy.

[AuH20]

Good one.

Your reasons are based on religious doctrine. You want to live in a theocracy. You dont believe in freedom, you believe in doctrine. Strict and zealous adherence to said doctrine. Youll defend the constitution for its support of decentralization but Im sure when it comes to separation of church and state youll suddenly find disagreement.

Lastly I dont disagree with your crazy views because im Jewish I disagree with them because they are insane.

(Ironically Orthodox Judaism probably accepts your views)



Who cares? What gives the government the right to ban a piece of rubber? Who cares if he thinks sex becomes solely and only about pleasure?? Thats his view. No ones forces him to use a condom but he shouldnt stop me, or anyone else for that matter, from using one. Im not hurting anyone by using a condom nor am I limiting someone else freedoms, thus theres no just reason for it to be banned.

I agree. His observations and fears do not give him the right to enforce a 'one size fits all' solution.

[phill4paul]

eduardo has been watching too much Monty Python....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

[AuH20]

eduardo has been watching too much Monty Python....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

Eduardo thinks he's going to save humanity when the script has already been written. There will be no saving.

[eduardo89]

Eduardo thinks he's going to save humanity when the script has already been written. There will be no saving.

I honestly think the western world is lost. Read my signature.

[r123]

Clenard Childress of BlackGenocide.org discusses how The Negro Project was the foundation of today’s industrialized abortion industry and how its pioneer, Margaret Sanger, who is still lauded by liberals as a human rights crusader, deliberately set out to sterilize blacks and encourage abortion of black babies in pursuit of a eugenicist drive to create a racially superior master race, a goal she shared with her close friend Adolf Hitler, and one that continues to reverberate through the generations as over 1,700 black babies are killed in the United States every day. Childress explains how the public school system’s encouragement of adolescents to have sex by handing out condoms is circumventing the authority of parents, which has led to an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies and promiscuity. Childress leads the fight against the normalization of abortion, noting that after just a few weeks it’s now established that babies in the womb have heart beats and brain waves. Childress highlights how the Negro Project, Margaret Sanger’s eugenics plan for black Americans, targeted the systematic genocide of blacks through the promotion of abortion.
Childress explains how Sanger, a devout racist who wrote letters to and received praise from Hitler, was an advocate of social Darwinism and believed that a master race should be bred while ethnic groups deemed inferior, including African-Americans, needed to either be exterminated or their numbers reduced greatly. Sanger’s sterilization and abortion programs targeting the African-American community were set up in such a way so that the victims did not become suspicious of her true intentions. Sanger knew that to offset any distrust of her motives she would have to hire black religious leaders to deliver her programs and message, which is exactly what transpired as Childress highlights.
The eugenics drive to cull the black population was also achieved by withholding benefits from blacks who refused to be sterilized or have their baby aborted, thereby using coercion to force compliance with eugenics programs. After the end of the odious Tuskeegee experiments, wherein which African-American sharecroppers were deliberately and unwittingly infected by the U.S. Public Health Service with syphilis and not treated, eugenics went underground and re-emerged through organizations like Planned Parenthood.
Sanger worked closely with members of the Third Reich and yet she is still celebrated and honored today by liberals as a pioneer of women’s rights. Childress labels Sanger’s origins and her background as “the best kept secret in America” but notes that people are gradually becoming aware of her providence and her deep connections to today’s neo-eugenics movement and its adjutant abortion industry.
Sanger’s legacy lingers on in the modern era now that the African-American birth rate has dipped below the replacement rate thanks to industrialized abortion. Childress labels this process “genocide” and points out that Sanger’s program has been successful – around 52 per cent of all African-American pregnancies now end in abortion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnjCUVgW0hc&feature=youtu.be

[AuH20]

I honestly think the western world is lost. Read my signature.


Not only the idea of God. Spirituality has been lost. I think organized religion is frankly a crock of shit, but it has been replaced by needless consumerism and hedonism simply for the sake of hedonism. Man is a creature of duality that is constantly battling between his higher conscious self and animal side. Over the recent years, the animal side has become dominant. This does not bode well for the future. Animals typically will deprive an area of it's food source without any concern for the winter. Animals will needlessly kill their young on occasion. You see where I'm going with this.

[eduardo89]

Not only the idea of God. Spirituality has been lost. I think organized religion is frankly a crock of shit, but it has been replaced by needless consumerism and hedonism simply for the sake of hedonism.

All by design. Destroy man's relationship with God and he becomes a slave to his passions and therefore easily controlled.

[Rudeman]

http://i.imgur.com/MPCrh7m.gif

[r123]

The Silent Scream (Full Length) 28 minutes. The Silent Scream Complete Version - Abortion as Infanticide

Dr. Bernard Nathanson's classic video that shocked the world. He explains the procedure of a suction abortion, followed by an actual first trimester abortion as seen through ultrasound. The viewer can see the child's pathetic attempts to escape the suction curette as her heart rate doubles, and a "silent scream" as her body is torn apart. A great tool to help people see why abortion is murder. The most important video on abortion ever made. This video changed opinion on abortion to many people.
Introduction by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, host. Describes the technology of ultrasound and how, for the first time ever, we can actually see inside the womb. Dr. Nathanson further describes the ultrasound technique and shows examples of babies in the womb. Three-dimensional depiction of the developing fetus, from 4 weeks through 28 weeks. Display and usage of the abortionists' tools, plus video of an abortionist performing a suction abortion. Dr. Nathanson discusses the abortionist who agreed to allow this abortion to be filmed with ultrasound. The abortionist was quite skilled, having performed more than 10,000 abortions. We discover that the resulting ultrasound of his abortion so appalled him that he never again performed another abortion. The clip begins with an ultrasound of the fetus (girl) who is about to be aborted. The girl is moving in the womb; displays a heartbeat of 140 per minute; and is at times sucking her thumb. As the abortionist's suction tip begins to invade the womb, the child rears and moves violently in an attempt to avoid the instrument. Her mouth is visibly open in a "silent scream." The child's heart rate speeds up dramatically (to 200 beats per minute) as she senses aggression. She moves violently away in a pathetic attempt to escape the instrument. The abortionist's suction tip begins to rip the baby's limbs from its body, ultimately leaving only her head in the uterus (too large to be pulled from the uterus in one piece). The abortionist attempts to crush her head with his forceps, allowing it to be removed. In an effort to "dehumanize" the procedure, the abortionist and anesthesiologist refer to the baby's head as "number 1." The abortionist crushes "number 1" with the forceps and removes it from the uterus. Abortion statistics are revealed, as well as who benefits from the enormously lucrative industry that has developed. Clinics are now franchised, and there is ample evidence that many are controlled by organized crime. Women are victims, too. They haven't been told about the true nature of the unborn child or the facts about abortion procedures. Their wombs have been perforated, infected, destroyed, and sterilized. All as a result of an operation about which they they have had no true knowledge. Films like this must be made part of "informed consent." NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and Planned Parenthood are accused of a conspiracy of silence, of keeping women in the dark about the reality of abortion. Finally, Dr. Nathanson discusses his credentials. He is a former abortionist, having been the director of the largest clinic in the Western world: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gON-8PP6zgQ

[eduardo89]

I'm curious, does anyone read r123's posts?

[r123]

Another example of how the ACLU uses the downtrodden for their political agendas was “Jane Roe” from Roe vs. Wade. In 1969, an impoverished unmarried, pregnant girl was approached in a Dallas courthouse by two ACLU feminist lawyers who convinced her to claim her pregnancy was the result of rape – the only way to obtain a legal abortion at the time.
The problem was that it wasn’t true, so the Texas court refused the abortion. This is the case the ACLU took to the Supreme Court resulting in abortion becoming a form of birth control in the United States.
The ACLU lawyers persuaded “Roe” she was a lesbian and for several years was kept by lesbian handlers. When she grew up in the 1980s, she asserted that she had been the “pawn” of the ACLU. She never wanted an abortion — she was seeking a divorce from her husband — but the feminist attorney Sarah Weddington used the case as a means of attempting to overturn a Texas’ law making most abortions illegal. Weddington took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, which invalidated every pro-life state law in the nation protecting unborn children and the rest is history.
“Roe” actually never had an abortion – she gave the baby up for adoption. Many years later, she exposed the seamy, manipulative side of the ACLU and lesbian networking in a published book (http://www.ronpaul.com/books/) in 1984, ‘I Am Roe’. She ‘came out’ with her real name of Norma McCorvey, renouncing lesbianism and abortion.
In 2005 she petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the abortion law, arguing that the case should be heard once again in light of evidence that the procedure harms women, but the petition was denied. She was arrested on the first day of U.S. Senate hearings for the confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States of Sonia Sotomayor. –

[r123]

abortion was legalized to sell more aborted fetal cells to benefit the big pharmaceutical companies because all the vaccines are grown out of aborted fetal cells. All the big pharmaceutical companies are majority stock owned by the us government. more than 36 percent of blacks are aborted. The leading cause of death in blacks is abortion. All this information is from Lethal Injection: The Story Of Vaccination Part 1 The definitive look into the history of vaccination. From cancer, to autism, to the purposeful sterilization of innocent people around the globe, find out why all of these things are perfectly legal according to U.S. CODE – why the government considers you no different than cattle in their own law: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hITYIT02rA

[r123]

Permission to have Babies People won’t be allowed to have babies just because they want to or because they are careless. Most families would
be limited to two. Some people would be allowed only one, however outstanding people might be selected and allowed to have three. But most people would be allowed to have only two babies. That’s because the zero population growth
rate is 2.1 children per completed family. So something like every 10th family might be allowed the privilege of the third baby. To me, up to this point, the words ‘population control’ primarily connoted limiting the number of babies to be born. But this remark about what people would be ‘allowed’ and then what followed, made it quite clear that when you hear ‘population control’ that means more than just controlling births. It means control of every endeavour of
an entire world population; a much broader meaning to that term than I had ever attached to it before hearing this. As you listen and reflect back on some of the things you hear, you will begin to recognise how one aspect dovetails
with other aspects in terms of controlling human endeavours.
Redirecting the Purpose of Sex Well from population control the next natural step was sex. He said sex must be separated from reproduction. Sex is to pleasurable, and the urges are to strong to expect people to give it up. Chemicals in the food and water supply to reduce the sex drive are not practical. The strategy then would be not to diminish sex activity but to increase sex contraceptives. If school sex programs would lead to to more presidencies in children, that was really seen as no problem. Parents who think they are opposed to abortion (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/) on moral or religious grounds will change their minds when it is their own child who is pregnant. So this will help overcome opposition to abortion. Before long, only a few die-hards will still refuse to see abortion as acceptable, and they wont matter anymore: http://www.refusesmartmeters.com/NWO_Plans_Exposed_By_Insider_In_1969-1.pdf

[r123]

They were stolen from their homes, locked in chains and taken across an ocean. And for more than 200 years, their blood and sweat would help to build the richest and most powerful nation the world has ever known. But when slavery ended, their welcome was over. America’s wealthy elite had decided it was time for them to disappear and they were not particular about how it might be done. What you are about to see is that the plan these people set in motion 150 years ago is still being carried out today. So don’t think that this is history. It is not. It is happening right here, and it’s happening right now through abortion (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/), birth control sterilization, and forced eugenics. source: Black Genocide in the 21st century: http://www.maafa21.com/watch-online/?key=89127818

[A Son of Liberty]

http://i.imgur.com/MPCrh7m.gif

//

[cajuncocoa]

Haven't you heard?

http://specularphoto.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/RandPaulVisitsVirginia.jpg

I may have to post this to Facebook.

[cajuncocoa]

Yes, I support a ban on contraception.

This board has now officially morphed into Vatican Forest.

[cajuncocoa]

I am not a libertarian, I never have been and hopefully will never be. I support Ron Paul because of his economic views, most of his foreign policy views, as well as his support for the Constitution, particularly states' rights. A state certainly has the right under the Constitution to ban contraceptives.

In other words, as long as government stays out of YOUR wallet, you're perfectly fine with them using every resource available to police what goes on in the bedrooms of America. Small government, indeed. :rolleyes:

[cajuncocoa]

Let's just ban sex altogether. 'Murica.USA! USA!

[Brett85]

I may have to post this to Facebook.

Why? It's completely untrue.

[COpatriot]

Why? Sex between a husband and wife is a beautiful act. Contraceptives ruin the love, beauty, and intimacy of the act.

You are a maniac and r123 is fire11.

[thoughtomator]

I would certainly support an end to no-fault divorce. If people are applying to the state for legal privileges based on a vow of lifelong fidelity, they'd better have a damn good reason to back out of the deal they voluntarily entered into and received compensation for. One more reason to get the state out of the marriage business.

[unklejman]

I partly agree. The laws reflect the morality of the people, but laws which promote evil (such as legal abortion) will always corrupt the morality of the people. I don't see it as an either/or question. When you allow evil acts to take place with impunity, our sinful nature will capitalise on it.

I know I'm a few pages late, but if you are a Christian, then you (should) believe that no sinful act goes with impunity regardless of civil laws. "For the wages of sin are death... The punishment for sin is given by God. The state is not God. The state exists to prevent rights from being infringed, not to judge the citizens' morality. If you truly are worried about the morality of the people, then it would probably be best to approach the people the same way Jesus did (with compassion and forgiveness), not by throwing people in a cage for sinning.

[Brett85]

I know I'm a few pages late, but if you are a Christian, then you (should) believe that no sinful act goes with impunity regardless of civil laws. "For the wages of sin are death... The punishment for sin is given by God. The state is not God. The state exists to prevent rights from being infringed, not to judge the citizens' morality. If you truly are worried about the morality of the people, then it would probably be best to approach the people the same way Jesus did (with compassion and forgiveness), not by throwing people in a cage for sinning.

But he was referring to abortion with his comment, and it's necessary to ban abortion in order to prevent rights from being infringed upon. Protecting the right to life is a core function of government. On other social issues that don't involve force like pornography, prostitution, drug use, etc, I agree the government shouldn't be involved in those issues.

[asurfaholic]

I know I'm a few pages late, but if you are a Christian, then you (should) believe that no sinful act goes with impunity regardless of civil laws. "For the wages of sin are death... The punishment for sin is given by God. The state is not God. The state exists to prevent rights from being infringed, not to judge the citizens' morality. If you truly are worried about the morality of the people, then it would probably be best to approach the people the same way Jesus did (with compassion and forgiveness), not by throwing people in a cage for sinning.

Boom

Headshot

[unklejman]

But he was referring to abortion with his comment, and it's necessary to ban abortion in order to prevent rights from being infringed upon. Protecting the right to life is a core function of government. On other social issues that don't involve force like pornography, prostitution, drug use, etc, I agree the government shouldn't be involved in those issues.

He used abortion as one example for "laws which promote evil", but that is not the reason he stated for such laws. He also supported outlawing contraception and gay marriage etc...

[angelatc]

He used abortion as one example for "laws which promote evil", but that is not the reason he stated for such laws. He also supported outlawing contraception and gay marriage etc...


He also said we should move on and focus on areas where we agree. But there's no sport in that.

[MRK]

No. I think contraceptives are an intrinsic evil, just like abortion and divorce and homosexual 'marriage.'

Assuming you also believe that homosexuality in itself is an intrinsic evil, and given that you said something along the lines of 'owning a Prius is homosexual', does that mean that Prius owners are intrinsically evil?

[KingNothing]

I base my arguments on my Christian faith, which he won't accept as legitimate arguments since he is Jewish.

This is the kind of thing that people say which makes us look like theocrats.

[KingNothing]

Gay people getting married and banging each other while wearing condoms is such an insignificant issue to a person not involved in those actions that I just can't comprehend the desire to spend political to ban them.

Abortion can be an entirely different issue -- an argument can certainly be made that murder is being committed. But gay marriage and the use of contraception by consenting adults seems so trivial that I don't see how it makes sense, from a strategic standpoint, to even stand in opposition to them. I mean, really, if the Democrats hadn't been able to paint Cuccinelli as an anti-gay, anti-blowjob, candidate, he'd be running away with this thing and on the precipice of slashing taxes and the size of government in a significant state. To me that is so much more important than what two lovers do to each other at night.