Also two more of these whacho's are being investigate by the secret service and FBI for saying they want Obama dead and if they were in Washington would do it themselves. Not to mention the spitting on congressman, calling them the N word. It's one thing to be against someone's policies but to do violence against them is another. Also I'm very surprised that these acts haven't been stricken down by the GOP.
Yea, or like the anti-war demonstrators who were protesting the RNC in 08 and were smashing windows in stores and setting cars on fire and doing millions of dollars worth of damage in Minnesota. There are fringe nuts in every group but you can't judge an entire group by the fringe nuts. These morons were running around wearing shirts with Anarchy symbols on them yet they were holding signs calling for socialism and communism... They obviously don't have a clue what any of those things are. I don't think everyone on the left feels wants to destroy a city to prove they don't like the Republicans. Just like the nuts in the tea parties. They don't speak for everyone in the Tea Party movement and to attack an entire groups for the actions of a few is ridiculous. That's like saying you are a nut job who wants to kill Americans because you were in the military, just because there was that psycho in Iraq who started throwing grenades into barracks.
Also two more of these whacho's are being investigate by the secret service and FBI for saying they want Obama dead and if they were in Washington would do it themselves. Not to mention the spitting on congressman, calling them the N word. It's one thing to be against someone's policies but to do violence against them is another. Also I'm very surprised that these acts haven't been stricken down by the GOP.
Yea, or like the anti-war demonstrators who were protesting the RNC in 08 and were smashing windows in stores and setting cars on fire and doing millions of dollars worth of damage in Minnesota. There are fringe nuts in every group but you can't judge an entire group by the fringe nuts. These morons were running around wearing shirts with Anarchy symbols on them yet they were holding signs calling for socialism and communism... They obviously don't have a clue what any of those things are. I don't think everyone on the left feels wants to destroy a city to prove they don't like the Republicans. Just like the nuts in the tea parties. They don't speak for everyone in the Tea Party movement and to attack an entire groups for the actions of a few is ridiculous. That's like saying you are a nut job who wants to kill Americans because you were in the military, just because there was that psycho in Iraq who started throwing grenades into barracks.
true, likewise nuts are everywhere, though endorsing it is another thing.
Also, I'd just like to point out the incredible hypocrisy of a person screaming "racist!!" at the Tea Party movement without evidence, and yet uses the term "tea baggers" and thinks that comment is appropriate and not insulting.
Also, I'd just like to point out the incredible hypocrisy of a person screaming "racist!!" at the Tea Party movement without evidence, and yet uses the term "tea baggers" and thinks that comment is appropriate and not insulting.
Is it hypocrisy? I thought one was a racist comment and the other was an open minded analysis of a group. LOL----just a joke there people, not trying to incite more crap.
Our govt. and laws should be here to protect us and allow us to pursue our happiness-----not to be the moral and religious police of our lives and for the unborn.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
Without life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness kind of seem irrelevant.
So what happens when two "inherent and inalienable rights" intersect in contridiction to each other? You argue the fetus' right to life is most important, others argue the woman's right to the pursuit of happiness is most important. Though I do love every aspect of our Declaration of Independence (A framed and matted copy of it hangs on the wall at the entrance of my home), it also certainly must be pointed out that we are not governed by it.
heh, I think the right to life takes precedence over happiness!
What's the point of living in misery? I thank god every day that I was born into a loving, responsible family that loved me every second of my life, that wanted me to be born, that was happy that I was born. I couldn't imagine what it must be like for some of these poor children who are born into a hell on earth, to parents who don't want them, never wanted them, don't care for them, don't care for themselves. I couldn't imagine what it must feel like to discover at any age that my mother killed herself because every time she looked at me she flashed back to the moment she was raped. Sorry Phil, but I respectfully disagree. There's just so many situations where I feel it's certainly a reasonable option.
Our govt. and laws should be here to protect us and allow us to pursue our happiness-----not to be the moral and religious police of our lives and for the unborn.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
Without life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness kind of seem irrelevant.
So what happens when two "inherent and inalienable rights" intersect in contridiction to each other? You argue the fetus' right to life is most important, others argue the woman's right to the pursuit of happiness is most important. Though I do love every aspect of our Declaration of Independence (A framed and matted copy of it hangs on the wall at the entrance of my home), it also certainly must be pointed out that we are not governed by it.
That woman used her life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to create another life. Now, that life must be given the opportunity for liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Also two more of these whacho's are being investigate by the secret service and FBI for saying they want Obama dead and if they were in Washington would do it themselves. Not to mention the spitting on congressman, calling them the N word. It's one thing to be against someone's policies but to do violence against them is another. Also I'm very surprised that these acts haven't been stricken down by the GOP.
You fail to remember all of the violent protests at college campuses any time a conservative shows up to speak.
Our govt. and laws should be here to protect us and allow us to pursue our happiness-----not to be the moral and religious police of our lives and for the unborn.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
Without life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness kind of seem irrelevant.
So what happens when two "inherent and inalienable rights" intersect in contridiction to each other? You argue the fetus' right to life is most important, others argue the woman's right to the pursuit of happiness is most important. Though I do love every aspect of our Declaration of Independence (A framed and matted copy of it hangs on the wall at the entrance of my home), it also certainly must be pointed out that we are not governed by it.
heh, I think the right to life takes precedence over happiness!
What's the point of living in misery? I thank god every day that I was born into a loving, responsible family that loved me every second of my life, that wanted me to be born, that was happy that I was born. I couldn't imagine what it must be like for some of these poor children who are born into a hell on earth, to parents who don't want them, never wanted them, don't care for them, don't care for themselves. I couldn't imagine what it must feel like to discover at any age that my mother killed herself because every time she looked at me she flashed back to the moment she was raped. Sorry Phil, but I respectfully disagree. There's just so many situations where I feel it's certainly a reasonable option.
It's very easy for someone who survived Roe vs. Wade to decide for the ones who didn't that they are better off.
Also, I'd just like to point out the incredible hypocrisy of a person screaming "racist!!" at the Tea Party movement without evidence, and yet uses the term "tea baggers" and thinks that comment is appropriate and not insulting.
+1
I don't scream racist and tea baggers is what they are, calling them tea partiers would be mocking the Boston Tea Party of which was a necessity. Unlike an organization created by freedom works which is basically for everything that the tea party movement is against. They are being used. People who are very upset over what has happened to their lives. Mainly due to the obscene policies over the last few decades. I don't blame a lot of them to be honest, but many are very angry, mad that there is a black man with power and have this notion that their freedom is being taken away. Which if very funny as they were no-where when the patriot act was signed into law, or a illegal war was being waged or when an administration failed to listen to intelligence about a huge attack. Frankly these people are pushing their anger at the wrong people. They should be focusing them towards the institution(s) that are taking their freedom's, their money and their way of life. Many, if not most of the people protesting are on medicare which hold signs get the govt out of my healthcare or no govt run healthcare. They are very misguided. Many can't spell and many I think can't read. Like the guy who held up a book and said people should read a little document called the U.S.S Constitution. These people are just angry and people who are angry and mad don't seem to use deductive reasoning, just like any other angry mob. If they want to attack anyone it should be organizations like Freedomworks and *** armey. For some reason calling them tea baggers is a bad thing, well tough crap. They actually wear tea bags on their heads, so therefore the name. I don't recall any party in there.
Our govt. and laws should be here to protect us and allow us to pursue our happiness-----not to be the moral and religious police of our lives and for the unborn.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
Without life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness kind of seem irrelevant.
So what happens when two "inherent and inalienable rights" intersect in contridiction to each other? You argue the fetus' right to life is most important, others argue the woman's right to the pursuit of happiness is most important. Though I do love every aspect of our Declaration of Independence (A framed and matted copy of it hangs on the wall at the entrance of my home), it also certainly must be pointed out that we are not governed by it.
heh, I think the right to life takes precedence over happiness!
What's the point of living in misery? I thank god every day that I was born into a loving, responsible family that loved me every second of my life, that wanted me to be born, that was happy that I was born. I couldn't imagine what it must be like for some of these poor children who are born into a hell on earth, to parents who don't want them, never wanted them, don't care for them, don't care for themselves. I couldn't imagine what it must feel like to discover at any age that my mother killed herself because every time she looked at me she flashed back to the moment she was raped. Sorry Phil, but I respectfully disagree. There's just so many situations where I feel it's certainly a reasonable option.
It's very easy for someone who survived Roe vs. Wade to decide for the ones who didn't that they are better off.
The option everyone is leaving out is adoption. My sister got knocked up when she was fifteen and put the baby up for adoption. Yes it was hard for her but that boy has so many more things he wouldn't have had otherwise. This is a rare occurrence, but she actually had an open adoption. He knows holly is his birth mom and his mother who raises him isn't. He loves them both very much. We are very close with that family and visit them frequently. Great outcome of a HORRIBLE situation.
Our govt. and laws should be here to protect us and allow us to pursue our happiness-----not to be the moral and religious police of our lives and for the unborn.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
Without life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness kind of seem irrelevant.
So what happens when two "inherent and inalienable rights" intersect in contridiction to each other? You argue the fetus' right to life is most important, others argue the woman's right to the pursuit of happiness is most important. Though I do love every aspect of our Declaration of Independence (A framed and matted copy of it hangs on the wall at the entrance of my home), it also certainly must be pointed out that we are not governed by it.
heh, I think the right to life takes precedence over happiness!
What's the point of living in misery? I thank god every day that I was born into a loving, responsible family that loved me every second of my life, that wanted me to be born, that was happy that I was born. I couldn't imagine what it must be like for some of these poor children who are born into a hell on earth, to parents who don't want them, never wanted them, don't care for them, don't care for themselves. I couldn't imagine what it must feel like to discover at any age that my mother killed herself because every time she looked at me she flashed back to the moment she was raped. Sorry Phil, but I respectfully disagree. There's just so many situations where I feel it's certainly a reasonable option.
It's very easy for someone who survived Roe vs. Wade to decide for the ones who didn't that they are better off.
Once again, I say it is up to the mother no one else to decide. Why are you so willing to impose your beliefs on someone else? Are you responsible for them? Pro choice is all it is. A choice of whom the event is occurring. Should I or anyone else be able to tell you that you can't have sex? or cannot marry who you choose? NO, it is your choice. I don't suppose you eat meat? Well if you do you kill animals all the time. Some would call that as bad if not worse. Animals have very littl or any defense against humans. Now if you actually went out and took down a wild animal and used it to feed your family that would be of use, but to slaughter thousands if not have farms for such deeds just to feed the masses, that in itself is far worse than a person deciding whether or not to have or not have a child once they are conception.
Our govt. and laws should be here to protect us and allow us to pursue our happiness-----not to be the moral and religious police of our lives and for the unborn.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
Without life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness kind of seem irrelevant.
So what happens when two "inherent and inalienable rights" intersect in contridiction to each other? You argue the fetus' right to life is most important, others argue the woman's right to the pursuit of happiness is most important. Though I do love every aspect of our Declaration of Independence (A framed and matted copy of it hangs on the wall at the entrance of my home), it also certainly must be pointed out that we are not governed by it.
heh, I think the right to life takes precedence over happiness!
What's the point of living in misery? I thank god every day that I was born into a loving, responsible family that loved me every second of my life, that wanted me to be born, that was happy that I was born. I couldn't imagine what it must be like for some of these poor children who are born into a hell on earth, to parents who don't want them, never wanted them, don't care for them, don't care for themselves. I couldn't imagine what it must feel like to discover at any age that my mother killed herself because every time she looked at me she flashed back to the moment she was raped. Sorry Phil, but I respectfully disagree. There's just so many situations where I feel it's certainly a reasonable option.
It's very easy for someone who survived Roe vs. Wade to decide for the ones who didn't that they are better off.
The option everyone is leaving out is adoption. My sister got knocked up when she was fifteen and put the baby up for adoption. Yes it was hard for her but that boy has so many more things he wouldn't have had otherwise. This is a rare occurrence, but she actually had an open adoption. He knows holly is his birth mom and his mother who raises him isn't. He loves them both very much. We are very close with that family and visit them frequently. Great outcome of a HORRIBLE situation.
I have said this before too however there are many, many children in this type of life. My wife was adopted. I think its a good program though not all kids are lucky to have good homes. That's why I like the idea of imposing sterilization then when whoever can prove they are able to support a life then the process is reversed. There is no abortion, no kids waiting for adoption and very little tax money used.
I know I'm usually one of the first to jump in on any political discussion and I've been known to start a few heated debates on nearly every topic, but abortion is just one I don't feel the need or desire to debate. It is a done deal. Abortion is legal and I don't ever see that it will change. Does that mean I agree with the practice or that I would consider it? Well obviously not, because I'm a guy thankfully. It IS legal however and nothing will change that. Marrying your first cousin is legal in some states too but that doesn't mean I'm going to rush out to my next family reunion looking for a date...
Also, I'd just like to point out the incredible hypocrisy of a person screaming "racist!!" at the Tea Party movement without evidence, and yet uses the term "tea baggers" and thinks that comment is appropriate and not insulting.
+1
I don't scream racist and tea baggers is what they are, calling them tea partiers would be mocking the Boston Tea Party of which was a necessity. Unlike an organization created by freedom works which is basically for everything that the tea party movement is against. They are being used. People who are very upset over what has happened to their lives. Mainly due to the obscene policies over the last few decades. I don't blame a lot of them to be honest, but many are very angry, mad that there is a black man with power and have this notion that their freedom is being taken away. Which if very funny as they were no-where when the patriot act was signed into law, or a illegal war was being waged or when an administration failed to listen to intelligence about a huge attack. Frankly these people are pushing their anger at the wrong people. They should be focusing them towards the institution(s) that are taking their freedom's, their money and their way of life. Many, if not most of the people protesting are on medicare which hold signs get the govt out of my healthcare or no govt run healthcare. They are very misguided. Many can't spell and many I think can't read. Like the guy who held up a book and said people should read a little document called the U.S.S Constitution. These people are just angry and people who are angry and mad don't seem to use deductive reasoning, just like any other angry mob. If they want to attack anyone it should be organizations like Freedomworks and *** armey. For some reason calling them tea baggers is a bad thing, well tough crap. They actually wear tea bags on their heads, so therefore the name. I don't recall any party in there.
omg. There are so many insults and generalizations in this post I cannot even contain myself. Seriously, man. How many can I count in this post? Being used Upset over what has happened in their lives angry and mad at a black man in power (racists!!) angry misguided can't spell can't read angry, angry again, and mad don't use deductive reasoning tea baggers
NONE of these generalizations or insults belong in a mature debate. Under any circumstances. They have no basis in an argument and are simply meant to detract from the debate and undermine the credibility of the opposition to whomever is arguing. Not to mention they divide our own forum unnecessarily. There are ways to debate civilly and clearly this is not the way to do it. Please explain to me otherwise, or apologize.
edit: did you seriously claim that many or most of the Tea Party protesters are on Medicare? What in the heck are you talking about? Where did this statistic come from?
I know I'm usually one of the first to jump in on any political discussion and I've been known to start a few heated debates on nearly every topic, but abortion is just one I don't feel the need or desire to debate. It is a done deal. Abortion is legal and I don't ever see that it will change. Does that mean I agree with the practice or that I would consider it? Well obviously not, because I'm a guy thankfully. It IS legal however and nothing will change that. Marrying your first cousin is legal in some states too but that doesn't mean I'm going to rush out to my next family reunion looking for a date...
then i will start call obama what he is: communist. because calling him "president" would be mocking the US constitution.
if you agree with the tea party movement or not, it is nothing short of childish and petty to use the language of a fifth grader to mock them.
phobicsquirrel:
but many are very angry, mad that there is a black man with power
its funny how every time you see an interview with someone in the tea party movement they are speaking of individual rights, and high taxes, or other issues. the only time that RACE is involved is when someone on the LEFT is trying to pull an ad hominem attack to distract from the REAL issues.
phobicsquirrel:
They should be focusing them towards the institution(s) that are taking their freedom's, their money and their way of life.
they are. that institution is the government. the government has been doing it for decades. thats what government is good at... violating the rights of the individual.
phobicsquirrel:
They are very misguided. Many can't spell and many I think can't read.
you believe everything the left media tells you dont you?
phobicsquirrel:
Like the guy who held up a book and said people should read a little document called the U.S.S Constitution.
all i have to say is: "Navy corps" not "Navy corpse" ... from the commander in chief for **** sake...
phobicsquirrel:
These people are just angry and people who are angry and mad don't seem to use deductive reasoning,
and Obama cant seem use simple reasoning to understand that his health care policy will result in poor coverage that costs more all while violating not only the constitution but the rights of individuals everywhere.
phobicsquirrel:
For some reason calling them tea baggers is a bad thing, well tough crap.
for some reason calling him a Communist is a bad thing, well tough crap.
he is.
Our govt. and laws should be here to protect us and allow us to pursue our happiness-----not to be the moral and religious police of our lives and for the unborn.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
Without life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness kind of seem irrelevant.
So what happens when two "inherent and inalienable rights" intersect in contridiction to each other? You argue the fetus' right to life is most important, others argue the woman's right to the pursuit of happiness is most important. Though I do love every aspect of our Declaration of Independence (A framed and matted copy of it hangs on the wall at the entrance of my home), it also certainly must be pointed out that we are not governed by it.
heh, I think the right to life takes precedence over happiness!
What's the point of living in misery? I thank god every day that I was born into a loving, responsible family that loved me every second of my life, that wanted me to be born, that was happy that I was born. I couldn't imagine what it must be like for some of these poor children who are born into a hell on earth, to parents who don't want them, never wanted them, don't care for them, don't care for themselves. I couldn't imagine what it must feel like to discover at any age that my mother killed herself because every time she looked at me she flashed back to the moment she was raped. Sorry Phil, but I respectfully disagree. There's just so many situations where I feel it's certainly a reasonable option.
It's very easy for someone who survived Roe vs. Wade to decide for the ones who didn't that they are better off.
The option everyone is leaving out is adoption. My sister got knocked up when she was fifteen and put the baby up for adoption. Yes it was hard for her but that boy has so many more things he wouldn't have had otherwise. This is a rare occurrence, but she actually had an open adoption. He knows holly is his birth mom and his mother who raises him isn't. He loves them both very much. We are very close with that family and visit them frequently. Great outcome of a HORRIBLE situation.
I have said this before too however there are many, many children in this type of life. My wife was adopted. I think its a good program though not all kids are lucky to have good homes. That's why I like the idea of imposing sterilization then when whoever can prove they are able to support a life then the process is reversed. There is no abortion, no kids waiting for adoption and very little tax money used.
And just who exactly gets to decide who gets to have children and when? What is a man and woman are wealthy beyond imagination and have all the material things in life needed to care for a child but these two people are horribly racist and completely open about it? Would they be allowed to have children? How about an absolutely loving couple who desperately want to raise a child together but may not be completely financially secure? How about mixed race couples? I would bet that the answers will be different no matter who you ask.
It's not enough that liberals have created a nanny state that will "care" for their citizenry from cradle to grave but now you want to play God. Where does it end?
I have said this before too however there are many, many children in this type of life. My wife was adopted. I think its a good program though not all kids are lucky to have good homes. That's why I like the idea of imposing sterilization then when whoever can prove they are able to support a life then the process is reversed. There is no abortion, no kids waiting for adoption and very little tax money used.
have you gone off the deep end? you preach about how corporations have all this control over your life then you say something like this? wow. this is nothing short of crazy. i have a hard time thinking of something that would kill the rights of the individual more than a policy like this. ...maybe taking away your right to live at all. every person owns their own body. nobody has a right to tell you what to do with it so long as you do not infringe on the rights of another.
This is an interesting thread. It's taken on an awesome life of it's own that is several political and moral debates all tied into one. I've lost track of how many topics are actually being discussed all at the same time. Intriguing twist on this thread indeed.
I have said this before too however there are many, many children in this type of life. My wife was adopted. I think its a good program though not all kids are lucky to have good homes. That's why I like the idea of imposing sterilization then when whoever can prove they are able to support a life then the process is reversed. There is no abortion, no kids waiting for adoption and very little tax money used.
have you gone off the deep end? you preach about how corporations have all this control over your life then you say something like this? wow. this is nothing short of crazy. i have a hard time thinking of something that would kill the rights of the individual more than a policy like this. ...maybe taking away your right to live at all. every person owns their own body. nobody has a right to tell you what to do with it so long as you do not infringe on the rights of another.
I thought he was joking around when this conversation started about sterilizing everyone started. It was funny until I realized he was serious.
I have said this before too however there are many, many children in this type of life. My wife was adopted. I think its a good program though not all kids are lucky to have good homes. That's why I like the idea of imposing sterilization then when whoever can prove they are able to support a life then the process is reversed. There is no abortion, no kids waiting for adoption and very little tax money used.
have you gone off the deep end? you preach about how corporations have all this control over your life then you say something like this? wow. this is nothing short of crazy. i have a hard time thinking of something that would kill the rights of the individual more than a policy like this. ...maybe taking away your right to live at all. every person owns their own body. nobody has a right to tell you what to do with it so long as you do not infringe on the rights of another.
I thought he was joking around when this conversation started about sterilizing everyone started. It was funny until I realized he was serious.
Yea, this has gone a little bit off the deep end. The joking about it was funny and light hearted, but this is insane... It boggles my mind to hear someone who thinks the government tapping our phones, which without a warrant is WRONG, is worse than the government taking money straight out of our bank accounts, talk about the government controling who is able to have children and who isn't... That would be the most insane violation of our rights ever put forth by the government.
I have said this before too however there are many, many children in this type of life. My wife was adopted. I think its a good program though not all kids are lucky to have good homes. That's why I like the idea of imposing sterilization then when whoever can prove they are able to support a life then the process is reversed. There is no abortion, no kids waiting for adoption and very little tax money used.
have you gone off the deep end? you preach about how corporations have all this control over your life then you say something like this? wow. this is nothing short of crazy. i have a hard time thinking of something that would kill the rights of the individual more than a policy like this. ...maybe taking away your right to live at all. every person owns their own body. nobody has a right to tell you what to do with it so long as you do not infringe on the rights of another.
I thought he was joking around when this conversation started about sterilizing everyone started. It was funny until I realized he was serious.
Yea, this has gone a little bit off the deep end. The joking about it was funny and light hearted, but this is insane... It boggles my mind to hear someone who thinks the government tapping our phones, which without a warrant is WRONG, is worse than the government taking money straight out of our bank accounts, talk about the government controling who is able to have children and who isn't... That would be the most insane violation of our rights ever put forth by the government.
Doesn't China have something similar for population control? I know they don't go the lengths of sterilization but I think you're only allowed to have a certain amount of children.
i think it is that you can only have one child and many want boys so when they are born a girl, they kill them. I heard from a missionary at my church that the most popular method is putting them in a burlap sack, tying it up with a cinderblock on the end and throwing them into a body of water. it is sick and disgusting
i think it is that you can only have one child and many want boys so when they are born a girl, they kill them. I heard from a missionary at my church that the most popular method is putting them in a burlap sack, tying it up with a cinderblock on the end and throwing them into a body of water. it is sick and disgusting
Due to this policy, the male to female ratio has widened. AP reported a gap of 32 million (more boys than girls). Apparently, if the parent had observed the one-child law, their kids are allowed to have more than one child.
WE have touched on many issues here but they can all be summed up in this: The human race is totally depraved. This is the reason that there must be an absolute moral authority. It can never be man! That authority does exist but is ignored by most, hated by some, embraced by a very few.
then i will start call obama what he is: communist. because calling him "president" would be mocking the US constitution.
if you agree with the tea party movement or not, it is nothing short of childish and petty to use the language of a fifth grader to mock them.
phobicsquirrel:
but many are very angry, mad that there is a black man with power
its funny how every time you see an interview with someone in the tea party movement they are speaking of individual rights, and high taxes, or other issues. the only time that RACE is involved is when someone on the LEFT is trying to pull an ad hominem attack to distract from the REAL issues.
phobicsquirrel:
They should be focusing them towards the institution(s) that are taking their freedom's, their money and their way of life.
they are. that institution is the government. the government has been doing it for decades. thats what government is good at... violating the rights of the individual.
phobicsquirrel:
They are very misguided. Many can't spell and many I think can't read.
you believe everything the left media tells you dont you?
phobicsquirrel:
Like the guy who held up a book and said people should read a little document called the U.S.S Constitution.
all i have to say is: "Navy corps" not "Navy corpse" ... from the commander in chief for **** sake...
phobicsquirrel:
These people are just angry and people who are angry and mad don't seem to use deductive reasoning,
and Obama cant seem use simple reasoning to understand that his health care policy will result in poor coverage that costs more all while violating not only the constitution but the rights of individuals everywhere.
phobicsquirrel:
For some reason calling them tea baggers is a bad thing, well tough crap.
for some reason calling him a Communist is a bad thing, well tough crap.
he is.
I have said this before too however there are many, many children in this type of life. My wife was adopted. I think its a good program though not all kids are lucky to have good homes. That's why I like the idea of imposing sterilization then when whoever can prove they are able to support a life then the process is reversed. There is no abortion, no kids waiting for adoption and very little tax money used.
have you gone off the deep end? you preach about how corporations have all this control over your life then you say something like this? wow. this is nothing short of crazy. i have a hard time thinking of something that would kill the rights of the individual more than a policy like this. ...maybe taking away your right to live at all. every person owns their own body. nobody has a right to tell you what to do with it so long as you do not infringe on the rights of another.
I thought he was joking around when this conversation started about sterilizing everyone started. It was funny until I realized he was serious.
Yea, this has gone a little bit off the deep end. The joking about it was funny and light hearted, but this is insane... It boggles my mind to hear someone who thinks the government tapping our phones, which without a warrant is WRONG, is worse than the government taking money straight out of our bank accounts, talk about the government controling who is able to have children and who isn't... That would be the most insane violation of our rights ever put forth by the government.
True, I know. But what else can be done. I'd like to know. Anyone who is for child's rights, or a fetus (is there much difference between the two from these people) would I'm sure like to fix what we have in this country.
Comments
Being used
Upset over what has happened in their lives
angry and mad at a black man in power (racists!!)
angry
misguided
can't spell
can't read
angry, angry again, and mad
don't use deductive reasoning
tea baggers
NONE of these generalizations or insults belong in a mature debate. Under any circumstances. They have no basis in an argument and are simply meant to detract from the debate and undermine the credibility of the opposition to whomever is arguing. Not to mention they divide our own forum unnecessarily. There are ways to debate civilly and clearly this is not the way to do it. Please explain to me otherwise, or apologize.
edit: did you seriously claim that many or most of the Tea Party protesters are on Medicare? What in the heck are you talking about? Where did this statistic come from?
communist.
because calling him "president" would be mocking the US constitution.
if you agree with the tea party movement or not, it is nothing short of childish and petty to use the language of a fifth grader to mock them.
its funny how every time you see an interview with someone in the tea party movement they are speaking of individual rights, and high taxes, or other issues.
the only time that RACE is involved is when someone on the LEFT is trying to pull an ad hominem attack to distract from the REAL issues. they are. that institution is the government. the government has been doing it for decades. thats what government is good at... violating the rights of the individual. you believe everything the left media tells you dont you? all i have to say is:
"Navy corps"
not
"Navy corpse"
... from the commander in chief for **** sake... and Obama cant seem use simple reasoning to understand that his health care policy will result in poor coverage that costs more all while violating not only the constitution but the rights of individuals everywhere. for some reason calling him a Communist is a bad thing, well tough crap.
he is.
It's not enough that liberals have created a nanny state that will "care" for their citizenry from cradle to grave but now you want to play God. Where does it end?
you preach about how corporations have all this control over your life then you say something like this? wow. this is nothing short of crazy. i have a hard time thinking of something that would kill the rights of the individual more than a policy like this.
...maybe taking away your right to live at all.
every person owns their own body. nobody has a right to tell you what to do with it so long as you do not infringe on the rights of another.