Cuccinelli: We're Positioned to Shock the Political World

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/...is-nextgen-claim-cuccinelli-wants-ban-all-co/

rulings%2Ftom-pantsonfire.gif
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
This kind of reminds me of the old days - going to see Ron Paul!

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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, 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 than white woman.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFvaLIO9tVc&feature=youtu.be Planned Parenthood is the largest 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
 
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.)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top