Cuccinelli: We're Positioned to Shock the Political World

[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]

[h=1]Ron Paul on Abortion and Stem Cell Research : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8[/h]

 

[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....

 

[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

 

[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.