Santorum: States Should Have The Right To Outlaw Birth Control

[Fraggle145]

Thoughts? My first thought was that would be a whole lot more welfare babies, cervical cancer, and STDs.


Santorum: States Should Have The Right To Outlaw Birth Control
By Igor Volsky on Jan 3, 2012 at 10:25 am
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/03/396516/santorum-states-should-have-the-right-to-outlaw-birth-control/

Rick Santorum reiterated his belief that states should have the right to outlaw contraception during an interview with ABC News yesterday, saying, “The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have.” Watch the Jake Tapper interview (Go to the clicky above this link probably wont work):


http://corp.kaltura.com">video<img style="visibility:hidden;width:0px;height:0px;" border=0 width=0 height=0 src="http://c.gigcount.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.11NXC/bT*xJmx*PTEzMjU2OTkyMjM2MTEmcHQ9MTMyNTY5OTI3MTgyOS ZwPSZkPSZnPTImbz*2MDlhNTMyZGQ5MGM*MmFhODJhYTU1MzMz/ODBkMjNjMSZvZj*w.gif" /><object name="kaltura_player_1325699222" id="kaltura_player_1325699222" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" allowNetworking="all" allowFullScreen="true" height="221" width="392" data="http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/index.php/kwidget/wid/0_ry06339j/uiconf_id/5590821"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowNetworking" value="all" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><param name="movie" value="http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/index.php/kwidget/wid/0_ry06339j/uiconf_id/5590821"/><param name="flashVars" value="autoPlay=false&screensLayer.startScreenOverId=startScreen&screensLayer.startScreenId=startScreen"/><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com">video platform</a><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com/video_platform/video_management">video management</a><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com/solutions/video_solution">video solutions</a><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com/video_platform/video_publishing">video player</a></object> platform</a><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com/video_platform/video_management">video management</a><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com/solutions/video_solution">video solutions</a><a href="http://corp.kaltura.com/video_platform/video_publishing">video player</a></object>

Santorum has long opposed the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling “that invalidated a Connecticut law banning contraception” and has also pledged to completely defund federal funding for contraception if elected president. As he told CaffeinatedThoughts.com editor Shane Vander Hart in October, “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
But an overwhelming majority of Americans — virtually all women (more than 99 percent ) aged 15–44 have used at least one contraceptive method — rely on contraceptives to prevent unintended pregnancies and limit the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases. In fact, the Guttmacher Institute estimates that contraceptive services provided at publicly funded clinics helped prevent almost two million unintended pregnancies. Without funding from Medicaid and Title X, “abortions occurring in the United States would be nearly two-thirds higher among women overall and among teens; the number of unintended pregnancies among poor women would nearly double.”

[okie52]

Put contraceptives in teenagers food and water.

[KantoSooner]

Santorum long ago crossed the line from being a pathetic fool to being a dangerous fascist.

No one forces his wife or daughters to use birth control.

What about the separation of his religion and public policy does he fail to grasp?

[Frozen Sooner]

Santorum long ago crossed the line from being a pathetic fool to being a dangerous fascist.

No one forces his wife or daughters to use birth control.

What about the separation of his religion and public policy does he fail to grasp?

That's not actually the issue. The issue is that states have no compelling interest in intruding in private relationships in that manner.

[Midtowner]

Santorum long ago crossed the line from being a pathetic fool to being a dangerous fascist.

No one forces his wife or daughters to use birth control.

What about the separation of his religion and public policy does he fail to grasp?

Anyone who wants to regulate what goes on in the bedroom and harms no one doesn't deserve serious consideration. Anyone who could justify that level of governmental intrusion can justify any amount of government intrusion in any situation. How hard is it to think that someone who believed the states could outlaw birth control could also support a 1984-esque Ministry of Love?

[KantoSooner]

Legal reasoning has it's place. But it is technical for a purpose and that is to make the process as demonstrably even handed as possible. From what little I remember from ConLaw, your reference to 'compelling interests' sounds about right or at least would be one productive line of precedent to argue.

My argument has less to do with legality and more to do with the philosophical and practical needs to separate religious belief from politics and legislation in the name of preventing sectarian conflict.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

What's the difference between outlawing birth control and outlawing marijuana?

I don't think there would be one state out there looking to outlaw contraceptives. Look what happened with the Mississippi ballot measure.

[IBleedCrimson]

I thought pubs wanted smaller govn't, not religious ppl forcing their special brand of nonsense down the throats of the citizenry.

Can one party PLEASE be anything that remotely resembles rational?

You got dems destroying every industry they stick their beak into then appeasing dangerous foreign enemies with nukes, pubs screaming for a smaller less intrusive goverment and then starting 2 wars and wishing they could create a christian utopia based on a book with stories of whales eating people and dead people becoming not dead...

All while spending money we don't have to sabotage American strength and home and abroad!

I WONDER WHY PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT AMERICAN APATHY!?

[okie52]

I thought pubs wanted smaller govn't, not religious ppl forcing their special brand of nonsense down the throats of the citizenry.

Can one party PLEASE be anything that remotely resembles rational?

You got dems destroying every industry they stick their beak into then appeasing dangerous foreign enemies with nukes, pubs screaming for a smaller less intrusive goverment and then starting 2 wars and wishing they could create a christian utopia based on a book with stories of whales eating people and dead people becoming not dead...

All while spending money we don't have to sabotage American strength and home and abroad!

I WONDER WHY PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT AMERICAN APATHY!?

How can you be apathetic with the story lines you have just mentioned? Would be a great series.

[okie52]

I'm for no one having kids before their 21st birthday. I don't care if that is Orwellian or not. I'm not talking about abortions just contraceptive use. Not much good comes from teen pregnancies. People on welfare shouldn't be having kids either.

[badger]

Sure states can outlaw it... and watch as their citizens run across borders to get the medicine they cannot purchase within their own state.

Why is there a porn video store just south of the Oklahoma border on I-35?

Why are there so many casinos close to Oklahoma borders?

Just taxing the issue wouldn't help either. Why else would elderly folks board buses to Mexico and Canada regularly to get cheaper prescriptions filled?

[okie52]

Have you been into the porn video store on I-35?

[Midtowner]

I don't really see much room for a legal reason why the state could compel a woman to use birth control while simultaneously being forbidden from stopping an abortion.

[KantoSooner]

I thought pubs wanted smaller govn't, not religious ppl forcing their special brand of nonsense down the throats of the citizenry.

Can one party PLEASE be anything that remotely resembles rational?

You got dems destroying every industry they stick their beak into then appeasing dangerous foreign enemies with nukes, pubs screaming for a smaller less intrusive goverment and then starting 2 wars and wishing they could create a christian utopia based on a book with stories of whales eating people and dead people becoming not dead...

All while spending money we don't have to sabotage American strength and home and abroad!

I WONDER WHY PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT AMERICAN APATHY!?

Post of the year, so far.

[East Coast Bias]

I thought pubs wanted smaller govn't, not religious ppl forcing their special brand of nonsense down the throats of the citizenry.

Can one party PLEASE be anything that remotely resembles rational?

You got dems destroying every industry they stick their beak into then appeasing dangerous foreign enemies with nukes, pubs screaming for a smaller less intrusive goverment and then starting 2 wars and wishing they could create a christian utopia based on a book with stories of whales eating people and dead people becoming not dead...

All while spending money we don't have to sabotage American strength and home and abroad!

I WONDER WHY PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT AMERICAN APATHY!?

Nice rant, Crimson. I like the part about whales eating people the best....

[IBleedCrimson]

lol. It gets better! The guy lives for three days inside the whale, then hops back out.

In this magic book which life is lived by, a super important dude tries to kill his kid because a bush talked inside his mind! And it was on FIRE!

Constitution, move aside. We got it right 2000 years ago.

So where do we turn in the face of this crazy? The Democrats! They fight for the poor and trampled. Except they also use an elaborate system of entitlements to forever enslave the same people they claim to help. And they throw around words like "Fair" to rape money away from success, when half the country doesn't even pay anything in taxes. In what alter-universe is that FAIR? Dictionary be damned, that word is dogma. The same idiots who do this also gave away our most powerful leverage against Russia, the European missile defense system, for.... wait for it... NOTHING IN RETURN! They look back at history, see how appeasement directly resulted in WWII and the Holocaust, and then double the amount of appeasement in their foreign policy. Well played good sirs!

Do I vote for the wackjobs who think imaginary forces control the universe? Or the wackjobs who are systematically destroying the foundations that made this country great?

Keep rockin that vote out, P Diddy.

[badger]

Have you been into the porn video store on I-35?

Nah, I just remember hearing about it the first time I crossed the Red River into enemy territory... they were all like "It has to be on this side of the border because it's not allowed in Oklahoma."

It don't even remember what it's called

[Dale Ellis]

Thoughts? My first thought was that would be a whole lot more welfare babies, cervical cancer, and STDs.

Wait, I thought liberals loved welfare babies???????


Anyway, I would really like someone to provide me one documented case where the federal government or a state has impregnated and forced a woman to give birth to, and raise a child. When I hear this talk about "the federal government has not right to make a woman's reproductive choices for her" I ask my self "what woman has ever been forced, by the fed or a state government, to reproduce?"
I've asked this question for years and to date, not one pro-choicer has been able to provided one documented case of this.

[SicEmBaylor]

He's right. As much as I detest Santorum, this is clearly and should be a state issue.

The problem is, Santorum has absolutely no intention of leaving it up to the states. He's a big government evangelist theocrat who will use the power of the Federal government to ensure that abortion is banned coast to coast.

He's a lying son of a bitch.

[Dale Ellis]

He's right. As much as I detest Santorum, this is clearly and should be a state issue.

The problem is, Santorum has absolutely no intention of leaving it up to the states. He's a big government evangelist theocrat who will use the power of the Federal government to ensure that abortion is banned coast to coast.

He's a lying son of a bitch.

Oh heaven forbid if he does, then some might have to practice a little self control.

[KantoSooner]

"Senor Kanto's Clinica No Problema" in downtown Juarez

alternatively,

"Medicin Kanto Service Prive" (Just dial the concierge of your Montreal 5 Star and have lots of hard currency available)

[SicEmBaylor]

Oh heaven forbid if he does, then some might have to practice a little self control.

It's unconstitutional. This bothers me. It may not bother you, but I like for our Federal government to restrain itself to those powers that have been delegated to it.

[IBleedCrimson]

Oh heaven forbid if he does, then some might have to practice a little self control.

So are you against it because of your moral conviction? Or because the thought of young people bumpin uglies without consequences keeps you up at night?

[KantoSooner]

Oh Lord!
There, you did it.
I can't resist.

YES, THE THOUGHT KEEPS ME UP AT NIGHT.

Are you satisfied?

(especially if it includes that German exchange student cutie who lives down the street.)

[Dale Ellis]

It's unconstitutional. This bothers me. It may not bother you, but I like for our Federal government to restrain itself to those powers that have been delegated to it.

again if you can provide one documented case where the federal government has impregnated and forced a woman to have a baby against her will please do so, otherwise stop with all this "the fed should have no say so in a woman's reproductive rights?" crap.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Yeah, what we need are more laws that millions of folks ignore.

[Dale Ellis]

So are you against it because of your moral conviction? Or because the thought of young people bumpin uglies without consequences keeps you up at night?

No, the thought of a bunch of irresponsible people knocking each other up because they know they can just murder the byproduct of their actions, is what keeps me up.

[IBleedCrimson]

Act 1: Two co-eds are half drunk and getting rowdy. Some Dude walks in, cries out in fear, then leaves.

Act 2: The next day he witnesses the same kids calmly going about their day as hes driving around. For some reason, he is incredibly disturbed by this.

Act 3: It is a sleepless night for Some Dude, as he struggles to comprehend how God could let two people bang without being struck by lightning or the preggers monkey.

Act 4: Cut to Some Dude in a convertible, flying down the highway as he races towards Iowa so he can vote for Santorum.

And SCENE!

lol

[Dale Ellis]

Yeah, what we need are more laws that millions of folks ignore.

all laws are ignored to some extent, the people that choose to do so, are called inmates. You're right, if we can't enforce a law 100% of the time, we should just do away with it.

[SicEmBaylor]

again if you can provide one documented case where the federal government has impregnated and forced a woman to have a baby against her will please do so, otherwise stop with all this "the fed should have no say so in a woman's reproductive rights?" crap.

You've read the Constitution, correct? Article I, Section 8 clearly defines the powers of Congress. If a power is not listed within those enumerated powers then it is a power/right left to the states and to the people. If you can please point me to the place in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the power to regulate abortion then I will be more than happy to admit I was wrong.

[Dale Ellis]

Act 1: Two co-eds are half drunk and getting rowdy. Some Dude walks in, cries out in fear, then leaves.

Act 2: The next day he witnesses the same kids calmly going about their day as hes driving around. For some reason, he is incredibly disturbed by this.

Act 3: It is a sleepless night for Some Dude, as he struggles to comprehend how God could let two people bang without being struck by lightning or the preggers monkey.

Act 4: Cut to Some Dude in a convertible, flying down the highway as he races towards Iowa so he can vote for Santorum.

And SCENE!

lol

There you have it folks, a well thought out, fact based rebuttal. Debate over!!

[SicEmBaylor]

This is what really really really ticks me off about so-called "conservatives" these days. They will scream to the f'n rafters about how the Democrats abuse the powers of the Federal government and claim to be champions of limited-government only to turn around and think it perfectly acceptable for the Federal government to unconstitutionally use its power when it's something they want or something that they feel passionately about.

I am literally drowning in hypocrisy.

[Dale Ellis]

You've read the Constitution, correct? Article I, Section 8 clearly defines the powers of Congress. If a power is not listed within those enumerated powers then it is a power/right left to the states and to the people. If you can please point me to the place in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the power to regulate abortion then I will be more than happy to admit I was wrong.


But, but, but, I thought Santorum said he wanted this to be decided on a state level, or are you just conveniently ignoring that FACT??
The federal government has all sorts of regulations regarding 1000's of surgical procedures. You're argument is thin my friend. I simply ask you to provide one documented case in the history of this country, where the federal government has forced a woman to reproduce, and you can't.

[IBleedCrimson]

There you have it folks, a well thought out, fact based rebuttal. Debate over!!

How about his for reason? Birth Control = no preggers. No Preggers = no abortion. No Abortion = You sleep better at night.

If you wanted to sleep better tonight, what would you want in the hands of EVERY teenage girl?

[badger]

I am literally drowning in hypocrisy.

Aren't we all, dude... aren't we all

[Dale Ellis]

This is what really really really ticks me off about so-called "conservatives" these days. They will scream to the f'n rafters about how the Democrats abuse the powers of the Federal government and claim to be champions of limited-government only to turn around and think it perfectly acceptable for the Federal government to unconstitutionally use its power when it's something they want or something that they feel passionately about.

I am literally drowning in hypocrisy.

Funny, libs are all for big gov when it comes to the feds forcing us to purchase a product (health care), yet when it comes to abortion, they want limited government. Please make up your minds already.

[SicEmBaylor]

But, but, but, I thought Santorum said he wanted this to be decided on a state level, or are you just conveniently ignoring that FACT??
I'm ignoring what he said in this one instance (in which he's attempting not to look like a crazy religious zealout) and going with what he has said and done throughout his Senate and House career.

The federal government has all sorts of regulations regarding 1000's of surgical procedures. You're argument is thin my friend.
How so? I don't think the Federal government should be involved in regulating any sort of medical procedure, period. My argument would be thin if I favored one type of regulation over the other -- I favor neither.

I simply ask you to provide one documented case in the history of this country, where the federal government has forced a woman to reproduce, and you can't.
What on Earth does that have to do with whether or not abortion is Constitutional or not?

[SicEmBaylor]

This is what really really really ticks me off about so-called "liberals" and the self professed " open minded" these days. They will scream to the f'n rafters about how the Republicans want to limit the powers of the Federal government, when it's something they want ala, the federal government trying to force people to purchase a produce (health insurance). Then when it comes to abortion, they're all for limited government. Why can't they make up their mind?

HAHAHAHAHAHA, I'm a liberal? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh God...HNAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[badger]

I'm a liberal

Ladies and gentlemen, an unaltered verbatim quote where SicEm admits that he is a liberal.

Here's your new avatar complete with your scarlet letter:

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/645/letterl.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/822/letterl.png/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

[MR2-Sooner86]

This is one of the reasons I hate evangelicals. These are the same *******s who think we're great, not because of our Constitution or Founding Fathers, but because of Israel.

For what it's worth, Santorum is a homophobic bigot.

[47straight]

I am literally drowning in hypocrisy.

I don't think you know what that word means.

[47straight]

This is one of the reasons I hate evangelicals. These are the same *******s who think we're great, not because of our Constitution or Founding Fathers, but because of Israel.

For what it's worth, Santorum is a homophobic bigot.

LOL. Well, if Santorum is a homophobic bigot, then you're a Christophobic bigot. And if Rick is a bigot against 1-4% of the population, and you're a bigot against 26% of the population, well, you're at least six-times the bigot that Santorum is.

[MR2-Sooner86]

LOL. Well, if Santorum is a homophobic bigot, then you're a Christophobic bigot. And if Rick is a bigot against 1-4% of the population, and you're a bigot against 26% of the population, well, you're at least six-times the bigot that Santorum is.

The thing is they support him. So if they support a homophobic bigot, they're homophobic bigots themselves.

I'm just hating on the haters.

Oh yeah, for a good laugh, somebody Google "Rick Santorum" and see what comes up.

[47straight]

The thing is they support him. So if they support a homophobic bigot, they're homophobic bigots themselves.

I'm just hating on the haters.

No you're not. That's "just one of the reasons" you hate Evangelicals. You're just being a hypocrite. Rationalize and deflect all you want.

[SicEmBaylor]

I don't think you know what that word means.
Drowning?

[SicEmBaylor]

This is one of the reasons I hate evangelicals. These are the same *******s who think we're great, not because of our Constitution or Founding Fathers, but because of Israel.

For what it's worth, Santorum is a homophobic bigot.

This. Evangelicals are as dangerous to liberty as a committed socialist running a community Marxist paper out of his studio apartment in the Village.

[SicEmBaylor]

LOL. Well, if Santorum is a homophobic bigot, then you're a Christophobic bigot. And if Rick is a bigot against 1-4% of the population, and you're a bigot against 26% of the population, well, you're at least six-times the bigot that Santorum is.

I'm bigoted against people who favor a strong central government, unconstitutional laws, and who are enemies of individual liberty.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I am literally drowning in hypocrisy.

You mean figuratively.

[SicEmBaylor]

You mean figuratively.
I said literally for additional emphasis. I am LITERALLY drowning on the hypocrisy...it is filling my lungs as I type out this one last post before I'm overwhelmed by the ridiculousness of it all.

....but yes you're right.

[47straight]

I said literally for additional emphasis. I am LITERALLY drowning on the hypocrisy...it is filling my lungs as I type out this one last post before I'm overwhelmed by the ridiculousness of it all.

....but yes you're right.

Rick Perry has a college degree. Betcha he knows the difference between literally and figuratively.

[SicEmBaylor]

Rick Perry has a college degree. Betcha he knows the difference between literally and figuratively.
Betcha he doesn't.

[ictsooner7]

I thought pubs wanted smaller govn't, not religious ppl forcing their special brand of nonsense down the throats of the citizenry.

Can one party PLEASE be anything that remotely resembles rational?

You got dems destroying every industry they stick their beak into then appeasing dangerous foreign enemies with nukes, pubs screaming for a smaller less intrusive goverment and then starting 2 wars and wishing they could create a christian utopia based on a book with stories of whales eating people and dead people becoming not dead...

All while spending money we don't have to sabotage American strength and home and abroad!

I WONDER WHY PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT AMERICAN APATHY!?

Which industries are these? The auto? "appeasing dangerous foreign enemies with nukes"? How are we appeasing "dangerous foreign enemies with nukes"?



As for santorum and the crazy radical right doesn't understand is they are not deciding between freedom and liberty and the socialist takeover of our society, its about them gaining the power to impose their brand of control over our people. They don't want liberty and freedom, they just want to be the ones deciding which freedoms and liberties are being taken away. Abortion is a medical procedure, birth control is an FDA approved drug administered by a physician and the crazies on the right want to impose their narrow radical RELIGIOUS BELIEFS on the rest of us. The bible is not a medical textbook and has no bearing on abortion. IF YOU DON'T LIKE ABORTION THEN DON'T HAVE ONE, IF YOUR RELIGION DOES WANT YOU TO USE BIRTH CONTROL, THEN DON'T, BUT DO NOT IMPOSE YOU RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON THE REST OF US!



That is true freedom.

[sappstuf]

Which industries are these? The auto? "appeasing dangerous foreign enemies with nukes"? How are we appeasing "dangerous foreign enemies with nukes"?



As for santorum and the crazy radical right doesn't understand is they are not deciding between freedom and liberty and the socialist takeover of our society, its about them gaining the power to impose their brand of control over our people. They don't want liberty and freedom, they just want to be the ones deciding which freedoms and liberties are being taken away. Abortion is a medical procedure, birth control is an FDA approved drug administered by a physician and the crazies on the right want to impose their narrow radical RELIGIOUS BELIEFS on the rest of us. The bible is not a medical textbook and has no bearing on abortion. IF YOU DON'T LIKE ABORTION THEN DON'T HAVE ONE, IF YOUR RELIGION DOES WANT YOU TO USE BIRTH CONTROL, THEN DON'T, BUT DO NOT IMPOSE YOU RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON THE REST OF US!

That is true freedom.

If your religion doesn't allow murder then don't murder.. But for the rest of us...

That is true freedom.

Wait.

[sappstuf]

Anyone who wants to regulate what goes on in the bedroom and harms no one doesn't deserve serious consideration. Anyone who could justify that level of governmental intrusion can justify any amount of government intrusion in any situation. How hard is it to think that someone who believed the states could outlaw birth control could also support a 1984-esque Ministry of Love?

http://global.nationalreview.com/images/photoshop_010312_AA.jpg

[KantoSooner]

That Republican idea of bringing evangelicals on board to create permanent majorities while ignoring their insane beliefs is looking like less and less of a bargain.

Oh, that Barry Goldwater could have won in '64!

We might still have a Republican party of principal and the morons could be left to handle their snakes and impregnate their livestock and daughters.

[Dale Ellis]

I'm bigoted against people who favor a strong central government, unconstitutional laws, and who are enemies of individual liberty.
So then you're against Obama Care, yes?

[Dale Ellis]

HAHAHAHAHAHA, I'm a liberal? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh God...HNAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I never said you were a liberal did I? I just pointed out what I hate about liberals. Why so defensive?

[Dale Ellis]

I'm ignoring what he said in this one instance (in which he's attempting not to look like a crazy religious zealout) and going with what he has said and done throughout his Senate and House career.

No you ignored it because if you didn't it would have made your "the feds can't do yadda, yadda, yadda" argument illogical. Santorum said he thinks the states should choose, you completely ignored that so you could base your argument off of an assumption.

So do you feel the the states should have the right to ban abortion or do you feel as if the feds should be able to step in and tell them they do not have that right?

[badger]

Rick Perry has a college degree. Betcha he knows the difference between literally and figuratively.
Rick Perry in college: Pulling Corps pranks, getting crappy grades, playing cheer boy as a Yell Leader. AaaaaaaaaWHOOP! Howdy! :rcmad:

[Dale Ellis]

How so? I don't think the Federal government should be involved in regulating any sort of medical procedure, period. My argument would be thin if I favored one type of regulation over the other -- I favor neither.

So you favor no federal regulation? Really?

[Dale Ellis]

Which industries are these? The auto? "appeasing dangerous foreign enemies with nukes"? How are we appeasing "dangerous foreign enemies with nukes"?



As for santorum and the crazy radical right doesn't understand is they are not deciding between freedom and liberty and the socialist takeover of our society, its about them gaining the power to impose their brand of control over our people. They don't want liberty and freedom, they just want to be the ones deciding which freedoms and liberties are being taken away. Abortion is a medical procedure, birth control is an FDA approved drug administered by a physician and the crazies on the right want to impose their narrow radical RELIGIOUS BELIEFS on the rest of us. The bible is not a medical textbook and has no bearing on abortion. IF YOU DON'T LIKE ABORTION THEN DON'T HAVE ONE, IF YOUR RELIGION DOES WANT YOU TO USE BIRTH CONTROL, THEN DON'T, BUT DO NOT IMPOSE YOU RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON THE REST OF US!



That is true freedom.

Fine, you and the left stop trying to impose your environmental beliefs, your health care beliefs, you welfare program beliefs, your gay lifestyle beliefs on all of us. Deal?

[Fraggle145]

No, the thought of a bunch of irresponsible people knocking each other up because they know they can just murder the byproduct of their actions, is what keeps me up.

You know if they are on birth control then they wouldnt have to "murder" anything right?

[Dale Ellis]

You know if they are on birth control then they wouldnt have to "murder" anything right?

I never argued against birth control now did I?

[ictsooner7]

If your religion doesn't allow murder then don't murder.. But for the rest of us...

That is true freedom.

Wait.

This is the dumbest post ever. Going from birth control to murder? Really? It makes no sense.

[ictsooner7]

Fine, you and the left stop trying to impose your environmental beliefs, your health care beliefs, you welfare program beliefs, your gay lifestyle beliefs on all of us. Deal?

Another dumb post, your health care beliefs are not lowering costs? What gay lifestyle beliefs? That people should be able to get married? Don't you people love marriage? The biggest threat to traditional marriage is your cheating presidential candidates, maccain, newt...............

[Dale Ellis]

Another dumb post, your health care beliefs are not lowering costs? What gay lifestyle beliefs? That people should be able to get married? Don't you people love marriage? The biggest threat to traditional marriage is your cheating presidential candidates, maccain, newt...............

And to date your healthcare beliefs haven't lowered costs one dime.
I love the way you phrased it "That PEOPLE should be able to get married", you conveniently left out the word GAY in that statement.

Why did you leave Clinton off of your "cheaters" list? I thought all you liberal knuckleheads were screaming "it's only sex, what happens in Clinton's personal life doesn't matter" what happened to all that gibberish?

Now if you'd like to stop contradicting yourself and being a hypocrite we can continue this conversation, sugar.

PS, I love the way you completely ignored the environmental issue in my comment.

[ictsooner7]

And to date your healthcare beliefs haven't lowered costs one dime.
I love the way you phrased it "That PEOPLE should be able to get married", you conveniently left out the word GAY in that statement.

Why did you leave Clinton off of your "cheaters" list? I thought all you liberal knuckleheads were screaming "it's only sex, what happens in Clinton's personal life doesn't matter" what happened to all that gibberish?

Now if you'd like to stop contradicting yourself and being a hypocrite we can continue this conversation, sugar.

PS, I love the way you completely ignored the environmental issue in my comment.

Of course I left Clinton off, he was not an admitted cheater when he ran for office like mccain and newt. You people had a hissy fit when bill got a bj, cried about a cheat and liar, BUT when it was your guys, suddenly it’s ok. HYPOCRITE! Yes, PEOPLE should be able to get married, gay or not. How does two gay guys in New York getting married effect your marriage? Is your marriage so weak that having gays get married will make it crumble? AGAIN…..if you don’t like gay marriage don’t marry someone of your own gender! That is true freedom; all you are wanting is to be the one that decides which of other peoples freedoms are taken away. Abortion, birth control and getting married are personal lifestyle choices that you want to control.

As for the environmental, you don’t want clean water, clean air? You don’t want our forests clear cut? You don’t want our mountain tops leveled for coal? TREE HUGGING HIPPIE!!

[Dale Ellis]

Of course I left Clinton off, he was not an admitted cheater when he ran for office like mccain and newt.

No he was a man who lied about cheating, which is much better than someone who admits they cheated, pffft!!


BUT when it was your guys, suddenly it’s ok.

I never said it was ok, so now you're just lying. I've never heard anyone say it was "ok" to cheat on your spouse or excuse that type of behavior, except those on the left.


Is your marriage so weak that having gays get married will make it crumble

Flawed argument unless you are claiming that there is only one married, gay couple in the entire country and that couple lives in NY. I assume the point you were TRYING to make (but failed horribly) was, "if it doesn't bother you or effect you, why do you care?"
Okay, if your neighbor likes to look at child pornography on the internet, but never acts on his impulses in a way that physically puts any child danger, would you accept his behavior as normal, and since it's not harming you, would you treat him like any other person?


As for the environmental, you don’t want clean water, clean air? You don’t want our forests clear cut? You don’t want our mountain tops leveled for coal? TREE HUGGING HIPPIE!!

Yes I want clean air, no I don't want some liberal tree hugger in DC telling me I have to drive an electric car.
See this is the problem with you environmental fruit loops, you have this huge umbrella under which you want to place the environmental issue. If someone disagrees with anything which falls under that umbrella, you want to make it appear as if they are disagree with all of it.
In other words, if I don't want to drive a Chevy Volt, or a Toyota Prius, then I must be against clean air. If I have furniture made of wood, well then, I must hate forests. That's why you people can never win the debate over the environment.

[Fraggle145]

I never argued against birth control now did I?

Then you arent doing a very good job of reading the thread title.

[SicEmBaylor]

So then you're against Obama Care, yes?
Yes. You seem really convinced that I'm a liberal.

[SicEmBaylor]

So you favor no federal regulation? Really?
Except in very limited cases when it's within the proper constitutional role of the Federal government (I.e. legitimate examples of interstate commerce, for example).

[SoonerLaw09]

Well, I personally think the Supreme Court had no business deciding Roe v. Wade, but I digress...in any case, it would take a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion, or prevent homosexual "marriage". Absent such, the Feds have no authority to affect those issues. It was also supposed to require a constitutional amendment to make abortion a right, but I digress again...

I'm a big states rights person, but if states pass immoral laws the line needs to be drawn there. It's up to the Congress and the other states to do something about it.

[47straight]

Rick Perry in college: Pulling Corps pranks, getting crappy grades, playing cheer boy as a Yell Leader. AaaaaaaaaWHOOP! Howdy! :rcmad:

But he did what no sic'em could do.


gradumate.

[Dale Ellis]

Then you arent doing a very good job of reading the thread title.

I'm doing an excellent job of reading the thread title. You asked me directly about birth control, I simply stated a fact when I replied that I never argued against birth control. Now if you have evidence to the contrary, please present it, or pipe down.

[Dale Ellis]

Yes. You seem really convinced that I'm a liberal.

Judging by the Ron Paul banner I'd assume you're very foolish.

[Dale Ellis]

Well, I personally think the Supreme Court had no business deciding Roe v. Wade, but I digress...in any case, it would take a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion, or prevent homosexual "marriage". Absent such, the Feds have no authority to affect those issues. It was also supposed to require a constitutional amendment to make abortion a right, but I digress again...

I'm a big states rights person, but if states pass immoral laws the line needs to be drawn there. It's up to the Congress and the other states to do something about it.

Pretty sure the constitution doesn't give the federal government the power to force it's citizens to purchase health care. What's your opinion on that?

[SicEmBaylor]

Judging by the Ron Paul banner I'd assume you're very foolish.
Coming from you, this is of no great consequence to me.

[bigfatjerk]

I'm a big states rights person, but if states pass immoral laws the line needs to be drawn there. It's up to the Congress and the other states to do something about it.

Outside of slavery or a state allowing killers. What exactly is immoral? It's like saying something is obscene. The federal government has no right in regulating morality, it's up to states and the voters to really depend on this. I can understand the federal government going after really obvious cases. But honestly abortion should be decided by states. I'm not really sure marriage should even be decided by states though. It should be a church matter. The government deciding morality has ended up in alcohol prohibition and the drug war. Both were stupid.

[SicEmBaylor]

Outside of slavery or a state allowing killers. What exactly is immoral? It's like saying something is obscene. The federal government has no right in regulating morality, it's up to states and the voters to really depend on this. I can understand the federal government going after really obvious cases. But honestly abortion should be decided by states. I'm not really sure marriage should even be decided by states though. It should be a church matter. The government deciding morality has ended up in alcohol prohibition and the drug war. Both were stupid.
I agree with all of this.

[SicEmBaylor]

Flawed argument unless you are claiming that there is only one married, gay couple in the entire country and that couple lives in NY. I assume the point you were TRYING to make (but failed horribly) was, "if it doesn't bother you or effect you, why do you care?"
Okay, if your neighbor likes to look at child pornography on the internet, but never acts on his impulses in a way that physically puts any child danger, would you accept his behavior as normal, and since it's not harming you, would you treat him like any other person?
Holy ****. Did you just compare and imply that a pedophile is in some way comparable to a homosexual? Are you that dense that you can't tell the difference between consensual adult sex and exploiting children (or their images) for sexual gratification? Talk about being warped...


Yes I want clean air, no I don't want some liberal tree hugger in DC telling me I have to drive an electric car.
See this is the problem with you environmental fruit loops, you have this huge umbrella under which you want to place the environmental issue. If someone disagrees with anything which falls under that umbrella, you want to make it appear as if they are disagree with all of it.
And yet you are guilty of the EXACT same thing in this very thread. You assumed that because I oppose a Federal ban on abortion that I'm automatically a liberal.

[bigfatjerk]

Liberalism has become so bastardized. All being a liberal originally meant was wanting more freedoms more or less. Now it is to want more government control. To me both republicans and democrats are far too liberal in modern terms. And there isn't really a big difference between the two other than what they want to spend money on. And sometimes they don't even have a big difference there either.

[Dale Ellis]

Coming from you, this is of no great consequence to me.

oh and you think anything you say on this site carries any weight???

[Dale Ellis]

Holy ****. Did you just compare and imply that a pedophile is in some way comparable to a homosexual? Are you that dense that you can't tell the difference between consensual adult sex and exploiting children (or their images) for sexual gratification? Talk about being warped...

You are a dense one aren't you? I was simply showing the flaw in a logic which dictates that if a certain behavior doesn't harm you or someone else and doesn't directly affect you, then you shouldn't be concerned with it. Geez, I had such high hopes for this conversation and you had to go and get all brain dead on me.

[Dale Ellis]

And yet you are guilty of the EXACT same thing in this very thread. You assumed that because I oppose a Federal ban on abortion that I'm automatically a liberal.

I never said you were a liberal, I simply stated what I hate about liberals. You made the assumption that I was assuming you were a liberal. Now if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

[ictsooner7]

No he was a man who lied about cheating, which is much better than someone who admits they cheated, pffft!!



I never said it was ok, so now you're just lying. I've never heard anyone say it was "ok" to cheat on your spouse or excuse that type of behavior, except those on the left.



Flawed argument unless you are claiming that there is only one married, gay couple in the entire country and that couple lives in NY. I assume the point you were TRYING to make (but failed horribly) was, "if it doesn't bother you or effect you, why do you care?"
Okay, if your neighbor likes to look at child pornography on the internet, but never acts on his impulses in a way that physically puts any child danger, would you accept his behavior as normal, and since it's not harming you, would you treat him like any other person?



Yes I want clean air, no I don't want some liberal tree hugger in DC telling me I have to drive an electric car.
See this is the problem with you environmental fruit loops, you have this huge umbrella under which you want to place the environmental issue. If someone disagrees with anything which falls under that umbrella, you want to make it appear as if they are disagree with all of it.
In other words, if I don't want to drive a Chevy Volt, or a Toyota Prius, then I must be against clean air. If I have furniture made of wood, well then, I must hate forests. That's why you people can never win the debate over the environment.

I said we did not know he cheated nor did he lie about when he was running for office, unlike mccain and clinton. Your people KNOW about those two and ignored it and voted for them! I never voted for clinton after I found out he cheated.



I was not saying that there is only one gay couple in America and they live in NY, it was to show you that two people you don't know and will never meet will never effect your life, how did I fail horribly, you're just too dumb to get it. I never said if it does not bother you, a lot of things bother me, but I don't want to make them illegal, that is where you dont understand freedom. There is a difference between bothering you and effecting you.



You are linking gay marriage and child pornography? You are so ignorant and insulting, do you really think that anyone who thinks everyone should be able to get married as thinks kiddie porn is ok? First your premise is all wrong, the kids who are in the porn are being harmed you dumba@@, tell me how two gay people getting married harms anybody? The harm is when you take away their rights as AMERICANS because they happen to be gay.



Who is telling you that you have to drive an electric car? More idiot bachman dribble you swallow. Typical of the right to use extreme examples, ok, if I don't drive a four wheel drive f350 super duty i must be a liberal tree hugger. See it works both ways. Your party is up in arms about the fuel mileage regulations to increase fuel mileage, which lowers our dependence on foreign oil and helps the environment. Wood furniture, first a tiny fraction of wood is used in making furniture, most is paper and lumber, so why would anyone think if you own wood furniture you must hate forests, more stupidity from you. I think companies have the responsibility to put it back like they found it. Replant trees or do selective harvesting, but those things cost them money and they don't want to spend it. If they clear cut and move on then the trees don't grow back, the soil erodes, wildlife leaves and the land is never the same, who ends up paying for that? We all do.

[ictsooner7]

Yes I want clean air, no I don't want some liberal tree hugger in DC telling me I have to drive an electric car.
See this is the problem with you environmental fruit loops, you have this huge umbrella under which you want to place the environmental issue. If someone disagrees with anything which falls under that umbrella, you want to make it appear as if they are disagree with all of it.
In other words, if I don't want to drive a Chevy Volt, or a Toyota Prius, then I must be against clean air. If I have furniture made of wood, well then, I must hate forests. That's why you people can never win the debate over the environment.

You don't want some tree hugger from DC telling you that you have to drive an electric, but your fine with DC telling 10% of the population that they cannot get married? HYPOCRITE!!

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Liberalism has become so bastardized. All being a liberal originally meant was wanting more freedoms more or less. Now it is to want more government control. To me both republicans and democrats are far too liberal in modern terms. And there isn't really a big difference between the two other than what they want to spend money on. And sometimes they don't even have a big difference there either.

We already have cultural conservatives wanting the gov't to control our lives. It's too bad if liberals want that too.

[Fraggle145]

I'm doing an excellent job of reading the thread title. You asked me directly about birth control, I simply stated a fact when I replied that I never argued against birth control. Now if you have evidence to the contrary, please present it, or pipe down.

Heh. Pipe down. Okay internet communications mastermind :disgust:

You've been petering on and on about abortion, when the subject of the thread is birth control not abortion. Hence, its easy to see where someone (in this case me) could think that you missed the point of the discussion.

[Fraggle145]

You are a dense one aren't you? I was simply showing the flaw in a logic which dictates that if a certain behavior doesn't harm you or someone else and doesn't directly affect you, then you shouldn't be concerned with it. Geez, I had such high hopes for this conversation and you had to go and get all brain dead on me.

But being a pedophile and looking at child porn does harm someone else. It harms the child who is in the photographs and by looking at them for reasons of self pleasure you are complicit (in my opinion) to that act.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Heh. Pipe down. Okay internet communications mastermind :disgust:

You've been petering on and on about abortion, when the subject of the thread is birth control not abortion. Hence, its easy to see where someone (in this case me) could think that you missed the point of the discussion.

dale ellis just doesn't want to admit he misinterpreted the title.

[SicEmBaylor]

I've said this for years and years -- Rick Santorum is no conservative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gwwmm-cQxU&sns=fb

[Dale Ellis]

But being a pedophile and looking at child porn does harm someone else. It harms the child who is in the photographs and by looking at them for reasons of self pleasure you are complicit (in my opinion) to that act.


and that harms YOU or affects YOU how?

[Dale Ellis]

You don't want some tree hugger from DC telling you that you have to drive an electric, but your fine with DC telling 10% of the population that they cannot get married? HYPOCRITE!!

I NEVER said DC should tells gay they can't get married, I simply said I don't want the belief that it's okay, forced on me. Please show me where I said the federal government should not allow gays to get married.

Someone asked me "if it doesn't harm or affect you , why do you care?" I care because I care. My opinion doesn't bother or harm you, so what's your beef?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I've said this for years and years -- Rick Santorum is no conservative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gwwmm-cQxU&sns=fb


War Cato.


Reagan thought of conservatism and libertarianism as synonyms.

[MR2-Sooner86]

No you're not. That's "just one of the reasons" you hate Evangelicals. You're just being a hypocrite. Rationalize and deflect all you want.

I think somebody is pissy that I called out the knuckle draggers for what they really are. Sorry, I hate them for trying to rule my life and degrading, demeaning, and brutalizing people because they're different, like gays and minorities.

They hate people simply because they're different or their fairy tale book says they're evil. Big difference there.


Liberalism has become so bastardized. All being a liberal originally meant was wanting more freedoms more or less. Now it is to want more government control. To me both republicans and democrats are far too liberal in modern terms. And there isn't really a big difference between the two other than what they want to spend money on. And sometimes they don't even have a big difference there either.

It's funny that guys like Rush Limbaugh quote John Locke as a great political thinker to hate on liberals when he was the father of, wait for it, liberalism.

Liberalism today was taken over by the progressive movement in the early 20th century and then we had the New Left of the 1960's come in.

There are still classic liberals out there, we're called libertarians now.


and that harms YOU or affects YOU how?

Here is the flaw in your argument trying to link pedophilia to homosexuality with the "well if it's not harming anybody" argument.

Pedophilia is have sexual contact with a child. By law a child cannot give consent to sexual contact.

Two adult males going back to one's place to have sex is different from a grown man having sex with an eight year old child. The child has no legal say in the matter. Even if the child said, "Do me!" it's still illegal. It's like if somebody let a 13 year old drive a car. The child can say, "Please let me drive!" and they could even drive like they've been doing it for years, but it's still illegal and you must wait until the child is 16 to drive. Same here, you must wait until the child is of age, unless the parents give you permission which 99.999% of the time they won't.

"Well how does that affect you?"

Two gang bangers shooting each other in the privacy of their own home doesn't affect me either. It's still illegal to shoot and kill somebody.

Somebody selling cigarettes to a minor doesn't really affect me either. If they want to kill themselves, go ahead, but it's still against the law to sell cigarettes to a minor.

[Dale Ellis]

Here is the flaw in your argument trying to link pedophilia to homosexuality with the "well if it's not harming anybody" argument.

Pedophilia is have sexual contact with a child. By law a child cannot give consent to sexual contact.

Two adult males going back to one's place to have sex is different from a grown man having sex with an eight year old child. The child has no legal say in the matter. Even if the child said, "Do me!" it's still illegal. It's like if somebody let a 13 year old drive a car. The child can say, "Please let me drive!" and they could even drive like they've been doing it for years, but it's still illegal and you must wait until the child is 16 to drive. Same here, you must wait until the child is of age, unless the parents give you permission which 99.999% of the time they won't.

"Well how does that affect you?"

Two gang bangers shooting each other in the privacy of their own home doesn't affect me either. It's still illegal to shoot and kill somebody.

Somebody selling cigarettes to a minor doesn't really affect me either. If they want to kill themselves, go ahead, but it's still against the law to sell cigarettes to a minor.

Thank you for agreeing with my logic, as I stated just because something does not affect you does not make it okay. That was the point of my analogy.

[Dale Ellis]

I never voted for clinton after I found out he cheated.

Yea, right.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Thank you for agreeing with my logic, as I stated just because something does not affect you does not make it okay. That was the point of my analogy.

What logic? It's called the law.

Pedophilia is against the law while homosexuality is not.

Of course I guess homosexuals are the same as pedophiles, need to be locked up, and removed from society before they "infect" us right?

[soonerhubs]

I just wanted to take a moment to say that I look forward to reading posts by MR2 and Sic'em. I do this because they make the most sense to me, and they usually present the most concise and eloquent arguments supporting our liberties and the constitution. Kudos to you guys! BigFatJerk's posts seem to be of a similar train of thought, and I'll look for more of these in the future.

I would also suggest that many folks on this board view things in the lens of false dichotomies, and I would suggest that such thinking usually stifles their appreciation for the arguments made by folks who lean toward Libertarianism or any philosophy that includes a restriction/reduction of government influence (particularly federal influence).

I find this to be ironic when I see the contradictions in policy from "Socially conservative" Republicans who preach small government from the right sides of their mouths whilst trying to pass laws that restrict liberties (and that require larger government influence to enforce) from the left sides of their mouths (Left and right are only trivial directions in this sentence, not poorly crafted political and stereotypical puns.).

Other republicans do the same thing when they play the "Support Israel" card, the "Fear Iran" card, or the "Attack another country when we feel like it" card. "Government spending is BAD, unless it involves dumping billions of dollars annually to support foreign governments that should be able to support themselves or to attack governments that our "stellar" intelligence sees as an imminent threat (See Iraq's WMDs)."

Why is it so confusing to say that government overreach is bad in all domains?

[SoonerLaw09]

This. Evangelicals are as dangerous to liberty as a committed socialist running a community Marxist paper out of his studio apartment in the Village.

That's a very misinformed comment. Are you suggesting a religious test for President? That's kinda unconstitutional...

Evangelicals define liberty in terms of God's moral law, which we believe governs above any law man creates. True liberty can only happen when God's law is followed. You probably don't have a problem with "don't kill" or "don't steal", but you probably do have a problem with "don't commit adultery" and "don't covet" (although the latter deals with a person's thought life and it's impossible to legislate that). And you also probably wouldn't like it if everyone had a seven day work week because all of a sudden Sunday became just any other day. So what about any of that do you say is dangerous to liberty?

Marxists are more dangerous to liberty because they are a law unto themselves, and to them what is moral is "what's best for Dear Leader" (See North Korea).

[47straight]

I think somebody is pissy that I called out the knuckle draggers for what they really are. Sorry, I hate them for trying to rule my life and degrading, demeaning, and brutalizing people because they're different, like gays and minorities.

They hate people simply because they're different or their fairy tale book says they're evil. Big difference there.

I think a hypocritical bigot is pissy that I pointed out his hypocrisy and bigotry. You hate a big percentage of the population for a number of reasons (your own words) included simply their religious affiliation. To rationalize your bigotry, you make up straw-man arguments or what you've seen some of them do.

You hate people simply because they're different too. That makes you a bigot. The fact that you castigate others at the start of a post for the very thing that you end the post doing makes you a hypocrite. Understand, hypocritical bigot?

Now I wasn't pissy. I started out laughing because you're too dense to see your own hypocrisy. I guess I should be sad that you live a life without any self-reflection.

But in the end, whatever. Because I know enough to not blame the actions of one hypocritical bigot against anyone else sharing his demographics. I don't know if you're atheist, democrat, left, right, Indian, whatever. But it would be disgusting for me to tear off into a tirade about "This is why I hate _______ they're always a bunch of hypocrites" and then throw up my experiences with you against the whole demographic. Because absolutely none of them are responsible for you acting like a hypocritical bigot. It's your fault. Not theirs.

[SoonerLaw09]

Outside of slavery or a state allowing killers. What exactly is immoral? It's like saying something is obscene. The federal government has no right in regulating morality, it's up to states and the voters to really depend on this. I can understand the federal government going after really obvious cases. But honestly abortion should be decided by states. I'm not really sure marriage should even be decided by states though. It should be a church matter. The government deciding morality has ended up in alcohol prohibition and the drug war. Both were stupid.

Because I believe that abortion *is* murder, I don't agree with that part of your statement. As far as I'm concerned, an abortionist *is* a killer. As for marriage being a church matter, you're correct in a general sense. The government has no business *defining* marriage or conducting them, that's the church's business. When someone gets "married" in Vegas or at the local courthouse, it's really just a state licensed civil union. The problem lies in the fact that marriage involves property rights, and it's the state's (and by extension the Feds) job to protect the property rights of its citizens. So the government has to be involved in marriage.

On the subject of prohibition, I agree. The Bible does not teach that consuming alcohol is immoral. It teaches that *drunkenness* is immoral. As for the "drug war", I can't comment on the effectiveness of it or lack thereof, there have been so many iterations over the years. What I can say is that most if not all of those substances are extremely dangerous because they are so easily misused in the hands of someone without medical training (even if they were medically necessary, which they aren't). I am, however, in favor of legalizing marijuana for medical purposes. Its benefits have been clearly shown, although perhaps distilling the active ingredients into a pill is a better idea than having people smoke it.

[SoonerLaw09]

Pretty sure the constitution doesn't give the federal government the power to force it's citizens to purchase health care. What's your opinion on that?

My opinion is you are right.

[KantoSooner]

Sooner law,
Would everyone in your society be compelled to comply with your notions of morality?

Would there be any sacrosanct realm of rights that were beyond the scope of government regulation and control?

Would there be any mechanism for making the determination of what fell within such a proteccted zone other than reference to the writings you hold holy?

I ask because you seem to be pretty close to declaring a theocracy.

[Dale Ellis]

You've been petering on and on about abortion, when the subject of the thread is birth control not abortion. Hence, its easy to see where someone (in this case me) could think that you missed the point of the discussion.

one poster made a comment about the federal governments role in a women's reproductive decisions, abortion falls under that. Try to stay up with me next time.

[Dale Ellis]

What logic? It's called the law.

Pedophilia is against the law while homosexuality is not.

Of course I guess homosexuals are the same as pedophiles, need to be locked up, and removed from society before they "infect" us right?

I'm not arguing Pedophilia vs Homosexuality, I'm arguing against a logic that says if something some one does, does not affect YOU, then it should be of no concern to you.

We all know pedophilia is a horrible thing. As a father of 4, I think any and all pedophiles should be put to death. This has never been about what is and is not illegal. This is about the left beating me over the head with gay rights and not being satisfied until I submit and say "okay, homosexuality is normal and I accept it."

Homosexuality is an abnormal behavior and a choice, therefor I do not and will not accept it as anything other than that. That's my opinion, and I'm damn well entitled to it.

[Dale Ellis]

Sooner law,
Would everyone in your society be compelled to comply with your notions of morality?

Would there be any sacrosanct realm of rights that were beyond the scope of government regulation and control?

Would there be any mechanism for making the determination of what fell within such a proteccted zone other than reference to the writings you hold holy?

I ask because you seem to be pretty close to declaring a theocracy.

There are hundreds of laws on the books that are grounded in morality issues. If I want to peek into your window at night, and you don't know I'm doing it, why should it be a problem, I'm not hurting your because you don't know I'm doing it, and I'm not harming anyone else either.

The reason it's illegal is because it's creepy and immoral. Shall we pull all peeping tom laws off the books?

[Dale Ellis]

Sooner law,
Would everyone in your society be compelled to comply with your notions of morality?


Turn the question on your self. If the answer is no, then you're a hypocrite.

[Fraggle145]

one poster made a comment about the federal governments role in a women's reproductive decisions, abortion falls under that. Try to stay up with me next time.

Try not to be such an moran and read the thread title. I started the thread. Abortion is not birth control. I repeat abortion is not birth control. Pull your head out of your ***.

[KantoSooner]

There are hundreds of laws on the books that are routed in morality issues. If I want to peek into your window at night, and you don't know I'm doing it, why should it be a problem, I'm not hurting your because you don't know I'm doing it, and I'm not harming anyone else either.

The reason it's illegal is because it's creepy and immoral. Shall we pull all peeping tom laws off the books?

Dale, apparently you mistake me for one of the targets of your little 'if it doesn't hurt me' jihad. That is not the basis of any argument I've made, although it is one element of a pretty good argument.
Secondly, I was pretty sure that was you peeping in my window the other night. What did you think of my performance? I was pretty chuffed for a man of my years.

Peeping Tom laws are on the books because laws were made, by our legislators, for whatever public policy or moral code reasons they felt moved. The laws were then tested through appeals to higher courts and so far, stand. That's about it. In point of fact, such laws occupy no special spot morally. If I do exactly the same thing: watch people have sex or disrobe, and I do so from a public spot, not only am I not guilty of anything, they are guilty of indecent exposure.
Seems like nothing based in absolute morality.

[KantoSooner]

Turn the question on your self. If the answer is no, then you're a hypocrite.

Do you know what 'hypocrite' means?

Let's turn the question on me.

If I answer the question 'no' then I am allowing other individuals the freedom to behave in congruence with their morals, beliefs, religion, whatever. Which is precisely what I desire be done.
I do not wish to marry another man; but I really don't care, and it doesn't affect my life in the slightest if two consenting men who are not me get married. You don't have to recognize it, your church is not compelled to perform the ceremony and you don't even have to accept their union, in your heart, as 'real'.
I do not believe in a God, yet I attended a funeral Wednesday for a good friend. He believed and wished to be memorialized in his church. Fine by me. Neither my lack of belief nor his belief made much difference to the other. I will say that the Pres. Hymnal should eradicate hymns composed after about 1900. The newer ones sound like air freshener commercial jingles. Stick to the old stuff, much more majestic.
And, by all means, I hope that your beliefs inform your political actions; as mine do mine. What we all have to remember is that we are a polyglot nation, divided among sects, religions and various belief systems. The only way we will survive is to set off the public arena from faith and keep a certain realm of individual behavior beyond the scope of the clerics.
We've been doing so for over 225 years.

Please excuse me if I think that non-religious folk are under the most serious threat of the last century and perhaps the most serious threat during the existance of our country. That feeling, at least, fuels my passion for the issue.

[soonerhubs]

Try not to be such an moran and read the thread title. I started the thread. Abortion is not birth control. I repeat abortion is not birth control. Pull your head out of your ***.

It's odd to see a social conservative equate Abortion with Birth Control, eh? :D

[Fraggle145]

It's odd to see a social conservative equate Abortion with Birth Control, eh? :D

I know right? And then he has to be a dick about it.

[SoonerLaw09]

Sooner law,
Would everyone in your society be compelled to comply with your notions of morality?

Would there be any sacrosanct realm of rights that were beyond the scope of government regulation and control?

Would there be any mechanism for making the determination of what fell within such a proteccted zone other than reference to the writings you hold holy?

I ask because you seem to be pretty close to declaring a theocracy.

Theocracy, no. That would mean that the government is also the head of the church and has control of its affairs, which never works, and usually results in a lot of death and destruction. Even the countries that still have official state churches are not theocracies. For instance, Switzerland has not been a theocracy since the 1870s, although most of the cantons (states) have an official church. Kinda like America was until the late 1800s, when the courts started applying the Bill of Rights to the states. England was a theocracy for much of its existence as well. France and central Europe were a bit different; the church controlled the government and the Pope crowned the king at least for a while, until the control of the Roman Catholic church started to decline after the Reformation.

I simply state that the USA should favor its Judeo-Christian heritage when making laws, and that includes the belief that the Bible is the Word of God, and contains guidelines by which a society should govern itself, and that any law that violates God's moral code is a bad law. People who are of other religions are free to live here as long as they agree to obey our laws. If they cannot, they should leave.

Not sure what you mean by "sacrosanct realm of rights", because there's no aspect of human existence that's not addressed in the Bible, so there'd be no need to look elsewhere. Human liberty, freedom of political thought, economics...now of course there'd be specific implementations which would obviously be debatable, but the overall principles of how governments and citizens should act can be found in the Scriptures.

[Dale Ellis]

I know right? And then he has to be a dick about it.


Try not to be such an moran and read the thread title. I started the thread. Abortion is not birth control. I repeat abortion is not birth control. Pull your head out of your ***.

Never equated abortion with birth control, I simply said abortion falls under the topic of " a woman's reproductive rights" are you saying it does not?


one poster made a comment about the federal governments role in a women's reproductive decisions, abortion falls under that. Try to stay up with me next time.

[KantoSooner]

Well, SoonerLaw, at least we're getting somewhere.
We're walking along pretty well together until you presume 'judeo-christianity' as the first among equals and ultimate arbiter of what's right, with no Bill of Rights. That's not what this country was set up to do.

When you set the scriptures up as the founding documents and ultimate source, you mistake in breathtaking totality the entire body of thought leading to the foundation of the USA and in fact come very close to destroying anything worth defending. You do, in fact, establish a theocracy (which is not, by the way, defined as having a church as it's governing structure, only that a single religion completely controls that structure).

The Bill of Rights and 99% of our history, both secular AND religious have recognized that enshrining one religion or one sect above all others is the most insidious poison we could, as a nation, possibly imbibe.

As to me accepting your putsch and 'leaving', I must disappoint. Portions of my family have been here for something approachinig 14,000 years (if current 'Clovis First' theories are actually true - and no, us Indians were not 'wandering jews' or any of the lost tribes of Israel). I'm staying right here. And I'll do my best to uphold the principles of the Haudaunesaunee Confederation....one of those other influences on the US Constitution that had nothing whatsoever to do with judeo-christian scribblings. And an interesting case in point: how DID they get a collection of warring tribes to live together in something approaching peace and comity? Might have some bearing on our conversation. It was mentioned as such by no less than Ben Franklin. You remember him, right? Founding Father. Inventor. Scholar. Atheist.)

[Dale Ellis]

I know right? And then he has to be a dick about it.

Doesn't harm or affect you, so why do you care?

[soonerhubs]

It was mentioned as such by no less than Ben Franklin. You remember him, right? Founding Father. Inventor. Scholar. MORMON. :devilish:




:devilish:

I KEED! ;)

[Fraggle145]

Never equated abortion with birth control, I simply said abortion falls under the topic of " a woman's reproductive rights" are you saying it does not?

Its not the subject of the ****ing thread genius. Whoever that poster was also wasnt within the subject of the thread.

THIS IS NOT A THREAD ABOUT ABORTION OR ONE'S RIGHT TO HAVE AN ABORTIONS.

A "woman's reproductive rights" is not the subject of the thread. The subject of the thread is about whether the states should control birth control and its availability.

[Fraggle145]

Doesn't harm or affect you, so why do you care?

By definition being a dick about it means you are attempting to be harmful, insulting, and/or condescending in your tone of your posts... starting with your "pipe down" comment earlier.

[Dale Ellis]

Its not the subject of the ****ing thread genius. Whoever that poster was also wasnt within the subject of the thread.


So abortion is not birth control?

[Dale Ellis]

You've read the Constitution, correct? Article I, Section 8 clearly defines the powers of Congress. If a power is not listed within those enumerated powers then it is a power/right left to the states and to the people. If you can please point me to the place in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the power to regulate abortion then I will be more than happy to admit I was wrong.

Sic was the FIRST on this thread to use the word Abortion. Call him a dick why don't you?

[Fraggle145]

So abortion is not birth control?

No. I think I've said that like 8 times already.

[Fraggle145]

Sic was the FIRST on this thread to use the word Abortion. Call him a dick why don't you?

Sic'em you're a dick. There feel better Dale?

[Dale Ellis]

I said this...

again if you can provide one documented case where the federal government has impregnated and forced a woman to have a baby against her will please do so, otherwise stop with all this "the fed should have no say so in a woman's reproductive rights?" crap.

not one mention of abortion.

[Dale Ellis]

Anyway, I would really like someone to provide me one documented case where the federal government or a state has impregnated and forced a woman to give birth to, and raise a child. When I hear this talk about "the federal government has not right to make a woman's reproductive choices for her" I ask my self "what woman has ever been forced, by the fed or a state government, to reproduce?"
I've asked this question for years and to date, not one pro-choicer has been able to provided one documented case of this.

again, I never mentioned abortion.

[Dale Ellis]

No. I think I've said that like 8 times already.


So no one uses abortion as a form of birth control?

I

[Dale Ellis]

Can we please get back to talking about faggots and whether or not they have the right to get married? They're much more fun to mock, ridicule and make fun of.

[Fraggle145]

So what do you think about the regulation of birth control in general and then specifically by the states? Should BC be available and sold over the counter like it is now? etc... Answers to those questions would be useful contributions to the thread.

Just because you specifically didnt use the term abortion doesnt mean that you werent implying things about abortion, which you obviously were.

http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/2/24/I_see_what_you_did_there_super.jpg

[Fraggle145]

Can we please get back to talking about faggots and whether or not they have the right to get married? They're much more fun to mock, ridicule and make fun of.

Wow. Just wow.

[ouflak]

So if you ban condoms, and IUD's and of the assorted types of birth control, what happens when somebody is caught with this stuff. Do they force a woman to untie her fallopian tubes? Give you a ticket for having some Trojan Jamaican ticklers in your wallet? Slap around any teenagers who are public advocates and practicers of abstinence?

[Dale Ellis]

So what do you think about the regulation of birth control in general and then specifically by the states? Should BC be available and sold over the counter like it is now? etc... Answers to those questions would be useful contributions to the thread.

Just because you specifically didnt use the term abortion doesnt mean that you werent implying things about abortion, which you obviously were.

http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/2/24/I_see_what_you_did_there_super.jpg

I used that term because other posters stated " women's reproductive rights" and we all know that is the "catch phrase" used by the pro abortion crowd. You're anger is misdirected. Also, can you please show me where I ever said BC should not be sold over the counter?

Here are the facts:

I never said BC should not be sold over the counter.
I was not the one that brought abortion into this debate, the folks that used the term "women's reproductive rights" did.
I never said Gays should not have the right to get married, I said I don't accept that as normal behavior.
I never said homosexuality is the same as pedophilia. I simply pointed out that just because a certain behavior may not affect someone directly doesn't make that behavior acceptable.
The irony is, everyone who was ripping me for my analogy, was agreeing with me, they were just too dense to realize it.

These were all assumptions made by posters on this board, who, either have no reading comprehension skills, or, are being intellectually dishonest because they think it somehow gives them more leverage in this debate.

[Dale Ellis]

So if you ban condoms, and IUD's and of the assorted types of birth control, what happens when somebody is caught with this stuff. Do they force a woman to untie her fallopian tubes? Give you a ticket for having some Trojan Jamaican ticklers in your wallet? Slap around any teenagers who are public advocates and practicers of abstinence?

Please show me where I ever said condoms, IUDs' and other assorted types of birth control should be banned. I'll wait.............................................. .........

[Fraggle145]

I used that term because other posters stated " women's reproductive rights" and we all know that is the "catch phrase" used by the pro abortion crowd. You're anger is misdirected. Also, can you please show me where I ever said BC should not be sold over the counter?

Here are the facts:

I never said BC should not be sold over the counter.
I was not the one that brought abortion into this debate, the folks that used the term "women's reproductive rights" did.
I never said Gays should not have the right to get married, I said I don't accept that as normal behavior.
I never said homosexuality is the same as pedophilia. I simply pointed out that just because a certain behavior may not affect someone directly doesn't make that behavior acceptable.
The irony is, everyone who was ripping me for my analogy, was agreeing with me, they were just too dense to realize it.

These were all assumptions made by posters on this board, who, either have no reading comprehension skills, or, are being intellectually dishonest because they think it somehow gives them more leverage in this debate.

I was just asking what your answer would be to those questions. Since that would be salient to the topic of the OP.

[SicEmBaylor]

That's a very misinformed comment. Are you suggesting a religious test for President? That's kinda unconstitutional...

Evangelicals define liberty in terms of God's moral law, which we believe governs above any law man creates. True liberty can only happen when God's law is followed. You probably don't have a problem with "don't kill" or "don't steal", but you probably do have a problem with "don't commit adultery" and "don't covet" (although the latter deals with a person's thought life and it's impossible to legislate that). And you also probably wouldn't like it if everyone had a seven day work week because all of a sudden Sunday became just any other day. So what about any of that do you say is dangerous to liberty?
"Don't kill" and "don't steal" deprives one of their liberty and property thus it should be illegal whether it's immoral or not. Neither "adultery" nor "coveting thy neighbor" deprives anyone of their right to liberty or property. Surely, you can tell the difference there. Of course there should be no religious test for President, but I think people should take into account the degree to which an individual candidate views there to be a separation between his own moral/religious beliefs and that of public law.

[SicEmBaylor]

There are hundreds of laws on the books that are grounded in morality issues. If I want to peek into your window at night, and you don't know I'm doing it, why should it be a problem, I'm not hurting your because you don't know I'm doing it, and I'm not harming anyone else either.

The reason it's illegal is because it's creepy and immoral. Shall we pull all peeping tom laws off the books?

No, I know that nuance isn't your strong suit here but my arguments all along have been that there's no Constitutional role for the Federal government to legislate on personal matters like birth control or abortion. "Peeping Tom" laws are another matter -- that is purely a local and state question. Be that as it may, at the very least, an individual would be trespassing on personal property which is against the law. I also believe in protecting the right to privacy, although, it's also incumbent upon the individual to shut their damned blinds.


Sic was the FIRST on this thread to use the word Abortion. Call him a dick why don't you?
No, you may not have used the term "abortion" but you implied it more than once. I'm not real impressed by you dancing around the subject until someone finally mentions and it so that you can dance up and down and scream, "I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT ABORTION!" Yeah...okay, right.


Sic'em you're a dick. There feel better Dale?
You bet I do!

I said this...

"again if you can provide one documented case where the federal government has impregnated and forced a woman to have a baby against her will please do so, otherwise stop with all this "the fed should have no say so in a woman's reproductive rights?" crap."

not one mention of abortion.

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

[SicEmBaylor]

I was just asking what your answer would be to those questions. Since that would be salient to the topic of the OP.

I can't remember, exactly, what is his point is.

[SicEmBaylor]

Can we please get back to talking about faggots and whether or not they have the right to get married? They're much more fun to mock, ridicule and make fun of.

Wow. Well...on that note I think I'm finished with you.

[Dale Ellis]

I can't remember, exactly, what is his point is.

"that all depends on what the definition of is, is.

[Dale Ellis]

No, you may not have used the term "abortion" but you implied it more than once. I'm not real impressed by you dancing around the subject until someone finally mentions and it so that you can dance up and down and scream, "I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT ABORTION!" Yeah...okay, right.



I never said I wasn't talking about abortion I said I wasn't the first to bring abortion into this debate. You just don't get it do you.

[Dale Ellis]

I'm not real impressed by you dancing around the subject

with all due respect, I couldn't care less what you are or are not impressed by.

[SoonerLaw09]

Well, SoonerLaw, at least we're getting somewhere.
We're walking along pretty well together until you presume 'judeo-christianity' as the first among equals and ultimate arbiter of what's right, with no Bill of Rights. That's not what this country was set up to do.

When you set the scriptures up as the founding documents and ultimate source, you mistake in breathtaking totality the entire body of thought leading to the foundation of the USA and in fact come very close to destroying anything worth defending. You do, in fact, establish a theocracy (which is not, by the way, defined as having a church as it's governing structure, only that a single religion completely controls that structure).

The Bill of Rights and 99% of our history, both secular AND religious have recognized that enshrining one religion or one sect above all others is the most insidious poison we could, as a nation, possibly imbibe.

As to me accepting your putsch and 'leaving', I must disappoint. Portions of my family have been here for something approachinig 14,000 years (if current 'Clovis First' theories are actually true - and no, us Indians were not 'wandering jews' or any of the lost tribes of Israel). I'm staying right here. And I'll do my best to uphold the principles of the Haudaunesaunee Confederation....one of those other influences on the US Constitution that had nothing whatsoever to do with judeo-christian scribblings. And an interesting case in point: how DID they get a collection of warring tribes to live together in something approaching peace and comity? Might have some bearing on our conversation. It was mentioned as such by no less than Ben Franklin. You remember him, right? Founding Father. Inventor. Scholar. Atheist.)

You need a history lesson, my friend. You might start with Ben Franklin. Don't think he was a Christian, but he was certainly no atheist. He's the one who advocated starting the Continental Congress sessions with a daily prayer, and said that he believed that "God governs in the affairs of men." When the drafters wrote the Bill of Rights, they intended to make sure that one sect of *Christianity* did not control the government (that is what "establishment of religion" means, it's a term of art), so as to avoid the sectarian wars which plagued England for a couple hundred years. The *States* could and did have their own state-sponsored churches (not state-run, state-sponsored, by tax money and land grants). The South was primarily Anglican, while the North was primarily Presbyterian and Congregationalist. They would not have thrown out others but they would have expected them to live by whatever laws were passed.

The American Revolution was based on Christian ideas (read the Declaration, man). In contrast, the *French* Revolution was decidedly anti-religious, and if you want to read about some bloodshed, go there. They didn't have stable government for about 50 years, and then came Napoleon. Article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, in part stated: "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." I could go on with other such quotes from state constitutions, but you get the point. As for the Indians, I certainly don't believe that garbage about wandering Jews. That's a Mormon belief and I'm not one. And I don't want to throw you out. But, please do some research and straighten out your history.

Your definition of theocracy is also flawed:

theocracy [(thee- ok -ruh-see)] :A nation or state in which the clergy exercise political power and in which religious law is dominant over civil law. Iran led by the Ayatollah Khomeini was a theocracy under the Islamic clergy. ( See Islam.) The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

I do not advocate that the clergy exercise political power, in fact I advocate just the opposite. And I did not say that "religious law" whaver that is should be dominant over civil law. I said that the civil law should reflect God's moral code, but the Bible is not a legal document in the civil sense. If you would take the time to read Exodus and Leviticus, you'd find (other than the ceremonial stuff) a wealth of laws and statutes that we still use in some form today, including 3 branches of government, the judicial system, etc. The main exception is that we've decided to allow blasphemy and sexual immorality. I wonder if that's an improvement?

Or if you prefer:
the·oc·ra·cy

1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2012

[Dale Ellis]

I can't remember, exactly, what is his point is.

Maybe Ron Paul is aware is of what is my point is.

[SoonerLaw09]

"Don't kill" and "don't steal" deprives one of their liberty and property thus it should be illegal whether it's immoral or not. Neither "adultery" nor "coveting thy neighbor" deprives anyone of their right to liberty or property. Surely, you can tell the difference there. Of course there should be no religious test for President, but I think people should take into account the degree to which an individual candidate views there to be a separation between his own moral/religious beliefs and that of public law.

Well, since the whole idea of liberty and property rights is found in the Bible, I don't see the disconnect. And adultery does deprive people of rights. In Romans it says the husband's body belongs to the wife, and the wife's to the husband (ooo, sexual equality in the 1st Century!). Conjugal rights are just that. Ergo, if one of them sleeps around, the other is damaged (in a lot of ways). You used to be able to sue a guy who seduced your wife. As for sleeping with a woman who's never been married, the father is responsible for his daughter's virginity and if it's taken he had recourse as well.

And do you really want to vote for someone who will sign a law that he doesn't think is moral?

[SoonerLaw09]

Can we please get back to talking about faggots and whether or not they have the right to get married? They're much more fun to mock, ridicule and make fun of.

You're not helping.

[SicEmBaylor]

And do you really want to vote for someone who will sign a law that he doesn't think is moral?
It's a moot point and should never become an issue. There should never be a circumstance in which a President has to use his or her own religious prejudices to decide how to act on a law. The Constitution should be their only guide. That is not to say that I don't want decent, moral, and ethical elected officials -- I do. The problem is when an elected official or candidate starts using their religious preferences in lieu of the Constitution. This is my problem with Rick Santorum. He has demonstrated, on numerous occasions, that he is perfectly willing to strain (if not break) the Constitution for the purposes of promoting his own dogmatic Christian beliefs.

[SicEmBaylor]

Maybe Ron Paul is aware is of what is my point is.
I'm really proud of you for finding a typo. This is why we have moral victories.

[SoonerLaw09]

It's a moot point and should never become an issue. There should never be a circumstance in which a President has to use his or her own religious prejudices to decide how to act on a law. The Constitution should be their only guide. That is not to say that I don't want decent, moral, and ethical elected officials -- I do. The problem is when an elected official or candidate starts using their religious preferences in lieu of the Constitution. This is my problem with Rick Santorum. He has demonstrated, on numerous occasions, that he is perfectly willing to strain (if not break) the Constitution for the purposes of promoting his own dogmatic Christian beliefs.

I do not say that the President (or any elected official) should attempt to subvert the Constitution. That would be against their oath of office. I do, however, think the Constitution needs to be amended a bit more.

[SicEmBaylor]

I do not say that the President (or any elected official) should attempt to subvert the Constitution. That would be against their oath of office. I do, however, think the Constitution needs to be amended a bit more.

Well, that's fine. I certainly agree with that. My problem is that I think Rick Santorum, specifically, will subvert the Constitution and betray his oath of office (not that virtually everyone before him hasn't).

[KantoSooner]

SoonerLaw, I don't know whether you're just a troll or what, but here goes:

1. Everybody in Europe used language dripping with religion in the 18th century. For one, it was simply a custom, a habit, a fashion. For another, the memories of religious persecution were too fresh to play too fast and loose. (As your threat to expell those who didn't wish to live in your little evangelical nation displays, these thoughts and impulses are never far from the true believer's mind; back before civil liberrties were as well established as they are today, it paid to follow the forms at least. Speaking only 60 years removed from HUMAC, you'll understand that these fears of persecution were pretty well founded for the Founders.)

2. As for history, you, too, might want to bone up a bit, me Boyo. Our revolution, to date, the best, truest and most successful of the world's great revolutions, and the one that stuck a stake through the heart of traditional monarchy forever, was, without a shadow of a doubt, a result of the enlightenment. That is, in case you missed that week in home schooling, the pro-scientific, anti-clerical intellectual movement that swept aside the rennaissance and finally slammed the door on late medieval thought. It was characterized most particularly by a rejection of the church, the feudal aristocracy and an embrrace of rationalism, most particularly embodied by the scientific method and science driven industry.
What religion remained was a recrudescent backlash against the tide that defined our revolution. An attempt by the ancien regime power structure to cling to whatever vestiges of authority they could. In religion, they found a magical structure that could be used to comfort people who were understandably discombobulated by the changes in society and desirous of something that gave them some of the stability of the past.

3. When you say that you do not want 'religious law' but want God's word to reign supreme, what the **** are you talking about? Your argument is circular without the recommendation of making any intelligible point.

4. Leviticus. Seriously? The most hate-filled, insane book of the bible and you cite it? I should think most christians would shrink from that like a Nazi from photos of Bergen-Belsen. Really, a book that exhorts genocide and you think it's a model for legal codes? I guess that pretty much sums it up, doesn't it. How about we simply put you on a throne and carve 'Obey or Die' on the pedestal. That would appear to sum up your approach. Heaven forfend that one of your whackbrain fellow cult members might differ from your interpretation.

5. Thanks for the pronunciation guide. Let me quote you your own words:

"1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities. "

"Thi-OK-racee" There you pretty much have precisely what I defined earlier. One sect, interpreting a religious work NOT commonly accepted, without check or balance. And if you don't like it get out, if we let you, or suffer the consequences.

Nifty little system if you happen to be running the scam.

And now I will leave you to get inito your johdpurs and jack boots. You've got time to make it to pogrom if you hurry.

[Midtowner]

Well, since the whole idea of liberty and property rights is found in the Bible, I don't see the disconnect. And adultery does deprive people of rights. In Romans it says the husband's body belongs to the wife, and the wife's to the husband (ooo, sexual equality in the 1st Century!). Conjugal rights are just that. Ergo, if one of them sleeps around, the other is damaged (in a lot of ways). You used to be able to sue a guy who seduced your wife. As for sleeping with a woman who's never been married, the father is responsible for his daughter's virginity and if it's taken he had recourse as well.

And do you really want to vote for someone who will sign a law that he doesn't think is moral?

The Bible is full of examples of God's chosen people committing genocide and other such barbarism. The Bible permits slavery. It is not, by our moral standards, especially in the OT, a workable or even moral code of conduct unless you simply exclude the OT.

Our laws are just fine without an injection of religious "morality." Ideally, our laws should try to comport with the notion that my right to swing my fist ends at your nose. There's no reason to go past that. You really can't successfully legislate morality. The only result of that is more poor folks stuck in the legal system and more attorneys fees.

[ouflak]

So if you ban condoms, and IUD's and of the assorted types of birth control, what happens when somebody is caught with this stuff. Do they force a woman to untie her fallopian tubes? Give you a ticket for having some Trojan Jamaican ticklers in your wallet? Slap around any teenagers who are public advocates and practicers of abstinence?

Please show me where I ever said condoms, IUDs' and other assorted types of birth control should be banned. I'll wait.............................................. .........

Sorry guys. I haven't bothered to read through this thread. I just read the title and replied. Should have stated that.

So can anybody answer my questions, or was this not implied in Santorum's statements on this matter?

[MR2-Sooner86]

I think a hypocritical bigot is pissy that I pointed out his hypocrisy and bigotry. You hate a big percentage of the population for a number of reasons (your own words) included simply their religious affiliation. To rationalize your bigotry, you make up straw-man arguments or what you've seen some of them do.

You hate people simply because they're different too. That makes you a bigot. The fact that you castigate others at the start of a post for the very thing that you end the post doing makes you a hypocrite. Understand, hypocritical bigot?

Now I wasn't pissy. I started out laughing because you're too dense to see your own hypocrisy. I guess I should be sad that you live a life without any self-reflection.

But in the end, whatever. Because I know enough to not blame the actions of one hypocritical bigot against anyone else sharing his demographics. I don't know if you're atheist, democrat, left, right, Indian, whatever. But it would be disgusting for me to tear off into a tirade about "This is why I hate _______ they're always a bunch of hypocrites" and then throw up my experiences with you against the whole demographic. Because absolutely none of them are responsible for you acting like a hypocritical bigot. It's your fault. Not theirs.

Translation: I'm upset that you're hatin' on homophobes so that makes you a hater of the haters! Oh well...

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/gallery/haters-gonna-hate/haters-gonna-hate-monkey-big-balls.jpg


Can we please get back to talking about faggots and whether or not they have the right to get married? They're much more fun to mock, ridicule and make fun of.

http://images2.dailykos.com/i/user/123/Gallup1.gif
http://cara.georgetown.edu/gallup.jpg

Uh oh, when church attendance went down, tolerance went up.

But no, I'm being a hater for pointing it out according to 47straight.

Oh yeah...

Mississippi Ranked Most Religious State in U.S. (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/mississippi-ranked-religious-state-us/story?id=9441536#.TwecpmNWrrQ)

and...

46 Percent of Mississippi Republicans Want Interracial Marriage Banned (http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/08/46-percent-of-mississippi-republicans-want-interracial-marriage/)

Boom goes the dynamite.

If you elect evangelics, like Rick Santorum, rights for others will disappear as they beat off to their Christian totalitarian state dream.

In this new state, all sex will be banned except for the missionary position for procreating. You'll have to go to a congressional approved priest for the go ahead for your wedding night.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?

[47straight]

I really must apologize, MR2. I think that I overreached.

I said that your being a hypocritical bigot was your own fault. Then it occurred to me that maybe that's just how you were raised.

So. Which is it? Did your mom and dad raise you to be a hypocritical bigot, or did you get there all on your own?

[47straight]

Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?

3000 tyrants one mile away. You have a better chance of changing their mind or of just moving to get away from their power.

[bigfatjerk]

Ben Franklin was a Quaker and not really an atheist. He was skeptical of the Church though.

[SicEmBaylor]

I really must apologize, MR2. I think that I overreached.

I said that your being a hypocritical bigot was your own fault. Then it occurred to me that maybe that's just how you were raised.

So. Which is it? Did your mom and dad raise you to be a hypocritical bigot, or did you get there all on your own?

I approve of every word he said.

Now, let me say this, I don't think for a minute he's a bigot in any imaginable way. There is a discernible difference between MR2's opinion of evangelicals and highlighting the bigotry of a candidate who may be in a position to codify that bigotry. The difference is that MR2's opinion in no way whatsoever negatively impacts the rights or liberties of others. The same can not be said of a dogmatic evangelical like Santorum who can't tell the difference between the 1st Amendment and 1st Corinthians.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

3000 tyrants one mile away. You have a better chance of changing their mind or of just moving to get away from their power.
Moving away...like 2999 miles away?

[Eielson]

http://images2.dailykos.com/i/user/123/Gallup1.gif
http://cara.georgetown.edu/gallup.jpg


I hope you don't think this was a controlled experiment. If you want to claim that a decline in religion has sparked a rise in tolerance, go for it, but if this is all that you have, don't claim to have evidence. Correlation isn't the same as causation. I suppose you think that people not going to church is also linked to the rise of obesity?

[Dale Ellis]

I'm really proud of you for finding a typo. This is why we have moral victories.

"moral" WAIT, I thought morals were to be checked at the door?

[Dale Ellis]

The Bible is full of examples of God's chosen people committing genocide and other such barbarism. The Bible permits slavery. It is not, by our moral standards, especially in the OT, a workable or even moral code of conduct unless you simply exclude the OT.

Our laws are just fine without an injection of religious "morality." Ideally, our laws should try to comport with the notion that my right to swing my fist ends at your nose. There's no reason to go past that. You really can't successfully legislate morality. The only result of that is more poor folks stuck in the legal system and more attorneys fees.

You don't get to quote the Bible, you're a non believer. Don't try to use it now to help you make a point.

[Midtowner]

You don't get to quote the Bible, you're a non believer. Don't try to use it now to help you make a point.

Whose rule is that? Yours? You're picking and choosing the parts which you consider "moral" and leaving out the parts which by any modern standard are barbaric.

[Eielson]

"moral" WAIT, I thought morals were to be checked at the door?

You're not impressing anybody.

[Midtowner]

You're not impressing anybody.

I predict the following witty retort: "I don't care whether I impress you."

[Turd_Ferguson]

You're not impressing anybody.How do you know this?

[Eielson]

How do you know this?

Are you impressed?

[ictsooner7]

Because I believe that abortion *is* murder, I don't agree with that part of your statement. As far as I'm concerned, an abortionist *is* a killer. As for marriage being a church matter, you're correct in a general sense. The government has no business *defining* marriage or conducting them, that's the church's business. When someone gets "married" in Vegas or at the local courthouse, it's really just a state licensed civil union. The problem lies in the fact that marriage involves property rights, and it's the state's (and by extension the Feds) job to protect the property rights of its citizens. So the government has to be involved in marriage.

On the subject of prohibition, I agree. The Bible does not teach that consuming alcohol is immoral. It teaches that *drunkenness* is immoral. As for the "drug war", I can't comment on the effectiveness of it or lack thereof, there have been so many iterations over the years. What I can say is that most if not all of those substances are extremely dangerous because they are so easily misused in the hands of someone without medical training (even if they were medically necessary, which they aren't). I am, however, in favor of legalizing marijuana for medical purposes. Its benefits have been clearly shown, although perhaps distilling the active ingredients into a pill is a better idea than having people smoke it.

So if you BELIEVE abortion is murder, DON'T HAVE ONE! You think doctors are abortionists are killers, you are a dangerous man. I live three miles where were Doctor Tiller was MURDERED by one of your fellow crazies....IN A CHURCH!! Our country is founded by a group of men who did not want did not want a government where religion is defining our laws, that is why in the first amendment it says, the government should not be involved in imposing YOUR religious beliefs on the rest of us, the should NOT be deciding who can get married, if a church does not want to marry two people they have a right to do that.





Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.




It is the first thing they put down..............they did not want to have a theocracy. The first amendment is designed to keep you from forcing your BELIEFS on me and from me forcing my BELIEFS on you.

[SoonerLaw09]

ict, I'm pretty sure you're incapable of comprehending anything but your own venom. Your arguments have been refuted 2 or 3 times now. Please be quiet.

[SoonerLaw09]

SoonerLaw, I don't know whether you're just a troll or what, but here goes:

1. Everybody in Europe used language dripping with religion in the 18th century. For one, it was simply a custom, a habit, a fashion. For another, the memories of religious persecution were too fresh to play too fast and loose. (As your threat to expell those who didn't wish to live in your little evangelical nation displays, these thoughts and impulses are never far from the true believer's mind; back before civil liberrties were as well established as they are today, it paid to follow the forms at least. Speaking only 60 years removed from HUMAC, you'll understand that these fears of persecution were pretty well founded for the Founders.)

2. As for history, you, too, might want to bone up a bit, me Boyo. Our revolution, to date, the best, truest and most successful of the world's great revolutions, and the one that stuck a stake through the heart of traditional monarchy forever, was, without a shadow of a doubt, a result of the enlightenment. That is, in case you missed that week in home schooling, the pro-scientific, anti-clerical intellectual movement that swept aside the rennaissance and finally slammed the door on late medieval thought. It was characterized most particularly by a rejection of the church, the feudal aristocracy and an embrrace of rationalism, most particularly embodied by the scientific method and science driven industry.
What religion remained was a recrudescent backlash against the tide that defined our revolution. An attempt by the ancien regime power structure to cling to whatever vestiges of authority they could. In religion, they found a magical structure that could be used to comfort people who were understandably discombobulated by the changes in society and desirous of something that gave them some of the stability of the past.

3. When you say that you do not want 'religious law' but want God's word to reign supreme, what the **** are you talking about? Your argument is circular without the recommendation of making any intelligible point.

4. Leviticus. Seriously? The most hate-filled, insane book of the bible and you cite it? I should think most christians would shrink from that like a Nazi from photos of Bergen-Belsen. Really, a book that exhorts genocide and you think it's a model for legal codes? I guess that pretty much sums it up, doesn't it. How about we simply put you on a throne and carve 'Obey or Die' on the pedestal. That would appear to sum up your approach. Heaven forfend that one of your whackbrain fellow cult members might differ from your interpretation.

5. Thanks for the pronunciation guide. Let me quote you your own words:

"1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities. "

"Thi-OK-racee" There you pretty much have precisely what I defined earlier. One sect, interpreting a religious work NOT commonly accepted, without check or balance. And if you don't like it get out, if we let you, or suffer the consequences.

Nifty little system if you happen to be running the scam.

And now I will leave you to get inito your johdpurs and jack boots. You've got time to make it to pogrom if you hurry.

OK that's it, I'm done with you. You're just clueless about pretty much everything you say. You're too ignorant to even realize that you don't know what you're talking about.

[bigfatjerk]

It is the first thing they put down..............they did not want to have a theocracy. The first amendment is designed to keep you from forcing your BELIEFS on me and from me forcing my BELIEFS on you.

If politicians really cared about the 1st amendment they wouldn't have passed obamacare or social security or a billion other most forms of taxation by this logic.

[Dale Ellis]

Whose rule is that? Yours? You're picking and choosing the parts which you consider "moral" and leaving out the parts which by any modern standard are barbaric.

Please show me where I quoted the bible, I'll wait................................

[Fraggle145]

So is anyone capable of staying on topic and giving their opinion about the original question posed?

[SicEmBaylor]

"moral" WAIT, I thought morals were to be checked at the door?
One can be moral without being religious. Do you believe that all of those atheists out there are evil simply because they don't believe in a supernatural being? In any case, I want my political leaders to be moral and/or men of some degree of faith. What I don't want is for them to use their power and position to advance a dogmatic religious agenda that is in conflict with our nation's founding principles and both the spirit and letter of the Constitution.


So is anyone capable of staying on topic and giving their opinion about the original question posed?
Technically, I think Santorum is right. States should be free to enact whatever domestic social policies they wish so long as they are in compliance with their own state Constitutions. However, this most certainly does not mean that I believe the various states should exercise that power. In fact, states should ensure their state constitutions include certain explicit rights to privacy that the Federal constitution lacks (regardless of the fact that such rights have been interpreted by the Supreme Court to exist).

BUT, NOBODY should believe Santorum when he says that such policy should be left to the states because he's a lying theocratic sack of ****. His entire career is predicated on the premise that the Federal government not only has a right but an obligation to enact a socially conservative agenda. The only reason that Santorum made this statement is because he's trying to back away somewhat from his political and religious evangelism that is a huge turn off to the sort of voters you find in New Hampshire that are far more concerned with personal privacy issues, liberty, and states rights.

This single statement from Santorum contradicts his entire Congressional career both in the House and the Senate.

[SicEmBaylor]

I'm all for states rights, but this is stupid.
Acknowledging that states have the right is not stupid -- suggesting that states should use that right to actually limit access to birth control is far beyond stupid.

[ictsooner7]

ict, I'm pretty sure you're incapable of comprehending anything but your own venom. Your arguments have been refuted 2 or 3 times now. Please be quiet.


Typical conservative republican response, the freedom and Constitution loving rightwing teabagger. Wants to take away my FIRST ADMENDMENT RIGHTS and shut you up if you dont agree with him. What a joke you are. I do not see you "refuted" anything I said and I have only been "refuted 2 or 3 times" in your own narrow ignorant mind. My venom? Did I call doctors who perform abortions, murders? NO, YOU DID! More ignorance and stupidity on YOUR part. Show me venom in what I said. Tell me where I'm wrong. Otherwise, be quiet!

[SicEmBaylor]

Typical conservative republican response, the freedom and Constitution loving rightwing teabagger. Wants to take away my FIRST ADMENDMENT RIGHTS and shut up if you dont agree with him. What a joke you are. I do not see you "refuted" anything I said and I have only been "refuted 2 or 3 times" in your own narrow ignorant mind. My venom? Did I call doctors who perform abortions, murders? NO, YOU DID! More ignorance and stupidity on YOUR part. Show me venom in what I said. Tell me where I'm wrong. Otherwise, be quiet!

I take some issue with your inclusion of "tea bagger." The Tea Party movement started out as a largely libertarian/anti-statist group. Now, sadly, they've largely been taken over by the neocon statists and the more mainstream "conservative" movement, but that is not where they trace their roots.

[ictsooner7]

Acknowledging that states have the right is not stupid -- suggesting that states should use that right to actually limit access to birth control is far beyond stupid.

States do not have the right to deny citizens their constitutional rights. Where is it in the constitution that states have the right to deny health care to citizens?

[SicEmBaylor]

States do not have the right to deny citizens their constitutional rights. Where is it in the constitution that states have the right to deny health care to citizens?
Healthcare is an intrastate issue. Regulating healthcare is not an enumerated power of the Federal government; as such, it is a power reserved to the individual states. Now, if the Constitution laid out a Federal role for the regulation of healthcare then you would have a point.

Keep in mind, I absolutely do not believe the state has any role whatsoever in regulating healthcare. I don't even believe the state should have a role in licensing much less limiting access to birth control.

[ictsooner7]

I take some issue with your inclusion of "tea bagger." The Tea Party movement started out as a largely libertarian/anti-statist group. Now, sadly, they've largely been taken over by the neocon statists and the more mainstream "conservative" movement, but that is not where they trace their roots.


That statement show's you utter, complete and total ignorance, the tea party was started and funded by the KOCH BROTHERS! I live three miles from Chuck's house and we up here know all about the koch brothers and their crazy right wing philosophy. Look up the koch's father, who stole oil from government and indians and was one of the founders of the John Birch society.

[ictsooner7]

Healthcare is an intrastate issue. Regulating healthcare is not an enumerated power of the Federal government; as such, it is a power reserved to the individual states. Now, if the Constitution laid out a Federal role for the regulation of healthcare then you would have a point.

Keep in mind, I absolutely do not believe the state has any role whatsoever in regulating healthcare. I don't even believe the state should have a role in licensing much less limiting access to birth control.

The Supreme Court begs to differ, as do everyone else besides rightwingers.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 (which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;") decided that, because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government

[StoopTroup]

Henry the 8th knew how to handle both Birth Control and abortion.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8sB1P3bRR2Q/TdC7C6J1RjI/AAAAAAAAEK8/-4mlVQUHplk/s1600/576cc0bcd02aa2f6cda0ff277ba4ce3c.jpg

[ictsooner7]

Henry the 8th knew how to handle both Birth Control and abortion.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8sB1P3bRR2Q/TdC7C6J1RjI/AAAAAAAAEK8/-4mlVQUHplk/s1600/576cc0bcd02aa2f6cda0ff277ba4ce3c.jpg

HHAAAA If he were a pub today, he'd be leading willard!

[Sooner Born Sooner Bred]

I'm not reading this whole thread. I just want to know how you would regulate something like this.

"Sir, we're going to have to confiscate that box of Trojans."

[sappstuf]

The Supreme Court begs to differ, as do everyone else besides rightwingers.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 (which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;") decided that, because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government

For all those that like to say that the free market doesn't work, well.... With decisions like this, it is clear that we haven't had a free market in a long, long time.

[SCOUT]

For all those that like to say that the free market doesn't work, well.... With decisions like this, it is clear that we haven't had a free market in a long, long time.
Constitution and law be damned, judges said it was the way to go.

[SicEmBaylor]

The Supreme Court begs to differ, as do everyone else besides rightwingers.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 (which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;") decided that, because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government
This may come as a shock, but I do not kowtow to the US Supreme Court. Its edicts are not divine, so forgive me for not having the utmost respect for all its decisions both past and present.

The US Supreme Court if a Federal entity that has taken it upon itself to be the lone arbiter of the Constitution and to define the limits of Federal power (of which it is a part). I do not now nor will I ever trust the Federal government to provide a proper "check" upon itself. This once was and should always be a shared duty with the individual states.

I do not believe the Federal government should involve itself in any domestic issue pertaining to any subject that does not cross state lines unless the subject is a dispute between two or more states. I long for the days prior to the ratification of the 14th and 17th Amendments. In the case of the former, before the Constitution was applied to state law; in the case of the latter, when the states were an equal partner in the Federal government along side the representatives of the people directly.

All of that goes back to my original point that Santorum is a big-government conservative/lunatic who has absolutely no interest in allowing the states to craft their own domestic policy. This statement, and several he made during tonight's debate, are outright lies and fabrications. He's a dangerous man who needs to be stopped.

[Chuck Bao]

This may come as a shock, but I do not kowtow to the US Supreme Court. Its edicts are not divine, so forgive me for not having the utmost respect for all its decisions both past and present.

The US Supreme Court if a Federal entity that has taken it upon itself to be the lone arbiter of the Constitution and to define the limits of Federal power (of which it is a part). I do not now nor will I ever trust the Federal government to provide a proper "check" upon itself. This once was and should always be a shared duty with the individual states.

I do not believe the Federal government should involve itself in any domestic issue pertaining to any subject that does not cross state lines unless the subject is a dispute between two or more states. I long for the days prior to the ratification of the 14th and 17th Amendments. In the case of the former, before the Constitution was applied to state law; in the case of the latter, when the states were an equal partner in the Federal government along side the representatives of the people directly.

All of that goes back to my original point that Santorum is a big-government conservative/lunatic who has absolutely no interest in allowing the states to craft their own domestic policy. This statement, and several he made during tonight's debate, are outright lies and fabrications. He's a dangerous man who needs to be stopped.

Well, fine and dandy that you don't always agree with the US Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution and all of its decisions. I don't think anyone should, given the numerous gray areas and often dissenting opinions of the Court, which could and will likely change as new justices are appointed.

However, individual rights should always trump state rights that you continually yammer on about. The US Supreme Court IS our best protection of the individual's rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution against such lunatics as Santorum and his right-wing backers.

God help us if someone like Santorum is elected president and decides to pack the Supreme Court with justices who believe that states can restrict access to birth control.

I think that you are right that Santorum is not really sincere about state rights. It is just that they know that pushing the religious envelope at this time is only achieveable in the conservative states, such as Mississippi, South Carolina and...gulp...Oklahoma.

I don't know about you, but that is pretty scary to me.

[SicEmBaylor]

Well, fine and dandy that you don't always agree with the US Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution and all of its decisions. I don't think anyone should, given the numerous gray areas and often dissenting opinions of the Court, which could and will likely change as new justices are appointed.

However, individual rights should always trump state rights that you continually yammer on about. The US Supreme Court IS our best protection of the individual's rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution against such lunatics as Santorum and his right-wing backers.
Except nowhere in the BOR will you find the right to contraception or an explicit right to privacy. SCOTUS is our best protection only because they're essentially our only protection. Neither the Congress nor the President (whomever that may be) are good at policing themselves and state power on the Federal level has been neutered...so that leaves only SCOTUS.
Keep in mind that state constitutions exist for a reason. In most cases they closely mirror the Federal constitution, so any legislation would still have to conform to existing state constitutions. I'm horrified at the idea that a state might actually exercise this power. It's incumbent upon the people to remain vigilant and attentive to the actions of their state government in order to ensure that state governments do not infringe upon their individual rights and personal liberty. It's an issue of civic responsibility.

[ictsooner7]

For all those that like to say that the free market doesn't work, well.... With decisions like this, it is clear that we haven't had a free market in a long, long time.

The problem with the free market as the rightwing and koch backed tea party defines it is that the founding premises are wrong. That all information is decimated equally and everyone has access to the same information and will behave rationally based on that information for their own best interests. REAL economists understand that all parties do no have the same information and people do not behave rationally. Look at Enron and at wall street before the crisis they started by withholding information and lying about products they were selling. They totally and completely ignore the fact that some people are crooks and lairs. Wall street was selling bonds to clients they knew were no good and the proof in the pudding is that they were betting on the bonds failing. The must troubling part of it is that they thought - WOW this is perfect we can make money on selling them, them make money on their collapse! This is why we need MORE regulation and not less. We NEED a strong, tough Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to keep these thieves and lairs from cheating and stealing. Republicans follow a policy on economics, supply side "economics" that is not an economic policy....it is a POLITICAL POLICY, developed by a writer for the wall street journal in the mid-seventies who was fired from the paper for being too republican partisan. The "economic" philosophy your party follows was not developed by an economist, it was developed by a partisan republican WRITER. Supply side economics is simply wrong because it ignores the basic fundamental aspect of free market economics, everything is DEMAND driven. All other considerations are secondary.

[Caboose]

The US Supreme Court IS our best protection of the individual's rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution against such lunatics as Santorum and his right-wing backers.

Would you make the same statement regarding lunatics like Obama and his left-wing backers regarding ObamaCare?
Just curious.

[Caboose]

So if you BELIEVE abortion is murder, DON'T HAVE ONE!

Nonsensical, irrational, easily refuted.

[Caboose]

The Supreme Court begs to differ, as do everyone else besides rightwingers.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 (which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;") decided that, because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government

So now "regulate" means "force someone to buy a commercial good"?

Do you think the Federal Government has the power to force you to spend 100% of your income buying my yard clippings?
Why or why not?

[Turd_Ferguson]

So now "regulate" means "force someone to buy a commercial good"?

Do you think the Federal Government has the power to force you to spend 100% of your income buying my yard clippings?
Why or why not?

ict in 3..2..1...

http://funboxcomedy.com/uploaded_images/Head-explodes-big-761152.jpg

[bigfatjerk]

The free market isn't biased toward the left or the right. It's biased toward whoever makes the best product. You can find a list of former monopolies that basically went away because those people that produced that service didn't do a good job keeping up with the times or got beat by others in competition. Heck in a decade or two we may even be looking at Wal-Mart as basically non existent or irrelevant. It's because someone comes around finds a way to beat them in competition. Right now the federal government is doing all they can to not have a free market because they want to fund their friends instead of letting the market fix things like it should.

[ictsooner7]

Nonsensical, irrational, easily refuted.

If it is so easy then how come you didn't refute it? I see nothing besides a declaration of victory without any facts or argument to back it up, typical republican.

[ictsooner7]

So now "regulate" means "force someone to buy a commercial good"?

Do you think the Federal Government has the power to force you to spend 100% of your income buying my yard clippings?
Why or why not?

Nonsensical, irrational, easily refuted. No one is talking about spending a 100% of your income. No one is talking about yard clippings. We are talking about HEALTH INSURANCE.


Another typical response of the ignorant right, yard clippings. YOUR party wanted to force us to buy health insurance in the first place, remember PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?



Newt Gingrich: 15 Things You Don't Know About Him
He has flip-flopped on whether the government should impose an individual mandate to buy health insurance or not. In June 2007 he said, "Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying health insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it." By spring of 2011, his tune completely changed (Mackey and Hirsch, 12/12).

[Midtowner]

So now "regulate" means "force someone to buy a commercial good"?

Do you think the Federal Government has the power to force you to spend 100% of your income buying my yard clippings?
Why or why not?

Not unless it can provide a rational basis for forcing you to spend 100% of your income buying your yard clippings. Laws must still have a rational basis.

If a rational basis could be provided for such a law (it probably couldn't), it would be constitutional. It would, however, probably doom whoever passed it to being booted out of office and the new folks in charge would promptly repeal it.

[Caboose]

If it is so easy then how come you didn't refute it? I see nothing besides a declaration of victory without any facts or argument to back it up, typical republican.

If you BELIEVE bludgeoning a two year old to death is murder then dont do it!

Sorry, but a child can see the flaw in your argument.

[Caboose]

Nonsensical, irrational, easily refuted. No one is talking about spending a 100% of your income. No one is talking about yard clippings. We are talking about HEALTH INSURANCE.

We are talking about a principle. If the government has the authority to mandate that I spend 1% of my income on health insurance that I dont want, then why or why not can it mandate that you spend 100% of your income on yard clippings that you dont want.

Address the principle. Justify your argument.


Another typical response of the ignorant right, yard clippings. YOUR party wanted to force us to buy health insurance in the first place, remember PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?



Newt Gingrich: 15 Things You Don't Know About Him
He has flip-flopped on whether the government should impose an individual mandate to buy health insurance or not. In June 2007 he said, "Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying health insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it." By spring of 2011, his tune completely changed (Mackey and Hirsch, 12/12).

I am not a Republican, try again. The fact that you think this a Republican/Democrat issue shows how hopelessly lost you are.

[ictsooner7]

If you BELIEVE bludgeoning a two year old to death is murder then dont do it!

Sorry, but a child can see the flaw in your argument.

Where is the flaw? A two year old is a living human being. A embryo is not. Comparing a two year old to a embryo is ignorant.

[Midtowner]

We are talking about a principle. If the government has the authority to mandate that I spend 1% of my income on health insurance that I dont want, then why or why not can it mandate that you spend 100% of your income on yard clippings that you dont want.

I addressed that.

If the law has a rational basis, the government can do that, but whoever does it is going to suffer political consequences.

[ictsooner7]

We are talking about a principle. If the government has the authority to mandate that I spend 1% of my income on health insurance that I dont want, then why or why not can it mandate that you spend 100% of your income on yard clippings that you dont want.

Address the principle. Justify your argument.



I am not a Republican, try again. The fact that you think this a Republican/Democrat issue shows how hopelessly lost you are.

What are you registered as? What party do you vote for a majority of the time?

It is a repub/dem issue, your party tuned it into that. They came up with the idea then when we were going to do what you wanted to do in the first place your flipped and flopped all over yourselves and now your party is going to run the guy who did it first in Mass and he and you are going to deny they are the same damn thing!

[Caboose]

Where is the flaw? A two year old is a living human being. A embryo is not. Comparing a two year old to a embryo is ignorant.

The people who think abortion is murder think a fetus is a living human being, just like you think a two your old is. Until you can show that a fetus is not a living human being with full human rights then just proclaiming "it is ignorant" isn't a valid argument.

[Midtowner]

I am not a Republican, try again. The fact that you think this a Republican/Democrat issue shows how hopelessly lost you are.

When was the last time you voted for a Democrat?

[Caboose]

What are you registered as? What party do you vote for a majority of the time?

Democrat. Whichever candidate shows the highest regard for individual liberty, which as of late damn sure hasn't been Democrats.

[Midtowner]

The people who think abortion is murder think a fetus is a living human being, just like you think a two your old is. Until you can show that a fetus is not a living human being with full human rights then just proclaiming "it is ignorant" isn't a valid argument.

Define "human rights." Are you talking about something you just made up or something which is a legal entity?

[Caboose]

Define "human rights." Are you talking about something you just made up or something which is a legal entity?

I am talking about the general human rights that our founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the Declaration. The right to life, for instance. If one believes that a fetus is just as much human as a 1 year old, then there is no rational basis for that person to believe the law against murder shouldn't be applied to a fetus.

So, to ict, what is the difference between a fetus 5 minutes before birth and an infant 5 minutes after birth, other than the fact that one is inside a womb and the other isnt?

[Caboose]

When was the last time you voted for a Democrat?

2010, in a local election. Nationally (President) it would have to be pre-2000.

[Midtowner]

I am talking about the general human rights that our founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the Declaration. The right to life, for instance. If one believes that a fetus is just as much human as a 1 year old, then there is no rational basis for that person to believe the law against murder shouldn't be applied to a fetus.

So then... you made it up. Got it.

It's pretty hard to argue against something made up out of thin air by the other party. It's like playing verbal calvinball.

[Dale Ellis]

Where is the flaw? A two year old is a living human being. A embryo is not. Comparing a two year old to a embryo is ignorant.

an embryo isn't human and living? Did you just say that? Okay, I'll bite what animal is it, and if it's not living, what is it?

[Caboose]

So then... you made it up. Got it.

It's pretty hard to argue against something made up out of thin air by the other party. It's like playing verbal calvinball.

I "made up" the right to life? So you disagree with the general notion that everyone has the right to life?

[Dale Ellis]

The Supreme Court begs to differ, as do everyone else besides rightwingers.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 (which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;") decided that, because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government


Ahh, the supreme court, when ever a lib can't institute an unconstitutional policy, they turn to their buddies on the supreme court.

[Caboose]

I addressed that.

If the law has a rational basis, the government can do that, but whoever does it is going to suffer political consequences.

So now "regulate" means "force to buy". Where did you get that idea? Did you just make it up? Do you think when the Commerce Clause was drafted its authors intended the word "regulate" to be interpreted as "force to buy"? Show your sources.

[ictsooner7]

The people who think abortion is murder think a fetus is a living human being, just like you think a two your old is. Until you can show that a fetus is not a living human being with full human rights then just proclaiming "it is ignorant" isn't a valid argument.

NO....you have to prove it is a living human being. If it cannot survive outside of the womb it is not a human being.

[ictsooner7]

I am talking about the general human rights that our founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the Declaration. The right to life, for instance. If one believes that a fetus is just as much human as a 1 year old, then there is no rational basis for that person to believe the law against murder shouldn't be applied to a fetus.

So, to ict, what is the difference between a fetus 5 minutes before birth and an infant 5 minutes after birth, other than the fact that one is inside a womb and the other isnt?


the difference is BIRTH! WOW, are you that dumb? There is no other fact, its about birth always has been, you people are trying to move the bar.

If you want to go there ok....the difference is inside the womb even five minutes before birth, the fetus is 100% dependant on the MOTHER for life, outside of the room it can sustain it's self. THERE....

[ictsooner7]

Democrat. Whichever candidate shows the highest regard for individual liberty, which as of late damn sure hasn't been Democrats.

Change parties you are not one of us, and take ben nelson with you. Who is the party of forcing their beliefs down our throats? Before you say "obamacare" just remember its a republican idea to begin with!

[okie52]

NO....you have to prove it is a living human being. If it cannot survive outside of the womb it is not a human being.

Define survive.

[ictsooner7]

Ahh, the supreme court, when ever a lib can't institute an unconstitutional policy, they turn to their buddies on the supreme court.

OUR buddies, the court is packed with right wingers like thomas who has been bought off my the kochs for $750k.

[Caboose]

NO....you have to prove it is a living human being. If it cannot survive outside of the womb it is not a human being.

NO... you have to prove it is not a living being. Prove it. Show me where science has defined "living being" as an entity that can survive outside the womb.

Further, a newborn infant can not survive outside the womb any more than an extracted fetus can. Try again. Think harder this time.

[Caboose]

Change parties you are not one of us, and take ben nelson with you.

"You disagree with me so GTFO"


Who is the party of forcing their beliefs down our throats?

Both Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty of it. You don't have a problem with beliefs being forced down throats as long as they are beliefs you agree with.


Before you say "obamacare" just remember its a republican idea to begin with!
That means nothing to me.

[ictsooner7]

Democrat. Whichever candidate shows the highest regard for individual liberty, which as of late damn sure hasn't been Democrats.


2010, in a local election. Nationally (President) it would have to be pre-2000.

This means you voted for the most incompetent president in our history.........TWICE. You are a republican like I said. If you want to talk about personal liberties, lets talk about who's party had people arrested by the secret service at campaign rallies for wearing a Kerry t-shirt? Who just had demonstrators usher out of a campaign event by the police in NH over the weekend? Who threatened to call the police at town hall meetings last summer and then quit having them? YOUR PARTY!



Who allow you people to stand up and scream and yell obscenities at us at town hall meetings and let them show up at campaign rallies with the stupid flip flops? DEMOCRATS!

[ictsooner7]

NO... you have to prove it is not a living being. Prove it. Show me where science has defined "living being" as an entity that can survive outside the womb.

Further, a newborn infant can not survive outside the womb any more than an extracted fetus can. Try again. Think harder this time.

newborn infant can not survive outside the womb any more than an extracted fetus can, it happens all the time. You just dont get it. So incredibly ignorant

[Caboose]

the difference is BIRTH! WOW, are you that dumb? There is no other fact, its about birth always has been, you people are trying to move the bar.

Show me where science has established that "birth" is what establishes the difference between a living being and a non-l;iving entity.


If you want to go there ok....the difference is inside the womb even five minutes before birth, the fetus is 100% dependant on the MOTHER for life, outside of the room it can sustain it's self. THERE....

This is 100% false. We could clip the umbilical cord of a fetus and surgically connect it to a breathing tube and feeding tube in utero and it would not be dependent on it's mother for survival at all. Show me newborn infant that can "sustain it's self".


"THERE"

So lets recap:

First you have posited that "birth" is what separates a person from a non person...
Then you posited that instead it is whether or not it is dependent on its mother...
Then to illustrate that, you gave the example of a newborn baby which according to you is a person, despite the fact that it is dependent on its mother.

Genius.

[okie52]

newborn infant can not survive outside the womb any more than an extracted fetus can, it happens all the time. You just dont get it. So incredibly ignorant

Ictsooner-you seem pretty wired for a Sunday morning. Not sure how your statement makes any sense. Please explain.

[Caboose]

newborn infant can not survive outside the womb any more than an extracted fetus can, it happens all the time. You just dont get it. So incredibly ignorant

So you are telling me that if I had two 9 months pregnant women laying in front of me... and on the first I extracted the fetus 5 minutes before she was going to birth it and laid it on the table, and the other I waited 5 minutes and let her birth it naturally and laid that newborn on the table beside the extracted fetus... and we all just left... left them laying there... on the table... that if we waited long enough the extracted fetus would die and the newborn would live... ON ITS OWN?

Explain. Better yet, find me ONE... just ONE... medical professional who will stand by your logic and I will concede that you are correct on EVERY topic and I am wrong.

Let's also talk about the other implications of your reasoning..
Anyone delivered by C-section is not a human and has no rights.
Anyone delivered premature assisted by medical personnel is not a human and has no right.
ICT supports abortion right up to the minute before natural birth, for any or no reason.

[ictsooner7]

%
So you are telling me that if I had two 9 months pregnant women laying in front of me... and on the first I extracted the fetus 5 minutes before she was going to birth it and laid it on the table, and the other I waited 5 minutes and let her birth it naturally and laid that newborn on the table beside the extracted fetus... and we all just left... left them laying there... on the table... that if we waited long enough the extracted fetus would die and the newborn would live... ON ITS OWN?

Explain. Better yet, find me ONE... just ONE... medical professional who will stand by your logic and I will concede that you are correct on EVERY topic and I am wrong.

Let's also talk about the other implications of your reasoning..
Anyone delivered by C-section is not a human and has no rights.
Anyone delivered premature assisted by medical personnel is not a human and has no right.
ICT supports abortion right up to the minute before natural birth, for any or no reason.

First off I do not support abortion right up to the minute of natural birth, typical of the ignorant right to make an extrame case, like having to spend a 100% of my money on yard clippings.

Second, we are talking about birth as apposed to extraction. When a baby is born, birth it can survive on its own. Humans and animals do it all the time. You are trying to claim that if you exctact an embroy it will survive on its own. It cannot. Right up until birth a fetus IS 100% dependant on its mother to survive, it has to be, its inside her. Is it that hard to understand or are you just too stupid to get it?

[Midtowner]

So now "regulate" means "force to buy". Where did you get that idea? Did you just make it up? Do you think when the Commerce Clause was drafted its authors intended the word "regulate" to be interpreted as "force to buy"? Show your sources.

I'm going with the D.C. Circuit's interpretation of that particular power. It's the most notable court yet to have weighed in on the subject, and even the most conservative jurist agreed with me.

[StoopTroup]

NO....you have to prove it is a living human being. If it cannot survive outside of the womb it is not a human being.

So if I clobbered your Wife in the stomach in the last month of her pregnancy with a Louisville Slugger and your baby was dead at delivery....I would only be guilty of assault on your Wife?

I think I just found something to replace the Facebook Flash Mob Dance. :D ;)

[bigfatjerk]

ict is an idiot if he really believes there's really that much of a difference between the democrat and republican parties in this country anymore. Obama is essentially the Bush presidency on steroids. If he just changed his registration to republican and did the same things he did, ict would HATE Obama.

[Caboose]

I'm going with the D.C. Circuit's interpretation of that particular power. It's the most notable court yet to have weighed in on the subject, and even the most conservative jurist agreed with me.

Show me where they said "regulate" means "force to buy".

[Caboose]

%

First off I do not support abortion right up to the minute of natural birth
Why not? If a fetus is not a human then why shouldnt the mother be able to abort it a minute before birth? Who are you to force your beliefs upon her?


typical of the ignorant right to make an extrame case,

like having to spend a 100% of my money on yard clippings.
I am not remotely close to "the right"
What is typical is that the Religious Left can't understand the principles demonstrated in extreme examples, therefore cant see the principles in the less extreme reality.


Second, we are talking about birth as apposed to extraction.
No, we are talking about what specifically differentiates a non-human with rights from a full human with rights.


When a baby is born, birth it can survive on its own.
No, it can not. Only a moron of epic proportions or a liar would suggest otherwise.


Humans and animals do it all the time.
No, they dont do it all the time. In fact they CANT do it. Again with the Liberals creating their own reality to believe in. Liberals = anti-science and proud of it.

Show me ONE, just ONE documented case of a human infant feeding and caring for itself. ONE. You just said they do it "all the time" so it should be super simple for you to show me ONE documented example.


You are trying to claim that if you exctact an embroy it will survive on its own. It cannot.
No, that is the exact opposite of what I said, dip****. You cant even read, much less reason. What I specifically said is that neither an extracted fetus nor a newborn infant can survive on its own, and that there is in fact no real difference between the two. Quite literally, what is the difference between a premature baby and an extracted fetus?



Right up until birth a fetus IS 100% dependant on its mother to survive, it has to be, its inside her. Is it that hard to understand or are you just too stupid to get it?

That is no different than a new born infant. What is the difference between a fetus and a newborn infant besides their geographical location relative to their mother's womb? What is the difference between a premature baby and an extracted fetus?
Is it hard to understand or are you just too stupid to get it?


Feel free to continue making an *** of yourself in any direction you want, but let me remind you with what you have been tasked with - Identify the precise moment a "non human" fetus turns into a human with full rights, and explain how you came to that conclusion.

[Caboose]

ict is an idiot if he really believes there's really that much of a difference between the democrat and republican parties in this country anymore. Obama is essentially the Bush presidency on steroids. If he just changed his registration to republican and did the same things he did, ict would HATE Obama.

ict is just an idiot, period.

[Caboose]

This means you voted for the most incompetent president in our history.........TWICE.

Wrong, I never voted for Obama... and I wasnt even born when Carter was elected... I am not sure which one you are referring to.



You are a republican like I said.
I am not a republican.

If you want to talk about personal liberties, lets talk about who's party had people arrested by the secret service at campaign rallies for wearing a Kerry t-shirt?


Citation needed. Explanation of relevance needed.


Who just had demonstrators usher out of a campaign event by the police in NH over the weekend?


I dont know? Relevance?


Who threatened to call the police at town hall meetings last summer and then quit having them? YOUR PARTY!

My party? Who is that?




Who allow you people to stand up and scream and yell obscenities at us at town hall meetings and let them show up at campaign rallies with the stupid flip flops? DEMOCRATS!

What does that have to do with anything?

You seem to have a poor grasp on what constitutes a personal liberty. Removing someone from a private event for their behavior or attire is not affront to their personal liberty.
Maybe the fact that you think such trivial matters as wearing flip flops at a private party is relevant to personal liberty explains why you are so lost on this topic.

[Turd_Ferguson]

BUSH...KOCH...BUSH...KOCH!!!

[StoopTroup]

lol

[SCOUT]

Nonsensical, irrational, easily refuted. No one is talking about spending a 100% of your income. No one is talking about yard clippings. We are talking about HEALTH INSURANCE.


Another typical response of the ignorant right, yard clippings. YOUR party wanted to force us to buy health insurance in the first place, remember PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?



Newt Gingrich: 15 Things You Don't Know About Him
He has flip-flopped on whether the government should impose an individual mandate to buy health insurance or not. In June 2007 he said, "Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying health insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it." By spring of 2011, his tune completely changed (Mackey and Hirsch, 12/12).
Who are you really? I can't figure out if you are a left wing troll or a right wing troll.

[bigfatjerk]

I had a cousin that was forced to have her baby at 6 months pre mature. That's 3 months in the womb. It's still alive and this was 6 months ago. Also I bet if you ask about abortions to most women, a very large majority like over 90% would be against using abortions. Most of the pro-abortion crew is men that will never have to worry about carrying a baby.

[SCOUT]

My wife works in a level 3 nursery and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). They had a baby deliver at 26 weeks live and grow up. In fact, one little girl that was no bigger than my wife's hand at birth (extraction?) came to visit my wife and her unit for her thirteenth birthday just recently.

If a baby can live after being in utero for only 26 weeks, surely that is the cut off. Right?

I am leaning toward ict being a right wing troll after reading the rest of the thread. Has to be.

[Midtowner]

Show me where they said "regulate" means "force to buy".


[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

Where does it say "but it can't force anyone to buy something"? That was the conservative D.C. Circuit's opinion contained the following which pretty much sums up where I think this debate is going to go in the courts:


Since appellants cannot find real support for their proposed rule in either the text of the Constitution or Supreme Court precedent, they emphasize both the novelty of the mandate and the lack of a limiting principle. The novelty–assuming Wickard doesn’t encroach into that claim–is not irrelevant. The Supreme Court occasionally has treated a particular legislative device’s lack of historical pedigree as evidence that the device may exceed Congress’s constitutional bounds. But appellants’ proposed constitutional limitation is equally novel–one that only the Eleventh Circuit has recently–and only partially–endorsed. [...]
That a direct requirement for most Americans to purchase any product or service seems an intrusive exercise of legislative power surely explains why Congress has not used this authority before–but that seems to us a political judgment rather than a recognition of constitutional limitations. It certainly is an encroachment on individual liberty, but it is no more so than a command that restaurants or hotels are obliged to serve all customers regardless of race, that gravely ill individuals cannot use a substance their doctors described as the only effective palliative for excruciating pain, or that a farmer cannot grow enough wheat to support his own family. The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local–or seemingly passive–their individual origins.

That's Hon. Brett Kavanaugh, a GW Bush appointee.

[SCOUT]

Where does it say "but it can't force anyone to buy something"? That was the conservative D.C. Circuit's opinion contained the following which pretty much sums up where I think this debate is going to go in the courts:



That's Hon. Brett Kavanaugh, a GW Bush appointee.
Do you acknowledge that this "novelty of the mandate and lack of a limiting principle" can have unintended consequences? That this precedent may open the door for even bigger steps in the same direction?

[Dale Ellis]

%

First off I do not support abortion right up to the minute of natural birth, typical of the ignorant right to make an extrame case, like having to spend a 100% of my money on yard clippings.

Second, we are talking about birth as apposed to extraction. When a baby is born, birth it can survive on its own. Humans and animals do it all the time. You are trying to claim that if you exctact an embroy it will survive on its own. It cannot. Right up until birth a fetus IS 100% dependant on its mother to survive, it has to be, its inside her. Is it that hard to understand or are you just too stupid to get it?

a full term new born baby can not survive on it's own without assistance. Explaine to me how it's going to feed itself, protect itself from the elements etc. I'll wait, this will be good......................................

[Dale Ellis]

What the left wants to do is take something and place it into an environment that it was not yet meant to be in, then claim since it could not survive in the environment, it's not viable. CT, let me drop you in the middle of the ocean by yourself and see how viable you are. Since you would not be viable, is it all right for me to walk up to you and kick the living **** out of you, since by your standard, you're not a viable human being? You liberals have to be the stupidest collection mouth breathers on the face of the earth.

[Midtowner]

Do you acknowledge that this "novelty of the mandate and lack of a limiting principle" can have unintended consequences? That this precedent may open the door for even bigger steps in the same direction?

I would argue that the door has always been open and that folks are not going to react kindly at the ballot box when the government does things which make no sense. This act makes sense, Caboose' nutty example of requiring you to buy 100% of my lawn clippings, spending 100% of your income, doesn't make any sense (and would probably not survive a rational basis review).

There are also other limiting principles, for example, the Bill of Rights and associated case law. Also the things to be regulated must be channels or instrumentalities of commerce. They can't, for example, be women or children who are not participating in commerce (we got to that one after Congress tried to assert its commerce powers to punish rape).

There are still lots of checks and balances. We're just not talking about those because none of them apply here.

[Dale Ellis]

newborn infant can not survive outside the womb any more than an extracted fetus can, it happens all the time. You just dont get it. So incredibly ignorant

Please provide one documented case of an extracted or newborn infant surviving on it's own, outside of the womb. Also, please provide to me one documented case of a woman being forced, by the federal government to get pregnant and have a child. I'll wait.............................................. .............................

[SCOUT]

I would argue that the door has always been open and that folks are not going to react kindly at the ballot box when the government does things which make no sense. This act makes sense, Caboose' nutty example of requiring you to buy 100% of my lawn clippings, spending 100% of your income, doesn't make any sense (and would probably not survive a rational basis review).

There are also other limiting principles, for example, the Bill of Rights and associated case law. Also the things to be regulated must be channels or instrumentalities of commerce. They can't, for example, be women or children who are not participating in commerce (we got to that one after Congress tried to assert its commerce powers to punish rape).

There are still lots of checks and balances. We're just not talking about those because none of them apply here.
I agree that there are other checks, but don't you think this is one more inch of opening the door against those checks? Once this is established case law it will be used as a reference to push that door open further, don't you think?

[Midtowner]

I agree that there are other checks, but don't you think this is one more inch of opening the door against those checks? Once this is established case law it will be used as a reference to push that door open further, don't you think?

Not really... but do you have a hypothetical? I could give you my 2-cents if I knew about what sort of other activities you think the feds might actually undertake which would "open the door against those checks" as you say.

[SCOUT]

Not really... but do you have a hypothetical? I could give you my 2-cents if I knew about what sort of other activities you think the feds might actually undertake which would "open the door against those checks" as you say.
Sure. When the government is in the business of controlling costs associated with healthcare (insurance) they have a vested interest. Mandating lifestyle activities is not that far of a stretch. Think of it, "The government can't afford these frivolous costs as a direct result of poor health choices. Therefore, smoking/fast food/butter etc, are now controlled substances. It is the public best interest."

[Midtowner]

Sure. When the government is in the business of controlling costs associated with healthcare (insurance) they have a vested interest. Mandating lifestyle activities is not that far of a stretch. Think of it, "The government can't afford these frivolous costs as a direct result of poor health choices. Therefore, smoking/fast food/butter etc, are now controlled substances. It is the public best interest."

Well, as far as smoking goes, it's pretty well understood that the government can prohibit the consumption of substances it deems dangerous, even through an administrative agency. If they passed a law saying you had to run two miles a day, for example, that's an interesting question. It could be argued that running two miles a day doesn't have a substantial enough effect on interstate commerce as to fall under the purview of the commerce clause. Also, I have a feeling that any politician who didn't do everything in their power to stop such a rule from going through would be swiftly replaced.

[Caboose]

Where does it say "but it can't force anyone to buy something"?

Where does it say "but it can not force blonde people into the gas chamber"?

Do you REALLY believe that the intent of the clause was written to be a blank check to give the federal government authority to do whatever the hell it wants?