Can America Handle the truth?

[Heartland Patriot]

Y'all work it out. It was in December of '77, that I no longer had a dog in this hunt.

Well you are still alive. Right now there are 54,000,000 less people around to fund social security. There are 54 million fewer people to come up with the next amazing cure for Alzheimer's or cancer. The loss of those individuals on our society is unimaginable So I would say you still have a dog in that hunt.

Somebody has to feed, cloth, house and employ those 54,000,000 people. You reckon the Chinese are onto something with their birth rate mandates?

I suspect that you and I can debate this issue until the cows come home without any change in positions. So, what say we have some ?

In regards to your words that I have highlighted in red...somehow the Federal (and many state governments) seem to be finding money to hand out to millions of non-citizens that are residing within our borders...just imagine if they were citizens. I suspect that at least some percentage of them would be paying taxes...unlike the vast majority of those non-citizens.

[chasfm11]

Wait until the RFID chips that are planned to be implanted in all of us are implemented - you may have a lot of company. I think they are referenced around page 1,000 in the law and the implementation date is supposed to be March 21 2013. After so little pushback on the TSA atrocities, I was feeling like the American public might just roll over and take it. I guess we'll see.

The devil you say? This is the first I've heard of this.

Here is one of the links to the debate
http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2012/07 ... ry-or-not/
It is supposed to be debunked. Before you say "they won't dare try that", I remind you of the things that they have tried. Remember the nudie scanners that couldn't record - except that they did? It is definitely a tin-foil hat area but like many other parts of the ACA, it is based off rules that are yet to be written.

[recaffeination]

You vote for whomsoever you want to, however I have to stand before a holy God someday. I cannot and will not stand before him and say "sorry I thought the deficit was more important than the lives of children".

I'm intrigued by this comment. There are children dying, particularly in third world countries, because they don't have clean water, enough food, vaccinations and other medical care. Is cable television or Internet access more important than their lives? A nice house and car? Toys for you kids instead of life for others?

I personally hold myself responsible only for my own actions. I don't feel responsible for bad parents who have children without being able to support and care for their children. I also don't feel responsible if someone chooses to have an abortion. So my views are consistent but I puzzle over how others draw the line about which innocent lives are worth more than money/possessions and which ones aren't.

[anygunanywhere]

Here we go again....

EDIT:

Abortions are not for everyone. You have a choice...yes or no. It's not my place to judge.

'nuff said...

No, it is not "Nuff said". There is a sense in several of these posts that social issues like abortion need to fall by the wayside and we should focus solely on the fiscal issues. If the GOP does that they are throwing out a huge section of their base and for what? To be democrat-lite? Like I said before, do those who are proposing this think that there are enough people who are fiscally conservative (but so socially liberal that they set that aside to vote for Obama) that it would make up for all of us who are conservative on social issues? Do you think there are enough votes that the GOP can afford to completely alienate the base of the party (because I can assure you that I do vote on social issues too!)?


Edited to add.....all it takes for evil to win is for good people to stand silent.

With all due respect, I have no more right to tell you that you must have an abortion than you have the right to tell me that I can't have an abortion. Therein is the essence of the matter and the government should have no part nor say, fiscally or physically, in these private and individual decisions.

Tell that to the baby that is killed.

We on this forum judge people all the time regarding their actions but for some reason the vast majority of people are hoodwinked into thinking that this "It is not their body" stuff changes things.

It changes nothing.

Only one person out of two survives an abotrion. Oftgen both do not.

Anygunanywhere

[LTUME1978]

I have never had an abortion (I am a male) but I have a very good friend that had one 25 years ago. She was single, in her thirties at the time and got pregnant. She panicked and made a decision that she has deeply regretted since that day. She still suffers emotionally from what she did even after 25 years and I don't think a day goes by that she wishes she could not go back in time and take a different path. From what I have heard and read, that is fairly typical for women that have had an abortion. So, it is not only the baby that looses but the mother as well. Then there is also the father of that child and the impact on him. There are a lot of men that probably could care less (shame on them) but there are more than a few that wish the abortion did not happen as that was their child also.

We also need to take a close look at the abortion industry. They make a huge profit off of these women. You need to listen to talks from people who came out of that industry (Planned Parenthood especially). They talk about how they finally came to the conclusion that what they were doing was wrong. They also talk about all the money made and that the money is what is driving the whole thing, not concern for the women.

When you learn enough about all of this, it is very easy to come to the conclusion that government has no business supporting or condoning any part of the abortion industry. If you really have a concern for pregnant women that need help, support a Crisis Pregnancy Center but keep the government out of their business.

[Dragonfighter]

Gun control is also a social issue. And the Supreme Court recently held that there can be reasonable limits placed on our right to bear arms. So I guess if social issues are a problem, we need to give up on gun control also.

Like mamabear, abortion is a hill I will live and die on. We have killed 55 million of our own kids since abortion was made legal. Do you realize that is about as many people as Stalin killed and far more than Hitler killed.

One of the reasons Romney lost is because a bunch of people stayed home. I don't have any statistics but I expect they were evangelical Christians who didn't trust him on abortion and libertarians who didn't trust him on spending control. We need both of those groups to win. We can't win by blowing either one of them off.

Abortion also has it roots in the American Eugenics Movement (limited population growth, mandatory sterilization, euthenasia, etc.) movement which existed before Hitler started his rise to power; Dorothy H. Brush who founded Planned Parenthood was a member of the movement. We cannot control sin in other people, but we do not need to endorse it. Stroo's point is a valid one. It can be argued that since we are "endowed by" our "Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." That life is the premier right that we are given by "Our Creator"*. If we relinquish that right or allow it to be taken, even for others, we relinquish those that are subordinate such as the right to keep and bear arms.

I am a TWO issue voter, Constitutional (particularly honoring the 2A) and Sovereignty (The right to raise and care for my family as I see fit e.g. home education). As most candidates I have voted for like our governor, the right to life generally follows if these two tests are met. As a pragmatist, when these powers are stripped from my hands like in this year's corrupted primary process, I vote for the lesser of two evils.

*I understand that some here may not believe in God or even a creator but our forefathers did and built the whole concept of a Republic (not democracy) based on this ideal. If you wish to consider the founding documents without that precept, then consider that the authority then, is man and the mob (majority) rules. We already have seen the result of loud groups stripping the rights from another simply by garnering enough votes to override one's individual liberty and a very vocal debate considering whether our Constitution is even relevant.

Edited for grammar.

[stroo]

by talltex » Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:22 pm

mamabearCali wrote:
[Let me refer you to the HHS mandate which requires businesses even those run by staunch Christians to pay for abortifacients. So there are federal laws mandating that employers play for employees abortifacient drugs.

Not all "staunch Christians" share your exact views on this or other social issues. Christianity and morality are not the same thing. There are many types of Christians with many varied beliefs. If all of us Christians believed exactly the same things there wouldn't be dozens of denominations in every little town. My personal beliefs are none of the government's, or anyone else's business, and I don't want either group to make my decisions on them for me. I vote for fiscally conservative candidates regardless of their personal statements on those issues because their INDIVIDUAL feelings are just that, and not binding on me

So I guess you don't vote based on candidates gun control positions either???

[stroo]

recaffeination » Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:08 pm

mamabearCali wrote:
You vote for whomsoever you want to, however I have to stand before a holy God someday. I cannot and will not stand before him and say "sorry I thought the deficit was more important than the lives of children".

I'm intrigued by this comment. There are children dying, particularly in third world countries, because they don't have clean water, enough food, vaccinations and other medical care. Is cable television or Internet access more important than their lives? A nice house and car? Toys for you kids instead of life for others?

I personally hold myself responsible only for my own actions. I don't feel responsible for bad parents who have children without being able to support and care for their children. I also don't feel responsible if someone chooses to have an abortion. So my views are consistent but I puzzle over how others draw the line about which innocent lives are worth more than money/possessions and which ones aren't.

I can't take care of the whole world but I have done things to help the poor in this country and others. I have also done things to fight abortion. I probably haven't done enough in either area, but my views are consistent also.

[emcee rib]

Like my in-laws and others. They let themselves be deceived refused to Search out for the truth and now we will all suffer. Small consolation to me and mine when I have to cut the grocery budget to pay for Obama care taxes and tax increases.

Consider it a small price to pay to be able to stand on your principles and ensure a small government conservative didn't get the GOP nomination.

[mamabearCali]

You vote for whomsoever you want to, however I have to stand before a holy God someday. I cannot and will not stand before him and say "sorry I thought the deficit was more important than the lives of children".

I'm intrigued by this comment. There are children dying, particularly in third world countries, because they don't have clean water, enough food, vaccinations and other medical care. Is cable television or Internet access more important than their lives? A nice house and car? Toys for you kids instead of life for others?

I personally hold myself responsible only for my own actions. I don't feel responsible for bad parents who have children without being able to support and care for their children. I also don't feel responsible if someone chooses to have an abortion. So my views are consistent but I puzzle over how others draw the line about which innocent lives are worth more than money/possessions and which ones aren't.

This goes to the you can't save every kitten in the world. I do what I can with what I have. Our family does what it can for the poor around the world (various charities we partner with). I cannot be responsible for the insanity and corruption of other nations (what causes most human suffering). However in this country the citizens do have a say in what is permitted, I will not vote for a person who does not value human life.

[chasfm11]

You vote for whomsoever you want to, however I have to stand before a holy God someday. I cannot and will not stand before him and say "sorry I thought the deficit was more important than the lives of children".

I'm intrigued by this comment. There are children dying, particularly in third world countries, because they don't have clean water, enough food, vaccinations and other medical care. Is cable television or Internet access more important than their lives? A nice house and car? Toys for you kids instead of life for others?

I personally hold myself responsible only for my own actions. I don't feel responsible for bad parents who have children without being able to support and care for their children. I also don't feel responsible if someone chooses to have an abortion. So my views are consistent but I puzzle over how others draw the line about which innocent lives are worth more than money/possessions and which ones aren't.

This goes to the you can't save every kitten in the world. I do what I can with what I have. Our family does what it can for the poor around the world (various charities we partner with). I cannot be responsible for the insanity and corruption of other nations (what causes most human suffering). However in this country the citizens do have a say in what is permitted, I will not vote for a person who does not value human life.

You have just made the case for world government. The Progressives have taken over the US on exactly that argument - taking care of the poor. Let's review how good of a job they have done in the ensuing 100 years, especially in places like Detroit. No matter. The argument is that you and I will not try to do enough to help all of those starving poor so they must muster the power of government to fill the gap that our "disinterest" creates.

By the way, you have given up all say in what your government does because your side lost the election. Complete capitulation is required. If they had chariots, they would tie us all together and drag us through the streets of Washington to demonstrate their triumph, in true Roman fashion.

[mamabearCali]

You have just made the case for world government. The Progressives have taken over the US on exactly that argument - taking care of the poor. Let's review how good of a job they have done in the ensuing 100 years, especially in places like Detroit. No matter. The argument is that you and I will not try to do enough to help all of those starving poor so they must muster the power of government to fill the gap that our "disinterest" creates.

By the way, you have given up all say in what your government does because your side lost the election. Complete capitulation is required. If they had chariots, they would tie us all together and drag us through the streets of Washington to demonstrate their triumph, in true Roman fashion.

Baloney on all accounts. It is the govt themselves that have cause the majority of human suffering where it is greatest. They steal from the people, burn their fields, and leave the leftovers for the dogs. The UN, please, what have they done to stop the sufferieng in N. Korea not a blessed thing. What have they done to stop the ethnic cleansing in Africa, nada. What have they done to help the plight of women in Islamic countries, worse than nothing. I give to charities that actually do what they say and try to help people. The UN's help is worse than no help whatsoever because their help is inept, corrupt, and comes with nasty string attached (we give your leaders money which they will steal--propping them up and keeping them in power-- and we get to try out a cool new vaccine on your kids). I give to charities that are actually effective at helping the poor and needy.

We lost one national election. Happily in this country we hope there will be more....if there is not...it is not just the unborn that are in danger of being ripped limb from limb it is all of us. Slavery was legal in this country for a century, the other side lost many elections too. Should that side have shut up? I will not ever capitulate on this. I am simply incapable of doing do.

[jollyman]

You have just made the case for world government. The Progressives have taken over the US on exactly that argument - taking care of the poor. Let's review how good of a job they have done in the ensuing 100 years, especially in places like Detroit. No matter. The argument is that you and I will not try to do enough to help all of those starving poor so they must muster the power of government to fill the gap that our "disinterest" creates.

By the way, you have given up all say in what your government does because your side lost the election. Complete capitulation is required. If they had chariots, they would tie us all together and drag us through the streets of Washington to demonstrate their triumph, in true Roman fashion.

Baloney on all accounts. It is the govt themselves that have cause the majority of human suffering where it is greatest. They steal from the people, burn their fields, and leave the leftovers for the dogs. The UN, please, what have they done to stop the sufferieng in N. Korea not a blessed thing. What have they done to stop the ethnic cleansing in Africa, nada. What have they done to help the plight of women in Islamic countries, worse than nothing. I give to charities that actually do what they say and try to help people. The UN's help is worse than no help whatsoever because their help is inept, corrupt, and comes with nasty string attached (we give your leaders money which they will steal--propping them up and keeping them in power-- and we get to try out a cool new vaccine on your kids). I give to charities that are actually effective at helping the poor and needy.

We lost one national election. Happily in this country we hope there will be more....if there is not...it is not just the unborn that are in danger of being ripped limb from limb it is all of us. Slavery was legal in this country for a century, the other side lost many elections too. Should that side have shut up? I will not ever capitulate on this. I am simply incapable of doing do.

mamabearCali,
After having read this entire thread I have to say that, I my humble opinion, you have the clearest view of reality of all the posters here. And I’m sure I’ll take some flak for it but when the time comes for you to die on this hill, I’d be pleased to take that stand and die with you. Our country’s government has been taken over by a criminal element that is wholly given over to a reprobate mind. Too many people will not take a stand and just let it run rough shod over them. I truly believe that the time that talking will turn things around is over. Prayers and preparation have become my game plan.

[gdanaher]

My random thoughts on these various topics:
-The fundamental error in social engineering relates to theoretical statistics, normal distribution, and the standard deviation. Two standard deviations below the mean in any population will yield a residual population of 2.3% of the whole. It will always be there, and if those in this end of the bell curve are able to bootstrap themselves out, their spot on the graph will be occupied by someone else who has slid into that position. There will always be a population at the bottom of the heap. What the society/government has provided during the past half century are opportunities for those at the bottom who wish mobility to achieve it, and it has permitted those without such ambition to exist, often happily, in that slot. The first fallacy is that society can get everyone out of the pit, educate them, employ them, allow them to be successful. The fog is in the definitions and my idea of success versus your definition of success, and for some, success is having someone else pay them to do nothing, contribute nothing, and likely, value nothing. The second fallacy is that middle class families have children who remain in the middle class or strive for upper class. It is a tragic truth that a percentage of middle class families, and upper for that matter, create children who simply don't fit those molds and slowly sink to the bottom, replenishing the ranks of those who escaped the dregs. There will always be bottom dwellers.

-Why is it that so many folks seem to think that abortion is a black and white issue? First, there are far too many of these procedures. Some use it in lieu of protection or abstinence. The health of the mother is a vital issue and seems to be often overlooked. Yes, there are medical reasons for abortion. Legitimate reasons. Reasons that should be a matter between a woman, her doctor, and her g-d. There are Biblical references and Talmudic laws that cover this. What I fail to understand is that the same people who speak of freedom from government seem to be the first to support government legislation that would prohibit abortion of any kind, for any purpose.

[Heartland Patriot]

My random thoughts on these various topics:
-The fundamental error in social engineering relates to theoretical statistics, normal distribution, and the standard deviation. Two standard deviations below the mean in any population will yield a residual population of 2.3% of the whole. It will always be there, and if those in this end of the bell curve are able to bootstrap themselves out, their spot on the graph will be occupied by someone else who has slid into that position. There will always be a population at the bottom of the heap. What the society/government has provided during the past half century are opportunities for those at the bottom who wish mobility to achieve it, and it has permitted those without such ambition to exist, often happily, in that slot. The first fallacy is that society can get everyone out of the pit, educate them, employ them, allow them to be successful. The fog is in the definitions and my idea of success versus your definition of success, and for some, success is having someone else pay them to do nothing, contribute nothing, and likely, value nothing. The second fallacy is that middle class families have children who remain in the middle class or strive for upper class. It is a tragic truth that a percentage of middle class families, and upper for that matter, create children who simply don't fit those molds and slowly sink to the bottom, replenishing the ranks of those who escaped the dregs. There will always be bottom dwellers.

-Why is it that so many folks seem to think that abortion is a black and white issue? First, there are far too many of these procedures. Some use it in lieu of protection or abstinence. The health of the mother is a vital issue and seems to be often overlooked. Yes, there are medical reasons for abortion. Legitimate reasons. Reasons that should be a matter between a woman, her doctor, and her g-d. There are Biblical references and Talmudic laws that cover this. What I fail to understand is that the same people who speak of freedom from government seem to be the first to support government legislation that would prohibit abortion of any kind, for any purpose.

Despite the things I disagree with you on, this is a fair assessment. While I see the occasional MEDICAL NECESSITY for this, I just wished the Democrat Party would abide by their cute little phrase "Safe, legal, and RARE", but they don't. They want it to be safe (enough), all-but-glorified, and commonplace...and they want the taxpayers to pay for it.