# What Do You Believe Was The Tipping Point For When The USA Started Going To Hell?



## PatriotFlamethrower

This question is a very interesting one, because MANY events have happened in this country that could be pointed to as the "tipping point" when this country started it's downhill slide.

I personally believe the tipping point occurred in the 1973 Roe V. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision.

The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion.

Thus, the highest court in the land decided to give pregnant women the right to play God.

The result? Over 57 MILLION U.S. citizens have been legally exterminated since 1973.

Of these 57 million people, how many would have grown up to become scientists, doctors, engineers, etc.? How many would have made positive contributions to our society? How many would have been sports stars? How many would have been productive, law-abiding citizens?

And what of the CHILDREN of these 57 million people? How many children were never born because their parents were exterminated before THEY were born?

What would the population of the USA be if abortion had remained illegal? 500 million, or more?

The bottom line is...............when the greatest common denominator of our country, the preservation of human life, was discounted and discarded, and women were given the legal "right" to end the lives of their unborn children, our country suffered a terminal breakdown of morality, responsibility, civility, and conscience.

At least that is my opinion.

What say the rest of you?


----------



## SARGE7402

There you go starting trouble again.

Me I believe it was almost a decade earlier with LBJ's Great Society horse hockey


----------



## Slippy

A good argument can be made that the Woodrow Wilson administration, widely known as the beginning of the Progressive Movement, certainly played a role of increased government, passed the Revenue Act leading to a Federal Income Tax, created the Federal Reserve, and greatly reduced tariffs. 

After that surely FDR's New Deal and Social Security Act could also be in the running for more government gone wild.

Both putting the US of A on a faster train to hell...


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper

Slippy said:


> A good argument can be made that the Woodrow Wilson administration, widely known as the beginning of the Progressive Movement, certainly played a role of increased government, passed the Revenue Act leading to a Federal Income Tax, created the Federal Reserve, and greatly reduced tariffs.
> 
> After that surely FDR's New Deal and Social Security Act could also be in the running for more government gone wild.


A VERY good argument could be made that the Wilson administration did more towards destroying this country than any other presidency, and most other COMBINED. Throw Teddy Bear in there too, he was quite the maniac progressive...

Having said that, this country has been in trouble since George Washington's days... the Federalist movement and the signing of a strict federal constitution were portents of things to come.

The high water mark in Freedom in America was the 1770's. For white people. Well, OK for white men. Other races and sexes may not agree.


----------



## James m

It started to slide when the original 13 colonies expanded.


----------



## Smitty901

Jimmy Carter


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper

Smitty901 said:


> Jimmy Carter


Wash your mouth out with soap for cussing, Smitty!


----------



## Ralph Rotten

PatriotFlamethrower said:


> This question is a very interesting one, because MANY events have happened in this country that could be pointed to as the "tipping point" when this country started it's downhill slide.
> 
> I personally believe the tipping point occurred in the 1973 Roe V. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision.
> 
> The Court ruled 7-2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion.
> 
> Thus, the highest court in the land decided to give pregnant women the right to play God.
> 
> The result? Over 57 MILLION U.S. citizens have been legally exterminated since 1973.
> 
> Of these 57 million people, how many would have grown up to become scientists, doctors, engineers, etc.? How many would have made positive contributions to our society? How many would have been sports stars? How many would have been productive, law-abiding citizens?
> 
> And what of the CHILDREN of these 57 million people? How many children were never born because their parents were exterminated before THEY were born?
> 
> What would the population of the USA be if abortion had remained illegal? 500 million, or more?
> 
> The bottom line is...............when the greatest common denominator of our country, the preservation of human life, was discounted and discarded, and women were given the legal "right" to end the lives of their unborn children, our country suffered a terminal breakdown of morality, responsibility, civility, and conscience.
> 
> At least that is my opinion.
> 
> What say the rest of you?


To a caveman like you it must seem like its all coming apart, but this is really just social evolution. Many of these changes have occured elsewhere in the civilized world as well. There are always the luddites crying about the sky falling.


----------



## Kauboy

Ralph Rotten said:


> To a caveman like you it must seem like its all coming apart, but this is really just social evolution. Many of these changes have occured elsewhere in the civilized world as well. There are always the luddites crying about the sky falling.


Unnecessary antagonism.
Shape up, or ship out.


----------



## Kauboy

Ol' Woody Wilson has my vote too.
That sumbitch ruined a great nation.


----------



## jimb1972

I am going with Wilson admin. Reinstating segregation on the federal level prolonged and increased racial tensions and led to things like LBJ's Great Society programs and the civil rights movement further damaging society.


----------



## PaulS

Abraham Lincoln! He completely desecrated the constitution by declaring war (without the necessary majority from congress) on the several states for exercising their right to abolish the federal government and instate a new government that was more responsive to their needs. That war was started because the fed was fixing the price and sale of cotton - not for any other reason.


----------



## AquaHull

When the movie star tore down the wall and fired the air traffic controllers.
Oh year Iran Contra,REX84 and Garden Plant

or was it when Tricky Dick took the US off the Gold Standard


----------



## PatriotFlamethrower

Ralph Rotten said:


> To a caveman like you it must seem like its all coming apart, but this is really just social evolution. Many of these changes have occured elsewhere in the civilized world as well. There are always the luddites crying about the sky falling.


Ralph Rotten: "I'll take THE UNITED STATES for 500, Alex"

Alex Trebek: "And the answer is, "INFANTICIDE"

Ralph Rotten: "What is SOCIAL EVOLUTION?"

Alex Trebek: "That is WRONG, Ralph. Security!"

You are part of the problem, Rotten, not part of the solution.


----------



## paraquack

I'm sure we all have out own ideas for this one. I have to vote for the day it was 
announced that God was dead. It seems that since His death, people no longer 
have anything to fear and act accordingly.


----------



## PatriotFlamethrower

I'm very surprised that nobody has mentioned the decade of the 1960s. That would be my Number 2 choice.

JFK assassination, MLK assassination. RFK assassination. Other high-profile murders. Race riots. Sex, drugs, rock 'n roll. Vietnam War. Cuban missile crisis. Protests involving a plethora of things.

I really don't believe that this country was ever the same after we survived the 60s.


----------



## PaulS

It was never the same after states rights were negated by the president.


----------



## Spice

When the Shea's and Whiskey rebellions were put down. That set the oligarchs on the path to dominate those interested in actual freedom.


----------



## Kauboy

PaulS said:


> Abraham Lincoln! He completely desecrated the constitution by declaring war (without the necessary majority from congress) on the several states for exercising their right to abolish the federal government and instate a new government that was more responsive to their needs. That war was started because the fed was fixing the price and sale of cotton - not for any other reason.


I forgot about Lincoln...
Talk about trampling the constitution in style. Ooooweeee, that beard and hat... am I right?


----------



## dsdmmat

The war or northern aggression, or the great federal power grab of the 1860s.


----------



## Mad Trapper

Kauboy said:


> Ol' Woody Wilson has my vote too.
> That sumbitch ruined a great nation.


Add The Fed Robbers to Woody Robber, and federal taxes that are not legal either.


----------



## tango

Roe v Wade?
Not even close

It started with that commie FDR and has gotten "progressively" worse ever since!


----------



## PaulS

FDR was a distant second to Lincoln, but he did complete what Lincoln started. The states actually gave up their powers to get federal aid - that came from the people of the states... What a "new deal".


----------



## Medic33

the mid 1970's


----------



## PatriotFlamethrower

PaulS said:


> FDR was a distant second to Lincoln, but he did complete what Lincoln started. The states actually gave up their powers to get federal aid - that came from the people of the states... What a "new deal".


Since if you don't like Lincoln, you must be a RACIST, right?

After all, ALL Lincoln haters are racists, according to your logic.

The southern states wanted their black slaves, and the northern states told them enough is enough.

But, of course, not ALL southerners want their black slaves back.

The southern states ALWAYS play the "states rights" card whenever the Civil War comes up in conversation.

According to your previously stated logic, YOU are a racist, and obviously believe that black people should still be picking cotton.


----------



## Mad Trapper

PatriotFlamethrower said:


> Since if you don't like Lincoln, you must be a RACIST, right?
> 
> After all, ALL Lincoln haters are racists, according to your logic.
> 
> The southern states wanted their black slaves, and the northern states told them enough is enough.
> 
> The southern states ALWAYS play the "states rights" card whenever the Civil War comes up in conversation.
> 
> According to your previously stated logic, YOU are a racist, and obviously believe that black people should still be picking cotton.


But, of course, not ALL southerners want their black slaves back.

The southern states ALWAYS play the "states rights" card whenever the Civil War comes up in conversation.

According to your previously stated logic, YOU are a racist, and obviously believe that black people should still be picking cotton.

Well Licoln was Republican. The racists were all Democrats, before and after the civil war. The Barry/Obama is an example. As far as D- or R- goes now one POS is the same as the other.
r


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper

PatriotFlamethrower said:


> According to your previously stated logic, YOU are a racist, and obviously believe that black people should still be picking cotton.


Let me get the popcorn, this one's about to get good...


----------



## Camel923

Slippy said:


> A good argument can be made that the Woodrow Wilson administration, widely known as the beginning of the Progressive Movement, certainly played a role of increased government, passed the Revenue Act leading to a Federal Income Tax, created the Federal Reserve, and greatly reduced tariffs.
> 
> After that surely FDR's New Deal and Social Security Act could also be in the running for more government gone wild.
> 
> Both putting the US of A on a faster train to hell...


I believe it was the income tax combined with the amendment the allowed senators to be popularly elected rather the appointed by the state governors. This eliminated the purpose of the senate...a means of state representation as opposed to the house, a body popularly elected by the folks. Lincolns suspension of habeous corpus is runner up to me.


----------



## ekim

IMO, lincoln, when he showed the southern states that they were under Federal government control and he invaded Texas and the south.


----------



## Chipper

Easy, 2008. Things weren't really that bad until then.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

Several people, well actually two - Sarge and PF, mentioned the 1960's.
And I agree with the points both made, however in my mind the pivotal event of the 1960's that really started this country's slide to where it is now was the 1963 Supreme Court decision to outlaw prayer in school.
That started in motion a whole series of First Amendment decisions relating to speech and religion that continually emboldened the radical leftists in this country. More and more these leftists dismantled morality, that fabric that held this country together.
And what do we have now? This country has descended into the abyss.


----------



## stillacitizen2

When AMF bought Harley Davidson in 1969.


----------



## jimb1972

stillacitizen2 said:


> When AMF bought Harley Davidson in 1969.


But just think of all the neat 2 stroke dirt bikes and electric Harley golf carts we would have missed out on.


----------



## Medic33

well I was going to say mid 1960's but then I thought of disco music and thought WOW I actually survived that thus the mid 1970's is my answer and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## GTGallop

Welfare and Participation Trophies.


----------



## PaulS

Just a little history about the "civil" war.

The federal government regulated the prices and the market in which cotton was sold. The southern states were not allowed to sell their cotton to the "world" market (Europe) and they could not get the same price in the USA. The price was held low so the manufacturers in the northern industrial side of the nation could produce goods cheaper than the Europeans. The northern states were allowed to charge the world market prices for their finished products which made them a very tidy profit while the southern states had to sell to them at below market prices and could not trade their goods on the world market.

Slavery wasn't even an issue until late in the war when the public was growing tired of it. It was then, and only then that Lincoln considered signing the Emancipation Proclamation. The War was started over government controlled prices on the southern states while those same conditions did not exist in the northern states. The war was proclaimed by presidential order only and less than two thirds of congress approved the war. It was an unlawful act - an unconstitutional act - to go to war to stop the states from leaving the union. 

The "race card" wasn't mentioned in my previous post because race and slavery had nothing to do with why the war between the states began. 
I don't believe for one moment that I could be considered a racist by anyone who knew me. Since you brought it up, when I had never mentioned it, I believe that makes you, Patriot Flamethrower, the racist. There was no discussion of slavery but if you must discuss slavery be prepared because there were white slaves and black slave owners too. It is not, nor has it ever been a race issue. It is an issue of whether or not one person can own another. The answer is clearly no, yet slavery continues today with the most popular slaves being white women. (I think that makes me sexist now too)


----------



## SARGE7402

PaulS said:


> Just a little history about the "civil" war.
> 
> The federal government regulated the prices and the market in which cotton was sold. The southern states were not allowed to sell their cotton to the "world" market (Europe) and they could not get the same price in the USA. The price was held low so the manufacturers in the northern industrial side of the nation could produce goods cheaper than the Europeans. The northern states were allowed to charge the world market prices for their finished products which made them a very tidy profit while the southern states had to sell to them at below market prices and could not trade their goods on the world market.
> 
> Slavery wasn't even an issue until late in the war when the public was growing tired of it. It was then, and only then that Lincoln considered signing the Emancipation Proclamation. The War was started over government controlled prices on the southern states while those same conditions did not exist in the northern states. The war was proclaimed by presidential order only and less than two thirds of congress approved the war. It was an unlawful act - an unconstitutional act - to go to war to stop the states from leaving the union.
> 
> The "race card" wasn't mentioned in my previous post because race and slavery had nothing to do with why the war between the states began.
> I don't believe for one moment that I could be considered a racist by anyone who knew me. Since you brought it up, when I had never mentioned it, I believe that makes you, Patriot Flamethrower, the racist. There was no discussion of slavery but if you must discuss slavery be prepared because there were white slaves and black slave owners too. It is not, nor has it ever been a race issue. It is an issue of whether or not one person can own another. The answer is clearly no, yet slavery continues today with the most popular slaves being white women. (I think that makes me sexist now too)


And didn't slaves come in two colors. Black that everyone harps on and white - Irish sold by the british as early as 1600


----------



## Prepared One

How about NOW! How about the guy we currently have in our house and the woman who wants to to take his place? This country has been spiraling towards being a welfare state since FDR and continued through to LBJ. This, no doubt, leads us to our current state of sorry affairs. Carter was mistake that, fortunately, everyone decided was a poor decision. It's a matter of perspective in the end. This country has been evolving, changing, and yes, had it's share of problems and presidential transgressions. However, in my opinion, never before now, have we been in more peril of loosing any semblance of what we perceive this country to be, then now.


----------



## PatriotFlamethrower

PaulS said:


> Just a little history about the "civil" war.
> 
> The federal government regulated the prices and the market in which cotton was sold. The southern states were not allowed to sell their cotton to the "world" market (Europe) and they could not get the same price in the USA. The price was held low so the manufacturers in the northern industrial side of the nation could produce goods cheaper than the Europeans. The northern states were allowed to charge the world market prices for their finished products which made them a very tidy profit while the southern states had to sell to them at below market prices and could not trade their goods on the world market.
> 
> Slavery wasn't even an issue until late in the war when the public was growing tired of it. It was then, and only then that Lincoln considered signing the Emancipation Proclamation. The War was started over government controlled prices on the southern states while those same conditions did not exist in the northern states. The war was proclaimed by presidential order only and less than two thirds of congress approved the war. It was an unlawful act - an unconstitutional act - to go to war to stop the states from leaving the union.
> 
> The "race card" wasn't mentioned in my previous post because race and slavery had nothing to do with why the war between the states began.
> I don't believe for one moment that I could be considered a racist by anyone who knew me. Since you brought it up, when I had never mentioned it, I believe that makes you, Patriot Flamethrower, the racist. There was no discussion of slavery but if you must discuss slavery be prepared because there were white slaves and black slave owners too. It is not, nor has it ever been a race issue. It is an issue of whether or not one person can own another. The answer is clearly no, yet slavery continues today with the most popular slaves being white women. (I think that makes me sexist now too)


So, you are trying to feed all of us this "it was cotton prices!" story, when we all know that immediately after the election of Abraham Lincoln SEVEN states seceded from the union, six of which were states that had the most slaves in the United States.

The Civil War was fought over the issue of SLAVERY, period.

COTTON PRICES? Really? Is that the best you can do?

Oh, just for the record, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation less than 20 MONTHS after the Civil War started, not "late in the war", as you stated.

To try to spin the cause of the Civil War into anything else is an exercise in revisionist history and blatant RACISM.

You paint yourself as the "forum intellect", and have fooled some of the people in here, but I for one can see clearly through the "clutter" that you create.


----------



## Ripon

We have the worst form of government except all the others!


----------



## rice paddy daddy

PatriotFlamethrower said:


> So, you are trying to feed all of us this "it was cotton prices!" story, when we all know that immediately after the election of Abraham Lincoln SEVEN states seceded from the union, six of which were states that had the most slaves in the United States.
> 
> The Civil War was fought over the issue of SLAVERY, period.
> 
> COTTON PRICES? Really? Is that the best you can do?
> 
> Oh, just for the record, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation less than 20 MONTHS after the Civil War started, not "late in the war", as you stated.
> 
> To try to spin the cause of the Civil War into anything else is an exercise in revisionist history and blatant RACISM.
> 
> You paint yourself as the "forum intellect", and have fooled some of the people in here, but I for one can see clearly through the "clutter" that you create.


With all due respect, the Civil War was fought over states rights. 
The states voluntarily entered into the Union, and at the time there was nothing in the Constitution preventing them from voluntarily withdrawing. President James Buchanan even mentioned this in his State Of The Union address on Dec 3, 1860, stating of the Union: "Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force."
Lincoln's only mission at the start was to preserve the Union. It wasn't until Jan 1, 1863 that he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. And this proclamation only applied to the 10 states still in rebellion at the time. NOT the whole country.

No, sir, Lincoln did not have the Constitutional authority to attack the South. In fact, a case can be made that Lincoln trod upon the Constitution more than any President in history.
In some quarters the war is still known today as The War Of Northern Aggression.


----------



## PatriotFlamethrower

rice paddy daddy said:


> With all due respect, the Civil War was fought over states rights.
> The states voluntarily entered into the Union, and at the time there was nothing in the Constitution preventing them from voluntarily withdrawing. President James Buchanan even mentioned this in his State Of The Union address on Dec 3, 1860, stating of the Union: "Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force."
> Lincoln's only mission at the start was to preserve the Union. It wasn't until Jan 1, 1863 that he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. And this proclamation only applied to the 10 states still in rebellion at the time. NOT the whole country.
> 
> No, sir, Lincoln did not have the Constitutional authority to attack the South. In fact, a case can be made that Lincoln trod upon the Constitution more than any President in history.
> In some quarters the war is still known today as The War Of Northern Aggression.


Technically, "states rights" was the excuse used by the south to allow them to keep kidnapping African citizens and bringing them over to the USA to be used as slaves.

Using the U.S. Constitution as justification to commit atrocities against other human beings is NEVER acceptable, in any way.

By what "Constitutional authority" did the Confederate states have to attack Fort Sumter?

By what "Constitutional authority" did the slave states have to buy and sell human beings, enslave human beings, and commit atrocities against these human beings?

Imagine being forced onto a ship with your family and friends, and endure weeks of travel across the ocean in filthy conditions, then land in a strange country, where you, your wife, and your children are sold like pigs and cattle to the highest bidder. Then imagine living in squalor, and your children being taken from you and sold to the highest bidder. Imagine being beaten and whipped, and your wife being raped by your white masters as you are forced to watch. Imagine picking cotton from sunup until sundown.

Of what value or legitimacy does the U.S. Constitution have if one-third of the country not only ALLOWS these atrocities to take place, but DEFENDS TO THE DEATH their right to commit these atrocities.

Some of you in this forum are criticizing Lincoln as if he were a war criminal or some kind of a traitor?

Some of you are waving the U.S. Constitution around as if it were JUSTIFICATION for the HOLOCAUST committed by the southern states prior to the end of the Civil War.

The price of cotton? State's rights? A power grab by Lincoln? Do the REAL facts of the Civil War make some of you feel THAT uncomfortable, that you resort to this revisionist history nonsense?

The Civil War was ALL about ending atrocities committed against thousands of people involuntarily living in our country, and punishing those who committed unspeakable atrocities against these people.

The U.S. Constitution is all about FREEDOM and LIBERTY. How we achieve or restore those basic human rights is less important.

Some people in here DARE to call ME "racist"? I may be a lot of things, but I am certainly NOT a racist.


----------



## Jtk07

Some may disagree but some of the largest greed and biggest key players in the monopoly of power going on today started during the industrial revolution. 

Follow the names - Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, Ford the list goes on - Track where the money goes and watch things fall apart!


----------



## paraquack

PatriotFlamethrower said:


> So, you are trying to feed all of us this "it was cotton prices!" story, when we all know that immediately after the election of Abraham Lincoln SEVEN states seceded from the union, six of which were states that had the most slaves in the United States.
> 
> The Civil War was fought over the issue of SLAVERY, period.
> 
> COTTON PRICES? Really? Is that the best you can do?
> 
> Oh, just for the record, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation less than 20 MONTHS after the Civil War started, not "late in the war", as you stated.
> 
> To try to spin the cause of the Civil War into anything else is an exercise in revisionist history and blatant RACISM.
> 
> You paint yourself as the "forum intellect", and have fooled some of the people in here, but I for one can see clearly through the "clutter" that you create.


Well, I guess PaulS has me fooled. Out of curiosity, I did a search and read what was offered. While slavery was mentioned in the lead of some, the sale of cotton as well as states rights were right mentioned along with slavery. Some of the sites I read referred to the states that seceded as the "deep south *COTTON* states and had the highest percentage of A few of the sites I read said the real cause is still up for debate but the top 2 reasons were slavery and . I know that when I went thru school, slavery was the only reason taught. But as in real life, things are a lot more complicated. Historian Charles A. Beard presented a the idea that "economic determination" (sale of cotton) was the principal cause of the Civil War. Since in the deep south, the cotton crop was dependent on salve labor, and vice versa, I don't think you can separate the two. Only now do most historians disagree with Charles Beard. But since he was closer in time (1920) to the war compared to today's historians, Mr. Beard might have had real insight, at least more than today's historians being removed from the war by nearly an additional century. 
Yes the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't signed until 20 months after the war began but that's also 2 years after Lincoln was elected. If it was so important to Lincoln, why did he wait 2 years. I would have thought a man so convinced of the evils of slavery would have emancipated the slaves at once. Or did he look at emancipation as another way to strike at the heart of the south, namely cotton. 
You could be right, but since we weren't there, I feel your idea carries as much weight as Paul's. Please remember that the winner of a war always paints themselves in the best light for history. Freeing the slaves would put the north in a real good, altruistic light. So while you are entitled to your opinion, so is PaulS. I find your opinion in keeping with popular history but I feel your slur against PaulS is unjustified, disrespectful and not at all honorable.


----------



## Slippy

Mrs Slippy's Granddad called the Civil War anything but Civil and referred to it as the War of Northern Aggression. Her family's been in the deep south for-freakin' EVER! My hardworking *** family decided to come to the US of A LEGALLY through Ellis Island in around 1902 so technically, I have no dawg in this here fight.

However, I am a Southerner and having the freedom and means to live almost anywhere in the Continental US, I choose to abode in the Deep South. Just seems to fit for me and mine. 

Being one smart sumbitch, my vast studies have caused me to recollect that the War of Northern Aggression was over States Rights first and foremost. Agriculture (Cotton and Slaves) and Technology (Manufacturing) as well as Tariffs; all played a part in the "why" the war was fought. 

But The Federal Government at the time, was taking a stance that it was bigger and thus knew better than the individual states. And that upset the various southern states. So for me, States Rights were at the forefront of the war and the Second Amendment was most certainly in play if you think about it. 

My two cents...

EDIT; 150 years later we still cannot agree. Pretty telling isn't it?


----------



## Hemi45

My heart says the day Reagan left office.

My head says the advent and proliferation of social media. 

That latter has allowed "stupid" to advance at an alarming rate.


----------



## Denton

PatriotFlamethrower said:


> Technically, "states rights" was the excuse used by the south to allow them to keep kidnapping African citizens and bringing them over to the USA to be used as slaves.
> 
> Using the U.S. Constitution as justification to commit atrocities against other human beings is NEVER acceptable, in any way.
> 
> By what "Constitutional authority" did the Confederate states have to attack Fort Sumter?
> 
> By what "Constitutional authority" did the slave states have to buy and sell human beings, enslave human beings, and commit atrocities against these human beings?
> 
> Imagine being forced onto a ship with your family and friends, and endure weeks of travel across the ocean in filthy conditions, then land in a strange country, where you, your wife, and your children are sold like pigs and cattle to the highest bidder. Then imagine living in squalor, and your children being taken from you and sold to the highest bidder. Imagine being beaten and whipped, and your wife being raped by your white masters as you are forced to watch. Imagine picking cotton from sunup until sundown.
> 
> Of what value or legitimacy does the U.S. Constitution have if one-third of the country not only ALLOWS these atrocities to take place, but DEFENDS TO THE DEATH their right to commit these atrocities.
> 
> Some of you in this forum are criticizing Lincoln as if he were a war criminal or some kind of a traitor?
> 
> Some of you are waving the U.S. Constitution around as if it were JUSTIFICATION for the HOLOCAUST committed by the southern states prior to the end of the Civil War.
> 
> The price of cotton? State's rights? A power grab by Lincoln? Do the REAL facts of the Civil War make some of you feel THAT uncomfortable, that you resort to this revisionist history nonsense?
> 
> The Civil War was ALL about ending atrocities committed against thousands of people involuntarily living in our country, and punishing those who committed unspeakable atrocities against these people.
> 
> The U.S. Constitution is all about FREEDOM and LIBERTY. How we achieve or restore those basic human rights is less important.
> 
> Some people in here DARE to call ME "racist"? I may be a lot of things, but I am certainly NOT a racist.


You'd better do some fact checking to see when the importation of slaves was stopped, who was bringing them over and who was doing the "kidnapping" in the first place. Your assertions are incorrect regarding this.

If you recall, the North did not invade the South in some self-righteous attempt to end slavery. No, it was when the South attempted to part company that the North invaded. The North was perfectly content with the extremely unfair trade situation and didn't give a damn about either the Southerners or the slaves. All that was necessary to get the Northerners to back an invasion of the South was to spread disinformation about how the South was unplugging baby incubators and tossing the children into the street, putting people into plastic shredders, and was mere inches from obtaining nuclear weapons. No, wait; wrong war.

Is slavery wrong? Of course, we can all agree to that, today. History, too, is written by the victors, but even a little thought into the topic will cause one to see some holes in the fabric.

By the way; would you really like to have your view of the Civil War rocked? Order and read this book. Read the newspaper articles of that day that are offered in the book. 
http://www.amazon.com/South-Right-James-Ronald-Kennedy/dp/1565540247

What about the continent where people captured and sold their neighbors into slavery? It is still home to slavery, slaughter and misery. Don't look at blaming the South on that.


----------



## Sasquatch

Denton said:


> What about the continent where people captured and sold their neighbors into slavery? It is still home to slavery, slaughter and misery. Don't look at blaming the South on that.


I only blame the South for Larry the Cable Guy.


----------



## SARGE7402

PatriotFlamethrower said:


> Technically, "states rights" was the excuse used by the south to allow them to keep kidnapping African citizens and bringing them over to the USA to be used as slaves.
> 
> Using the U.S. Constitution as justification to commit atrocities against other human beings is NEVER acceptable, in any way.
> 
> By what "Constitutional authority" did the Confederate states have to attack Fort Sumter?
> 
> By what "Constitutional authority" did the slave states have to buy and sell human beings, enslave human beings, and commit atrocities against these human beings?
> 
> Imagine being forced onto a ship with your family and friends, and endure weeks of travel across the ocean in filthy conditions, then land in a strange country, where you, your wife, and your children are sold like pigs and cattle to the highest bidder. Then imagine living in squalor, and your children being taken from you and sold to the highest bidder. Imagine being beaten and whipped, and your wife being raped by your white masters as you are forced to watch. Imagine picking cotton from sunup until sundown.
> .


Hey Pooh Bear. The slave trade from off shore was abolished 53 years earlier. Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Course I'm guessing if you're of a younger generation, then your knowledge of history is lacking, but your knowledge of propaganda is huige


----------



## rice paddy daddy

PatriotFlamethrower said:


> Technically, "states rights" was the excuse used by the south to allow them to keep kidnapping African citizens and bringing them over to the USA to be used as slaves.
> 
> Using the U.S. Constitution as justification to commit atrocities against other human beings is NEVER acceptable, in any way.
> 
> By what "Constitutional authority" did the Confederate states have to attack Fort Sumter?
> 
> By what "Constitutional authority" did the slave states have to buy and sell human beings, enslave human beings, and commit atrocities against these human beings?
> 
> Imagine being forced onto a ship with your family and friends, and endure weeks of travel across the ocean in filthy conditions, then land in a strange country, where you, your wife, and your children are sold like pigs and cattle to the highest bidder. Then imagine living in squalor, and your children being taken from you and sold to the highest bidder. Imagine being beaten and whipped, and your wife being raped by your white masters as you are forced to watch. Imagine picking cotton from sunup until sundown.
> 
> Of what value or legitimacy does the U.S. Constitution have if one-third of the country not only ALLOWS these atrocities to take place, but DEFENDS TO THE DEATH their right to commit these atrocities.
> 
> Some of you in this forum are criticizing Lincoln as if he were a war criminal or some kind of a traitor?
> 
> Some of you are waving the U.S. Constitution around as if it were JUSTIFICATION for the HOLOCAUST committed by the southern states prior to the end of the Civil War.
> 
> The price of cotton? State's rights? A power grab by Lincoln? Do the REAL facts of the Civil War make some of you feel THAT uncomfortable, that you resort to this revisionist history nonsense?
> 
> The Civil War was ALL about ending atrocities committed against thousands of people involuntarily living in our country, and punishing those who committed unspeakable atrocities against these people.
> 
> The U.S. Constitution is all about FREEDOM and LIBERTY. How we achieve or restore those basic human rights is less important.
> 
> Some people in here DARE to call ME "racist"? I may be a lot of things, but I am certainly NOT a racist.


No, I am not a racist. However, I was raised in the South during institutionalized "separate but equal" segregation when the KKK rode openly, so I do know what real racism looks like.
I was also educated in the South, in a time when Robert E. Lee's Birthday was a State and school holiday.
You, perhaps were educated in the North, judging by your views.
Was my Southern public school education slanted? Most likely. Was the Northern public school educated slanted? Most likely.
But as my hobby is military history I expanded my education beyond what was taught in public school.

Was Lincoln a traitor? Not to the North. However, while his offenses against the Constitution, such as suspending habeus corpus; the First Amendment protection of free speech against certain newspapers and reporters; the violation of the Tenth Amendment; and other abuses do not rise to the level of treason as described in the Constitution (the only crime specifically mentioned therein), it certainly makes him culpable of illegal acts.


----------



## Slippy

Sasquatch said:


> I only blame the South for Larry the Cable Guy.


He's from Nebraska!


----------



## Slippy

Lively debate, but people PLEASE FOCUS!!!!

There are islamists and illegal aliens at the gate and within, intent on destruction of the American way of life! :armata_PDT_36::stick:


----------



## rice paddy daddy

Slippy said:


> Lively debate, but people PLEASE FOCUS!!!!
> 
> There are islamists and illegal aliens at the gate and within, intent on destruction of the American way of life! :armata_PDT_36::stick:


Sorry, Slippy my good friend.
I agree we have the Enemy At The Gates intent on the destruction of our way of life. And those in the obscenely opulent houses of Congress and the White House.
But the REAL enemies of freedom and Liberty are those that voted for these clowns. There are perhaps as many as 47% of this country that are intent to bring Her down. For their own greed and selfish interests.


----------



## PaulS

Just for some more clarification on the topic of the Civil War... The War of Northern aggression:
President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" *within the rebellious states* "are, and henceforward shall be free." 
Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, *leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory. *
Now tell me again that the war between the states was fought to abolish slavery.

The causes of the Civil War: Top Five Causes of the Civil War - American History
The link above lists the causes of the civil war and #1 on the list is economic. The world economy at the time before the Civil war was based on cotton. The USA produced 77% of the cotton used in England. The Cotton was produced in the south and had to be sold to the merchants in New York for 10 cents a pound. They paid up to 4 cents a pound for shipping and then sold it to the rest of the world for $1.89 per pound. The cotton producers were making the merchants wealthy simply because the producers were not allowed to sell the cotton on the world market without the Northern merchants. The mills in the northern state only paid 14 cents a pound for the cotton, being insulated from the world market price by the federal laws.

Revisionist history is what is for the most part being taught in the schools. If you are interested in the truth you will have to dig a lot deeper than those texts to find the background behind the events.

By the way, I have never lived in the south, I was raised in Washington state. I have no horse in this dog and pony show other than getting to the truth.

NOTE: If the cotton producing states had been allowed to leave the union, the union would have lost 400,000,000 pounds of cotton trade with England - that was worth $792,000,000 in export trade. It would have crippled the union's political and financial position in the world. at the same time it would have made the Confederacy a world power.

The "Emancipation" Proclamation only freed the slaves in the "disruptive" states leaving it firmly in place in others.
The monetary loss to the union would have been devastating both politically and financially to the union.
The Confederate states would have been the new world power if they had been allowed to separate from the union.

How could the abolition of slavery been the reason to fight that war?


----------



## Prepared One

I have lived both in the north and the south. Passions run deep on both side of this issue. ( I learned that the first day I walked into a bar down here and when confronted with the fact that I am from the north by one of my friendly companions from the south declared; Hey, we won the damn war! ) I think there were many reason and motivations involved on both sides. I also believe that had we separated at that time in history neither side would have survived. Each depended on the other to some extent. I believe that when it happened, if it had to, it happened in a perfect place in world history. Just look at the countries going through civil wars now. Never ending carnage and misery for it's people. I believe that in the end, here and now, this country as a whole, needs to stand together and put our house back in order or we won't have to worry who started or even won that war so many years ago. I believe old Slippy is right! There are Muslims to bash and trouble at the gates.


----------



## slewfoot

PatriotFlamethrower said:


> This question is a very interesting one, because MANY events have happened in this country that could be pointed to as the "tipping point" when this country started it's downhill slide.
> 
> I personally believe the tipping point occurred in the 1973 Roe V. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision.
> 
> The Court ruled 7-2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion.
> 
> Thus, the highest court in the land decided to give pregnant women the right to play God.
> 
> The result? Over 57 MILLION U.S. citizens have been legally exterminated since 1973.
> 
> Of these 57 million people, how many would have grown up to become scientists, doctors, engineers, etc.? How many would have made positive contributions to our society? How many would have been sports stars? How many would have been productive, law-abiding citizens?
> 
> And what of the CHILDREN of these 57 million people? How many children were never born because their parents were exterminated before THEY were born?
> 
> What would the population of the USA be if abortion had remained illegal? 500 million, or more?
> 
> The bottom line is...............when the greatest common denominator of our country, the preservation of human life, was discounted and discarded, and women were given the legal "right" to end the lives of their unborn children, our country suffered a terminal breakdown of morality, responsibility, civility, and conscience.
> 
> At least that is my opinion.
> 
> What say the rest of you?


Sorry patriot but I must disagree with you.
1. women have every right to decide what happens with their bodies.

2. how many of those 57 million would grow up to be murderers, terrorists, Rapist's ? The list is endless.

3. How many of your number of 500 million would also become murderers,terrorists, and rapists ?

This country has been on a down hill slide for years, Jimmy carter kicked it into high gear and every democratic president since him has did their best to keep the momentum going.


----------



## Slippy

Prepared One said:


> ...I believe old Slippy is right! There are Muslims to bash and trouble at the gates.


(Slippy wipes the tears of happiness from his eyes)

My very good friend Prepared One;

Truer words were never spoken :joyous:...and yes, there are indeed muslimes to bash and trouble at the gates. :stick:


----------



## Gunner's Mate

Licoln, Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, Bush II, Obama
Slavery, Leaving the Gold Standard, Welfare, Foreign Aid, Govt Subsidies, Executive Action, The Patriot Act, the 1968 firearms act, the 1986 NFA, Legalizing Pot, Kent State, The Patriot Act, the War on Terror, The War on drugs, The Lie about Climate change, the list goes on. THERE IS NO ONE DEFINING MOMENT if there is one it is THE HIPPIE MOVEMENT

Women have killed more than all the combined deaths of US Soilders in all conflicts including and since the Revolutionary War

Number of Deaths of US Soilders in all conflicts including and since the Revolutionary War 1,354,664
Number of Deaths by Abortion since 1973 Roe V Wade 57,000,000


----------



## Ripon

And too many by invitation



Slippy said:


> Lively debate, but people PLEASE FOCUS!!!!
> 
> There are islamists and illegal aliens at the gate and within, intent on destruction of the American way of life! :armata_PDT_36::stick:


----------



## Sasquatch

Slippy said:


> He's from Nebraska!


You, my friend, are too smart for your own good. *Making mental note* Slippy is now on "The List".



Slippy said:


> Lively debate, but people PLEASE FOCUS!!!!
> 
> There are islamists and illegal aliens at the gate and within, intent on destruction of the American way of life! :armata_PDT_36::stick:


Agreed.


----------



## Slippy

Ripon said:


> And too many by invitation


Right you are Uncle Ripon, right you are.

S-L-I-P-P-Y


----------



## PatriotFlamethrower

SARGE7402 said:


> Hey Pooh Bear. The slave trade from off shore was abolished 53 years earlier. Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Course I'm guessing if you're of a younger generation, then your knowledge of history is lacking, but your knowledge of propaganda is huige


Hey, Eeyore, you didn't read enough of your Wikipedia (now there's a great source) link. Here is some additional information.

The 1807 Act ended the legality of all international slave trade with the U.S. However, it was not always well enforced and slaves continued to be imported in limited numbers. The institution of slavery continued in the United States until the end of the Civil War and the adoption of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. The domestic trade was so extensive that more than one million slaves were forcibly transported from the Upper South to the Deep South in the antebellum years; some were transported by ship in the coastwise trade; others by steamboat on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, and others had to walk in coffles overland.

I never mentioned ANY timeframe of when most of the slaves were imported into the United States.

But, as ANYBODY can see, slavery was a large "commodity" market in the south.

Oh, by the way, I am closing in on SIXTY (60) years old. This revisionist history and hand-wringing is sickening.

"Older" people who received a "normal" education, before the public schools became social indoctrination centers, have not had their brains cluttered with "alternative" historical theories.


----------



## Prepadoodle

I'm gonna have to go with December 23, 1913.

The enactment of the Federal Reserve Act gave the government and it's cronies a license to steal, and they have been robbing us ever since.

This should make you sick...


----------



## PatriotFlamethrower

rice paddy daddy said:


> No, I am not a racist. However, I was raised in the South during institutionalized "separate but equal" segregation when the KKK rode openly, so I do know what real racism looks like.
> I was also educated in the South, in a time when Robert E. Lee's Birthday was a State and school holiday.
> You, perhaps were educated in the North, judging by your views.
> Was my Southern public school education slanted? Most likely. Was the Northern public school educated slanted? Most likely.
> But as my hobby is military history I expanded my education beyond what was taught in public school.
> 
> Was Lincoln a traitor? Not to the North. However, while his offenses against the Constitution, such as suspending habeus corpus; the First Amendment protection of free speech against certain newspapers and reporters; the violation of the Tenth Amendment; and other abuses do not rise to the level of treason as described in the Constitution (the only crime specifically mentioned therein), it certainly makes him culpable of illegal acts.


I never called YOU a racist. I was not raised in the north or the south. I was raised in the WEST. Arizona, to be exact.

I also happen to be a voracious reader and researcher of U.S. history.

I am SHOCKED that so many people in this forum are willing to sweep the atrocities of slavery under the rug, and put a target on Abraham Lincoln's chest.

Unbelievable, and very disappointing. This whole topic is proof positive of what DAMAGE the internet has done to how people process the information they receive from the internet.

It reminds me of the old joke about the National Enquirer, "if you read about it in the National Enquirer, it MUST be true!"


----------



## PatriotFlamethrower

PaulS said:


> Just for some more clarification on the topic of the Civil War... The War of Northern aggression:
> President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" *within the rebellious states* "are, and henceforward shall be free."
> Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, *leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory. *
> Now tell me again that the war between the states was fought to abolish slavery.
> 
> The causes of the Civil War: Top Five Causes of the Civil War - American History
> The link above lists the causes of the civil war and #1 on the list is economic. The world economy at the time before the Civil war was based on cotton. The USA produced 77% of the cotton used in England. The Cotton was produced in the south and had to be sold to the merchants in New York for 10 cents a pound. They paid up to 4 cents a pound for shipping and then sold it to the rest of the world for $1.89 per pound. The cotton producers were making the merchants wealthy simply because the producers were not allowed to sell the cotton on the world market without the Northern merchants. The mills in the northern state only paid 14 cents a pound for the cotton, being insulated from the world market price by the federal laws.
> 
> Revisionist history is what is for the most part being taught in the schools. If you are interested in the truth you will have to dig a lot deeper than those texts to find the background behind the events.
> 
> By the way, I have never lived in the south, I was raised in Washington state. I have no horse in this dog and pony show other than getting to the truth.
> 
> NOTE: If the cotton producing states had been allowed to leave the union, the union would have lost 400,000,000 pounds of cotton trade with England - that was worth $792,000,000 in export trade. It would have crippled the union's political and financial position in the world. at the same time it would have made the Confederacy a world power.
> 
> The "Emancipation" Proclamation only freed the slaves in the "disruptive" states leaving it firmly in place in others.
> The monetary loss to the union would have been devastating both politically and financially to the union.
> The Confederate states would have been the new world power if they had been allowed to separate from the union.
> 
> How could the abolition of slavery been the reason to fight that war?


Just for the record, January 1, 1863 would have approaching the SECOND year of the Civil War.


----------



## Kauboy

Something needs to be clarified here.
Firstly, slavery was the reason that the south decided to secede. Lincoln won the election without carrying a single southern state, and they felt the president did NOT represent them, and decided to secede from the nation. Go back and reread your Declaration of Independence, and you can see that the founders believed it was the right of the people to dissolve their governments when a time came that the government became destructive to their rights of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".
They felt Lincoln's election was an attack on their liberty, and chose to do something about it.
We can hold our own opinions about whether they were right in doing so for the purpose of maintaining slavery, or not, but that is beside the point of this discussion.
They seceded because Lincoln was elected and threatened their way of life.

Now...
The war is another matter.
After the south seceded, that should have been that. They could go on about their way doing whatever they wanted, as a sovereign nation should be allowed.
However, they were not allowed such luxury. Lincoln decided to wage a war against this new entity in order to reacquire it. His purpose for doing so is IRRELEVANT. He started an illegal war to reclaim the states that left. The Confederacy was never recognized as a nation by the Union, thus creating a loophole through which to attack the south without formal congressional declaration. (convenient?)
Did Lincoln go to war for economic reasons? Is it justified to attack a neighbor for economic gain?
Did he do it for philanthropic reasons to fee the slaves? Is this justified? If no, then why did he attack? If yes, then why didn't he attack other slave holding nations as well?
Like I said, his reasoning is IRRELEVANT.
He started a war to reacquire the states, not to abolish slavery.
If it were to abolish slavery, he could have done that, forced the treaty declaring the holding of slaves to no longer be legal, and NOT reacquired the Confederacy.
By taking back the states via war, he technically lead an imperialistic endeavor.
As a nation founded on anti-imperialism(no longer wanting to be a territory of a far off king), this *should* have been quite a shock.

So, he did NOT go to war to free slaves, but the states DID secede in order to keep slaves. (moral judgements aside)
Clear as mud?

As a bit of historical comic relief, in his inaugural address, Lincoln stated that he would NOT INITIATE A CIVIL WAR.:-?


----------



## rice paddy daddy

And it may surprise some Americans that President Lincoln is not universally worshipped in this country.
In fact, there are still those who consider him a scalawag.


----------



## PatriotFlamethrower

rice paddy daddy said:


> And it may surprise some Americans that President Lincoln is not universally worshipped in this country.
> In fact, there are still those who consider him a scalawag.


It's always so much easier to put events under a microscope and over-analyze history.

I find it interesting that not a WORD has been spoken about FDR's World War 2 expansion of powers, including the suspension of habeas corpus, the internment of thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent, the rationing of food for all U.S. citizens, and various other wartime "necessities".

Oh, by the way, Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

I would certainly characterize secession from the United States and firing on a U.S. military installation as acts of "rebellion" and "invasion of public safety". Lincoln had EVERY right to suspend habeas corpus.

Why no mention of Grant, FDR, Truman, Clinton, and G.W. Bush and their suspension of habeas corpus during their Presidencies?

Why the pig-piling on Abraham Lincoln? I honestly don't get it.

I don't "worship" ANY man. I worship God.

The only "scalawag" President that I know of that got assassinated, was John F. Kennedy.


----------



## Maine-Marine

There have been many..but I want to mention a less popular one... Now before you explode..sit back and think about this...

Giving women the right to vote....

Women usually do not vote for Economic things.. they are (for the most part) driven by emotion knee jerk things... I know many that vote just to keep abortion legal...and in truth the President (besides selecting a SC Judge) has nothing to do with the issue...

I think this explains it best


----------



## Hemi45

I love that video! While there is truth in it's message I disagree about women voting. There are no shortage of stupid people voting, women and men alike, but think of all the problems/upheaval there'd be if any segment of society was locked out of the decision making process. I just wish that more people would understand the gravity of the decisions they make via the votes they cast.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper

rice paddy daddy said:


> And it may surprise some Americans that President Lincoln is not universally worshipped in this country.
> In fact, there are still those who consider him a scalawag.


We live in a country that builds temples to dead politicians.

Think about that for a moment.

If you think I exaggerate, here is the wording from the inside of the Lincoln Memorial:

"In this temple, as in the hearts of the people for whom he saved the Union, the memory of Abraham Lincoln is enshrined forever."

A supersized giant Lincoln sits on his thrown decorated with Fasces. If you don't know what those are, let me help:

Fasces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Deebo

Simple, the country went to shit, when men decided to stop shooting tax collectors and instead, sit around and bitch about taxes. 
Debating over trillions, when the first battles were over pennies and an intrusive govt. 
Our forefathers are throwing up in their graves.


----------



## Maine-Marine

Hemi45 said:


> I love that video! While there is truth in it's message I disagree about women voting. There are no shortage of stupid people voting, women and men alike, but think of all the problems/upheaval there'd be if any segment of society was locked out of the decision making process. I just wish that more people would understand the gravity of the decisions they make via the votes they cast.


I was not saying women were stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was pointing out they were (many of them) One issue voters


----------



## James m

I wish people would study the issues before they voted. Too much Hollywood TV voters, people that like his hair or the way he speaks.


----------



## PatriotFlamethrower

Maine-Marine said:


> I was not saying women were stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I was pointing out they were (many of them) One issue voters


I believe that ALL registered voters should be required to take an IQ test AND the U.S. citizenship test.

I also believe that ALL registered voters should be able to speak and read ENGLISH.

As for women voting, I have told my own wife MANY times that women should not be allowed to vote in Presidential elections. She AGREES with me!

It's not a question of intelligence. It is the emotional makeup of females, and the female tendency to be disinterested in most things related to politics.

Let's face it, JFK got elected because of the FEMALE vote (he was so handsome!), and Bill Clinton got elected for the same reason.


----------



## James m

I followed flamethrower till he said about women not voting, would you say women don't have a 2nd amendment right because of emotional makeup and a general disinterest in firearms?


----------



## Hemi45

PatriotFlamethrower said:


> As for women voting, I have told my own wife MANY times that women should not be allowed to vote in Presidential elections. She AGREES with me!
> 
> It's not a question of intelligence. It is the emotional makeup of females, and the female tendency to be disinterested in most things related to politics.


Wow, your enlightenment leaves me in awe. So, after you drag the little woman back to the cave by her hair, what's she cooking for dinner tonight?


----------



## Maine-Marine

PatriotFlamethrower said:


> I believe that ALL registered voters should be required to take an IQ test AND the U.S. citizenship test.
> 
> I also believe that ALL registered voters should be able to speak and read ENGLISH.
> 
> As for women voting, I have told my own wife MANY times that women should not be allowed to vote in Presidential elections. She AGREES with me!
> 
> It's not a question of intelligence. It is the emotional makeup of females, and the female tendency to be disinterested in most things related to politics.
> 
> Let's face it, JFK got elected because of the FEMALE vote (he was so handsome!), and Bill Clinton got elected for the same reason.


I agree. It has nothing to do with women being stupid or me being old fashion or ignorant... I see women voting for a person based on 1 issue...

I once ask a couple of women... would you vote for somebody if you knew that they would balance the budget, get unemployment to under 2%, stop all wars, have a solid health care plan for everybody...BUT make abortion illegal after the 20 week.....

the vast majority would NOT vote for that person....

I love women - But their reasoning behind who they or what they vote for is not the best long term good....


----------



## Maine-Marine

James m said:


> I followed flamethrower till he said about women not voting, would you say women don't have a 2nd amendment right because of emotional makeup and a general disinterest in firearms?


Say What - I think the the two are much different in nature....


----------



## James m

They are both rights in this democratic nation?
That's like saying I don't agree with you so you can't vote.


----------



## Maine-Marine

James m said:


> They are both rights in this democratic nation?
> That's like saying I don't agree with you so you can't vote.


I said they mess up the system because they vote for the wrong reasons... Now if women start shooting people for the wrong reasons..you can compare the two...but until then your comparison is mistake...

And we are *NOT* A DEMOCRATIC nation - WE ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC - Maybe you should not be voting either!!!!!


----------



## James m

They may vote for the wrong reasons. I'm not gonna make headway here am I? Oh well.


----------



## James m

OK OK. I don't agree with you, so I'm taking away your right to vote. That is all. Thank you.


----------



## PatriotFlamethrower

Hemi45 said:


> Wow, your enlightenment leaves me in awe. So, after you drag the little woman back to the cave by her hair, what's she cooking for dinner tonight?


As many people in here believe, the MAJOR hot button issue for women is preserving their "right" to play God..........to act like Roman Empresses who give the thumbs up or thumbs down to unborn babies.

Do you want these type of people determining who the POTUS is?

American WOMEN have presided over the most horrific HOLOCAUST in the history of the world...................57+ million unborn babies exterminated, with 99+% of those unborn babies being exterminated FOR NO LEGITIMATE REASON.


----------



## refill1961

i STILL BELIEVE WHAT MY PARENTS TAUGHT ME, YOU'LL GET WHAT YOU WANT FROM LIFE IF YOU HELP ENOUGH OTHER PEOPLE GET WHAT THEY WANT, I STILL LIVE EVERYDAY WITH THAT IN MIND. THAT BEING SAID, I BELIEVE THAT AMERICA WENT TO HELL IN A HANDBAG WHEN THE AMERICAN MALE GAVE UP THEIR INTEGRITY. WHEN MEN COULD NO LONGER LOOK EACH OTHER IN THE EYE, STAND BACK TO BACK OR SHOULDER TO SHOULDER WHEN CALLED UPON, WHEN MEN STARTED LOOKING AFTER THEMSELVES INSTEAD OF THOSE AROUND THEM. AMERICA WENT TO HELL WHEN IT BECAME A "ME" PLACE TO BE. PEOPLE SHOULD REALIZE THAT NO ONE MAN OR ONE PERSON STANDS A CHANCE IN TODAY'S WORLD, MUCH LESS THE WORLD OF TOMORROW. WE ALL NEED TO FIND A WAY BACK TO THE TIME WHEN MEN WOULD SACRIFICE THEMSELVES FOR OTHERS, UP TO AND INCLUDING THEIR LIVES.


----------



## refill1961

As far as voting goes, everyone should go to the poles and vote at every opportunity. Go and vote for whoever is running that is not republican or democrat. It doesn't matter who or what it is as long as it is not democrat or republican.


----------



## PaulS

I vote #3... I vote for the constitution, I vote my conscience, I vote Libertarian. Personal freedoms, personal liberties, personal rights and personal responsibility.


----------



## SARGE7402

refill1961 said:


> As far as voting goes, everyone should go to the poles and vote at every opportunity. Go and vote for whoever is running that is not republican or democrat. It doesn't matter who or what it is as long as it is not democrat or republican.


Great guarantee to elect someone like hildebeast.

If you're going to thriw away your vote stay home and leave this to the grown ups


----------



## PaulS

SARGE7402 said:


> Great guarantee to elect someone like hildebeast.
> 
> If you're going to thriw away your vote stay home and leave this to the grown ups


Sarge,
Voting for republicans gets you the same power hungry, big government, rights robbers that the democrats provide. (they may had done it slower in the past but they are picking up speed!
I still love the constitution and the republic. I simply can't vote for its demise.


----------



## Maine-Marine

James m said:


> OK OK. I don't agree with you, so I'm taking away your right to vote. That is all. Thank you.


I never said we should take away their right to vote.... I was pointing out their ONE TRACK/SUBJECT voting screws things up.

I agree with the women that vote pro-life....BUt it still is bad that they are ONE SUBJECT voters

the OP was about nthe decline in the country... I put forth that women voting was one of the reasons... I think I am right..If you honestly think they have NO IMPACT you have your head buried in the sand.. the democrats court lady voters like a high school senior guy trying to lose his virginity on prom night...


----------



## James m

I was replying to comments and not to the OP at that time. I read it but forgot which thread. I can go either way with voting. You either get two choices or a third choice with no chance of winning the election. I often say the third party never wins but I am registered as non partisan myself.


----------



## Slippy

I'm sick of the disgusting republicans who have sold us out time and time again over the past 30 years or so. Shame on us, and shame on the likes of John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John McCain etc etc etc.


----------



## PaulS

Get out the hot tar and feathers!


----------



## Arklatex

I'll have to agree that we started REALLY swirling the drain when the Red Blooded American Male was put on the critically endangered list. The RBAM had a good work ethic, a strong sense of Patriotism, and a little common sense.

Nowadays? That's rare. A large portion of our society has been infected by liberal, entitled, not my fault, everyone gets a trophy mindsets... I see it everyday.


----------



## PaulS

So, does that mean we are an endangered species? (no more taking pot shots at one another?)


----------



## William Warren

PatriotFlamethrower said:


> This question is a very interesting one, because MANY events have happened in this country that could be pointed to as the "tipping point" when this country started it's downhill slide.
> 
> I personally believe the tipping point occurred in the 1973 Roe V. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision.


It is an interesting question, and you're right: many events come to mind.

The court is in the worst possible position: the justices are bookworms who slogged through law school, served for years on lower courts, and were then anointed and placed on high because of political agendas and pressures they could never even guess at. They've been accorded respect because of their positions at the highest level of our government, despite the fact that they haven't the vaguest idea how to stretch a document written before the invention of the telegraph to cover the aftereffects of the inventions of penicillin, anesthesia, and non-invasive surgery. That they chose wrongly is as obvious as the fact that they are unequipped to choose at all: they are the dumping ground for every hot-potato issue which the charlatans of Washington are trying to sweep under a homespun rug.

I don't think Roe v. Wade was the tipping point. Don't get me wrong: it was a pivotal moment in our history, but our problems started long before that.

I'll keep this short: I don't want to start a riot with my first post.

William Warren


----------



## Maine-Marine

I do not have time or the desire to correct all the errors and issues with your FIRST post on this forum...

I am hoping that you were just a little drunk when you posted this and not (as it seems) a "weak willed blame everything on the 1%" who really are footing the bill for all the welfare, social programs, food stamps, and other Democratic voting getting tools...

Oh - welcome to the forum - try and keep your answers to under 1500 words


----------



## PatriotFlamethrower

Maine-Marine said:


> I never said we should take away their right to vote.... I was pointing out their ONE TRACK/SUBJECT voting screws things up.
> 
> I agree with the women that vote pro-life....BUt it still is bad that they are ONE SUBJECT voters
> 
> the OP was about nthe decline in the country... I put forth that women voting was one of the reasons... I think I am right..If you honestly think they have NO IMPACT you have your head buried in the sand.. the democrats court lady voters like a high school senior guy trying to lose his virginity on prom night...


The Democrats also court black voters, illegal alien voters, unregistered voters, and DEAD voters.


----------



## Hemi45

PatriotFlamethrower said:


> As many people in here believe, the MAJOR hot button issue for women is preserving their "right" to play God..........to act like Roman Empresses who give the thumbs up or thumbs down to unborn babies.
> 
> Do you want these type of people determining who the POTUS is?
> 
> American WOMEN have presided over the most horrific HOLOCAUST in the history of the world...................57+ million unborn babies exterminated, with 99+% of those unborn babies being exterminated FOR NO LEGITIMATE REASON.


I know a good many women who are conservative and vote pro life. I also believe (though I may, at times, wish differently) that every person deserves to cast their vote. Should gun owners be barred from voting because we seek to elect those who will honor our 2A rights? I'm rather certain that on some other forums that's exactly what people are saying. I have a great respect for life and love/respect/fear of God. However, just because I disagree with how another person lives and votes doesn't give me the right to deprive them of theirs. I may or may not "know better" than the person next to me on election day but their vote, "right or wrong", counts just as much as mine; man or woman.


----------



## TacticalCanuck

Kennedy's assassination was when it went public. It was in the pooper before that. Just the plans are so old and well constructed I bet the awakening that's happened was even accounted for. They've been trying to condemn "conspiracy theorists" for a long time now. And low and behold how many weren't theories after the fact.


----------



## Boss Dog

June 25, 1962
Engel v. Vitale

June 17, 1963; 
Abington School District v. Schempp
Murray v. Curlett

We've been sliding downhill ever since.


----------



## Slippy

Salt-N-Pepper said:


> We live in a country that builds temples to dead politicians.
> 
> Think about that for a moment.
> 
> If you think I exaggerate, here is the wording from the inside of the Lincoln Memorial:
> 
> "In this temple, as in the hearts of the people for whom he saved the Union, the memory of Abraham Lincoln is enshrined forever."
> 
> A supersized giant Lincoln sits on his thrown decorated with Fasces. If you don't know what those are, let me help:
> 
> Fasces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Excellent point that I've never really thought about. So after thinking about it, I started recalling the many places that have "temple's" or "shrines" to these dead politicians who, generally speaking, all played a role in diminishing liberty and growing government. Sure some did goood things and were good people but they are not royalty. It's obvious that many people today treat politicians as if they were royalty. That is Ironic when you remember one of the reasons the USA was founded.


----------



## Maine-Marine

Hemi45 said:


> every person deserves to cast their vote.


WHy?? please explain why they deserve it


----------



## Slippy

Maine-Marine said:


> WHy?? please explain why they deserve it


Repeal and replace the 26th Amendment and make voting age much higher?
AMENDMENT XXVI

Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.

Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


----------



## Maine-Marine

Slippy said:


> Repeal and replace the 26th Amendment and make voting age much higher?
> AMENDMENT XXVI
> 
> Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.
> 
> Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.
> 
> Section 1.
> The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
> 
> Section 2.
> The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Having permission (or legal standing) does not equal "deserving"

I let my kids do things they sometimes do not deserve..

Who DESERVES a vote.. that is a good topic for another thread


----------



## tango

Just a question--- why does any discussion about politics, the Government, the country, come down to abortion??
It cannot be THE deciding issue of our country.


----------



## PatriotFlamethrower

Slippy said:


> Excellent point that I've never really thought about. So after thinking about it, I started recalling the many places that have "temple's" or "shrines" to these dead politicians who, generally speaking, all played a role in diminishing liberty and growing government. Sure some did goood things and were good people but they are not royalty. It's obvious that many people today treat politicians as if they were royalty. That is Ironic when you remember one of the reasons the USA was founded.


This country builds "temples" for a helluva more than just "politicians".

We build "temples" for sports teams and sports "stars". Now THERE are some "deserving" people.

We build "temples" for wars, won and lost.

There are thousands of statues and memorials all over this country to commemorate individuals and events in U.S. history.

Why single out politicians?


----------



## Murphy

John D Rockefeller


----------



## Smitty901

Salt-N-Pepper said:


> Wash your mouth out with soap for cussing, Smitty!


 Sad part I voted for him. I had believed he was an honest man. I did not know he was an fool, that would allow the democrats to start a major destruction of this country.


----------



## James m

January 20, 2009.
The day Barry Soetoro assumed office.


----------



## oldgrouch

It is hard to pin down one cause. There are so many great candidates to pick from. Patriots (leaders who put nation first) no longer exist ---- just professional, egocentric politicians for whom the party and personal interests come before country. Things are soooo FUBARed.


----------



## Maine-Marine

tango said:


> Just a question--- why does any discussion about politics, the Government, the country, come down to abortion??
> It cannot be THE deciding issue of our country.


did you read MY post... I said that MANY women vote based on this issue.... I was not saying it was a overall deciding factor.... nor did anybody else...

The deciding factor is reading comprehension


----------



## Maine-Marine

oldgrouch said:


> It is hard to pin down one cause. There are so many great candidates to pick from. Patriots (leaders who put nation first) no longer exist ---- just professional, egocentric politicians for whom the party and personal interests come before country. Things are soooo FUBARed.


the last person that I thought was above politics and really wanted to turn things around... Ross Perot - I voted for him


----------



## PatriotFlamethrower

Maine-Marine said:


> the last person that I thought was above politics and really wanted to turn things around... Ross Perot - I voted for him


I liked Ross Perot, too, at first.

Then I found out that he became a multimillionaire because of the big fat government contracts his company received.

Then he became the chief reason why Clinton beat GHW Bush in 1992, because he split the Republican vote.

So thanks, Ross, for giving us EIGHT years of Slick Willie!


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper

Maine-Marine said:


> I agree. It has nothing to do with women being stupid or me being old fashion or ignorant... I see women voting for a person based on 1 issue...
> 
> I once ask a couple of women... would you vote for somebody if you knew that they would balance the budget, get unemployment to under 2%, stop all wars, have a solid health care plan for everybody...BUT make abortion illegal after the 20 week.....
> 
> the vast majority would NOT vote for that person....
> 
> I love women - But their reasoning behind who they or what they vote for is not the best long term good....


Would you vote for somebody if you knew that they would balance the budget, get unemployment to under 2%, stop all wars, have a solid health care plan for everybody...BUT make abortion on demand legal until Birth.

Separately, a second question. Would you vote for a Muslim for president?

Please note, these are binary questions, just like voting is binary... the answers are yes, or no.

(BTW I am pro-life, this isn't an expression of my opinion. I just want to ask the questions)


----------



## Slippy

I really need to read other people's posts in their entirety, but are we voting for requiring all muslimes to have mandatory abortions? :-|


----------



## Kauboy

PatriotFlamethrower said:


> Why the pig-piling on Abraham Lincoln? I honestly don't get it.


Lincoln stands out among the rest of the trash for one primary reason, for me anyways.
He's the only one to have ever waged war AGAINST AMERICANS. (yeah yeah, secession, confederacy, blah blah... they were still Americans by birth)


----------



## ekim

Kauboy said:


> Lincoln stands out among the rest of the trash for one primary reason, for me anyways.
> He's the only one to have ever waged war AGAINST AMERICANS. (yeah yeah, secession, confederacy, blah blah... they were still Americans by birth)


I agree and IMO, it's not piling on when it the truth. The killing of American citizens just to keep the Federal government in power / control. This dam government will go to war to help foreign countries break away from the governments that want to control them and take way their rights, but heaven forbid the Federal stand behind the American citizen for the same cause.

FDR did the same thing during the depression against the Vets, he sent in the military to put them down. Some say he even allowed Japan to attack Pearl Harbor without trying to fight back just so we could get into WWII. Another fine example of our government looking out for it's self and screw the citizens.


----------



## tango

MM, I did read your post.
I just asked a question
Does anyone really think that the point at which our country started on the slide was the R v Wade decision?


----------



## Hemi45

Kauboy said:


> Lincoln stands out among the rest of the trash for one primary reason, for me anyways.
> *He's the only one to have ever waged war AGAINST AMERICANS.* (yeah yeah, secession, confederacy, blah blah... they were still Americans by birth)


Give the current one time - it's not 2017 yet!


----------



## William Warren

tango said:


> Just a question--- why does any discussion about politics, the Government, the country, come down to abortion??
> It cannot be THE deciding issue of our country.


That, sir, is a very good question.

My personal opinion is that it's because voters are frustrated by the way politicians of every stripe use "Abortion" as a convenient banner to parade behind - and a convenient thing to hide behind. The pols know that there's nothing they can do to prohibit abortion, short of passing a constitutional amendment, and they like it that way. They'll tell any voter exactly what they want to hear, and when push comes to shove and a voter demands that they actually do something, they'll say "The Supreme Court tied our hands" and go back to sipping their martinis.

William Warren


----------



## Charles Martel

1913 was the year we became slaves. It is the year we allowed a consortium of privately owned banks to dictate monetary policy and control interest rates, and the year our elected representatives voted to alter the constitution in order to directly tax our income. We have not been a truly free people since.

There's very little question...we lost our republic in 1913.


----------



## azrancher

1932

*Rancher*


----------



## PatriotFlamethrower

William Warren said:


> That, sir, is a very good question.
> 
> My personal opinion is that it's because voters are frustrated by the way politicians of every stripe use "Abortion" as a convenient banner to parade behind - and a convenient thing to hide behind. The pols know that there's nothing they can do to prohibit abortion, short of passing a constitutional amendment, and they like it that way. They'll tell any voter exactly what they want to hear, and when push comes to shove and a voter demands that they actually do something, they'll say "The Supreme Court tied our hands" and go back to sipping their martinis.
> 
> William Warren


I don't believe that abortion is much of a "hot button" issue anymore. There are "pro-life" people and "pro-choice" (or as I call them, "pro-death") people.

The liberals have found a convenient way to deal with the abortion issue. They now state that "I am personally against abortion, but I believe that women should have the right to choose".

When I started this topic, I stated that I believe that Roe v. Wade was the tipping point when this country lost it's conscience, it's soul, and it's individual responsibility. That is my opinion.


----------



## PatriotFlamethrower

azrancher said:


> 1932
> 
> *Rancher*


1932........the beginning of the "Age Of Entitlement".


----------



## Prepared One

Charles Martel said:


> 1913 was the year we became slaves. It is the year we allowed a consortium of privately owned banks to dictate monetary policy and control interest rates, and the year our elected representatives voted to alter the constitution in order to directly tax our income. We have not been a truly free people since.
> 
> There's very little question...we lost our republic in 1913.


Good point. However, I think it was a string of events rather then one specific thing. We didn't lose our Republic. We gave it away a little at the time.


----------



## Charles Martel

Prepared One said:


> Good point. However, I think it was a string of events rather then one specific thing. We didn't lose our Republic. We gave it away a little at the time.


I think in many cases it has been stolen from us. Americans have been the proverbial trusting shop keeper. We are partially to blame for the theft of our birth right, but, at the end of the day I ultimately blame the criminals that have stolen our birth right.


----------



## Raven

I agree that in the moral demise was greatly enhanced by the legalization of the murder of the innocents. I believe that the New Deal was the culmination of years of effort and strategic manipulation. When did it start? With the election of George Washington. I also believe that we are getting exactly what we deserve. They would never be able to do it if we safeguarded our liberties are we were warned to do.


----------



## SARGE7402

Charles Martel said:


> I think in many cases it has been stolen from us. Americans have been the proverbial trusting shop keeper. We are partially to blame for the theft of our birth right, but, at the end of the day I ultimately blame the criminals that have stolen our birth right.


You know CM you are mostly logical and well reasoned except when It comes to certain laws enacted legally mind you by the folks that were elected at that time.

Instead of simply whining about it run for office and change things.


----------



## PatriotFlamethrower

Charles Martel said:


> I think in many cases it has been stolen from us. Americans have been the proverbial trusting shop keeper. We are partially to blame for the theft of our birth right, but, at the end of the day I ultimately blame the criminals that have stolen our birth right.


It's much easier to steal from a majority of water-brained dunces.


----------



## Prepared One

Charles Martel said:


> I think in many cases it has been stolen from us. Americans have been the proverbial trusting shop keeper. We are partially to blame for the theft of our birth right, but, at the end of the day I ultimately blame the criminals that have stolen our birth right.


Ohhhh Make no mistake. We were complicit in our own demise. No doubt.


----------



## William Warren

PatriotFlamethrower said:


> The liberals have found a convenient way to deal with the abortion issue. They now state that "I am personally against abortion, but I believe that women should have the right to choose".
> 
> When I started this topic, I stated that I believe that Roe v. Wade was the tipping point when this country lost it's conscience, it's soul, and it's individual responsibility. That is my opinion.


I don't like abortion: I think it's proper for those women whom make a choice to risk pregnancy to bear the burden of that choice. But, in Bismark's immortal words, "Politics is the art of the possible" - and it will *always* be possible for women to obtain abortions. There are, after all, always back alleys; always vicious people willing to shed blood for money.

The question, then, is whether the abortions which are available will be done safely, by licensed professionals whom are accountable to oversight and peer review, and have insurance to compensate patients if they make a mistake.

It's no good to sit on the sidelines and say "I like one thing but want the other" - unless you're choosing ice cream - and we all have to decide what the alternative to those back alleys will be.

Politics is indeed the art of the possible, and it will always be possible for the rich and well-connected to jet their way to another country where abortions are legal. That leaves the working class - that's you and me - with a choice between the rock of ages and a hardscrabble back alley. "Be careful," so goes the saying, "of what you wish for". The only accurate predictor of success in surgery is the total number of the same procedure which a surgeon has performed.

William Warren
Copyright (C) 2015 William Warren. All Rights Reserved.


----------



## PatriotFlamethrower

Prepared One said:


> Good point. However, I think it was a string of events rather then one specific thing. We didn't lose our Republic. We gave it away a little at the time.


Death by a thousand cuts. Excellent point!


----------



## PatriotFlamethrower

William Warren said:


> I don't like abortion: I think it's proper for those women whom make a choice to risk pregnancy to bear the burden of that choice. But, in Bismark's immortal words, "Politics is the art of the possible" - and it will *always* be possible for women to obtain abortions. There are, after all, always back alleys; always vicious people willing to shed blood for money.
> 
> The question, then, is whether the abortions which are available will be done safely, by licensed professionals whom are accountable to oversight and peer review, and have insurance to compensate patients if they make a mistake.
> 
> It's no good to sit on the sidelines and say "I like one thing but want the other" - unless you're choosing ice cream - and we all have to decide what the alternative to those back alleys will be.
> 
> Politics is indeed the art of the possible, and it will always be possible for the rich and well-connected to jet their way to another country where abortions are legal. That leaves the working class - that's you and me - with a choice between the rock of ages and a hardscrabble back alley. "Be careful," so goes the saying, "of what you wish for". The only accurate predictor of success in surgery is the total number of the same procedure which a surgeon has performed.
> 
> William Warren
> Copyright (C) 2015 William Warren. All Rights Reserved.


Your reasoning is the same bizarre, and frankly irresponsible, reasoning that the pro-abortionists have used for decades. "Back alley" abortions, and rich versus poor, and all of the other excuses that led the Supreme Court to sanction infanticide in 1973.

Are there any statistics for the instances of "back-alley" abortions? How about statistics for the number of deaths due to "back-alley" abortions?

So a few desperate females, who don't accept reproductive responsibility for their actions, die from "back alley" abortions, and this justifies the murder of over 57 million unborn babies?

Let's ensure that the irresponsible, can't-be-bothered-with-a-baby females receive top medical care when they decide to kill their babies, and in the process 57 million unborn babies will die "safely"? I would describe that as GHOULISH, at best.

How about women, and the men who impregnate them, accept responsibility for their sexual promiscuity, and not be allowed to use "safe" infanticide as a method of BIRTH CONTROL?


----------



## Hemi45

PatriotFlamethrower said:


> Your reasoning is the same bizarre, and frankly irresponsible, reasoning that the pro-abortionists have used for decades. "Back alley" abortions, and rich versus poor, and all of the other excuses that led the Supreme Court to sanction infanticide in 1973.
> 
> Are there any statistics for the instances of "back-alley" abortions? How about statistics for the number of deaths due to "back-alley" abortions?
> 
> So a few desperate females, who don't accept reproductive responsibility for their actions, die from "back alley" abortions, and this justifies the murder of over 57 million unborn babies?
> 
> Let's ensure that the irresponsible, can't-be-bothered-with-a-baby females receive top medical care when they decide to kill their babies, and in the process 57 million unborn babies will die "safely"? I would describe that as GHOULISH, at best.
> 
> *How about women, and the men who impregnate them, accept responsibility for their sexual promiscuity, and not be allowed to use "safe" infanticide as a method of BIRTH CONTROL?*


From your lips to God's ears! Sadly, it will never happen.


----------



## Kauboy

William Warren said:


> I don't like abortion: I think it's proper for those women whom make a choice to risk pregnancy to bear the burden of that choice. But, in Bismark's immortal words, "Politics is the art of the possible" - and it will *always* be possible for women to obtain abortions. There are, after all, always back alleys; always vicious people willing to shed blood for money.
> 
> The question, then, is whether the abortions which are available will be done safely, by licensed professionals whom are accountable to oversight and peer review, and have insurance to compensate patients if they make a mistake.
> 
> It's no good to sit on the sidelines and say "I like one thing but want the other" - unless you're choosing ice cream - and we all have to decide what the alternative to those back alleys will be.
> 
> Politics is indeed the art of the possible, and it will always be possible for the rich and well-connected to jet their way to another country where abortions are legal. That leaves the working class - that's you and me - with a choice between the rock of ages and a hardscrabble back alley. "Be careful," so goes the saying, "of what you wish for". The only accurate predictor of success in surgery is the total number of the same procedure which a surgeon has performed.
> 
> William Warren
> Copyright (C) 2015 William Warren. All Rights Reserved.


This attempt at "logic" is seriously misguided.
If the supposition is that "they will do it anyway, so we might as well make it legal and safe", then we can just apply that to anything, can't we?
Drug use, murder for hire, drunk driving, and the list could go on.
If the care is only given to the woman, and not the child she is murdering, then we can consider the lives lost to drugs, murders, and drunks colliding into people as acceptable losses for the sake of "safety" to commit atrocities.

No copyright, feel free to use as you wish.


----------



## William Warren

PatriotFlamethrower said:


> Your reasoning is the same bizarre, and frankly irresponsible, reasoning that the pro-abortionists have used for decades. "Back alley" abortions, and rich versus poor, and all of the other excuses that led the Supreme Court to sanction infanticide in 1973.
> 
> Are there any statistics for the instances of "back-alley" abortions? How about statistics for the number of deaths due to "back-alley" abortions?
> 
> So a few desperate females, who don't accept reproductive responsibility for their actions, die from "back alley" abortions, and this justifies the murder of over 57 million unborn babies?
> 
> Let's ensure that the irresponsible, can't-be-bothered-with-a-baby females receive top medical care when they decide to kill their babies, and in the process 57 million unborn babies will die "safely"? I would describe that as GHOULISH, at best.
> 
> How about women, and the men who impregnate them, accept responsibility for their sexual promiscuity, and not be allowed to use "safe" infanticide as a method of BIRTH CONTROL?


Most arguments about abortion boil down to wishful thinking: you appear to wish we could go back to the good old days, when everyone had to have a child if they got pregnant. May I ask why?

Do you want to go back to the Concord of the 1700's, when more than half of the births followed the associated wedding by less than nine months? Are you nostalgic for the "good old days" of influenza, smallpox, diphtheria, and whooping cough, or did you simply not realize that all knowledge, medical or otherwise, is a two-edged sword?

Do you think women whom are raped should lay back and enjoy it, and then carry some stranger's baby to term? Do you think that the victims of incest should be forced to bear their father's or their uncle's child?

If you want facts, they're easy to find, but I won't do your term paper for you. The fact is that America will be run by Spanish-speaking voters within the next ~20 years, since Hispanic families are winning the battle for equality in the bedroom. The fact is that the Black Panthers have proselytized African-American women by telling them that they should have as many children as they can, without regard to their ability to support them, because they realized long ago that census numbers really do equal power. The fact is that the white anglo-saxon populace has chosen not to breed at the same rates as did peoples of color.

Those were their choices to make, but you seem to want to be able to make everyone else's choices for them.

I'll cut to the chase: why do you really oppose abortion?


Do you object on religious grounds? That approach is condemned to be tolerated due to our tenets of religious freedom, and ignored for the same reason: believe what you want, but SCOTUS said it's so, so it's so. Hell, have a revival meeting if you choose, but don't expect to be able to force non-believers to attend.
Do you dream of a world where women meekly do what the tall white guy on TV tells them to? News flash: father never did know best, you can't leave it to Beaver, homemakers don't wear pearls while they vacuum, and the tell white guy was never interested in anything but selling soap and political platitudes. 
Are you fantasizing about having your own harem after "it" happens? Do you think all the women in your area will gather around your well-equipped bomb-shelter and admire you while you keep guard with your long metal penis?

If you don't like abortion, lace up your gloves and climb in the ring with the political heavyweights who support it, and take it on the chin just like the women of our economic underclass have - but don't try to shame me with your notions of what is "bizarre", "irresponsible", or "ghoulish".

William Warren


----------



## Kauboy

William Warren said:


> Most arguments about abortion boil down to wishful thinking: you appear to wish we could go back to the good old days, when everyone had to have a child if they got pregnant. May I ask why?


Natural pregnancy is only possible through one act.
If one engages in that act, the potential natural consequence is pregnancy
Is it really "wishful thinking" to believe that a person of sound mind and body shouldn't be expected to deal with the consequences of their actions?



> Do you think women whom are raped should lay back and enjoy it, and then carry some stranger's baby to term? Do you think that the victims of incest should be forced to bear their father's or their uncle's child?


Kindly point to where any of these acts implies an innocent life should be snuffed.


----------



## PaulS

I am a man, it is easy for me to say that abortion is wrong. I cannot make that decision for a woman, under any circumstances. Birth control is not perfect in any form and they either stop conception before it happens or terminates the growth after conception. There is no place in government to make moral decisions. Moral decisions are best left to the individual. The question of when a human life begins is easy for me - but then I am a man. When does a human life begin? Another moral question. Our rights, according to the founding fathers, begin at birth. They are a birth rite of the human being.

I hope that no woman ever has to make that choice. It is as traumatic as taking any life in self defence and she has to live with the consequences of that choice for the rest of her life. when the choice must be made, only the woman involved can have the responsibility for making the correct choice under the surrounding circumstances and from her own moral character.

I should not have to pay for a procedure that I see as morally objectionable. Should I have to pay to raise that child? Should I adopt an unwanted child? Would it be right to allow a child to grow up without love and leadership? 

Government can't make this decision! They should not be allowed to make any moral decision! We each make moral decisions every day - some most might agree with - others may seem "convenient" or amoral to others. We don't try to control those decisions that others make. We should not make any moral decision for anyone other than ourselves. Only God knows the mind of man, let Him guide the moral decisions of each of us. I would rather trust a woman to make this decision for herself than the government or any other individual to make moral decisions for all of us.


----------



## Kauboy

PaulS said:


> I am a man, it is easy for me to say that abortion is wrong. I cannot make that decision for a woman, under any circumstances. Birth control is not perfect in any form and they either stop conception before it happens or terminates the growth after conception. There is no place in government to make moral decisions. Moral decisions are best left to the individual. The question of when a human life begins is easy for me - but then I am a man. When does a human life begin? Another moral question. Our rights, according to the founding fathers, begin at birth. They are a birth rite of the human being.
> 
> I hope that no woman ever has to make that choice. It is as traumatic as taking any life in self defence and she has to live with the consequences of that choice for the rest of her life. when the choice must be made, only the woman involved can have the responsibility for making the correct choice under the surrounding circumstances and from her own moral character.
> 
> I should not have to pay for a procedure that I see as morally objectionable. Should I have to pay to raise that child? Should I adopt an unwanted child? Would it be right to allow a child to grow up without love and leadership?
> 
> Government can't make this decision! They should not be allowed to make any moral decision! We each make moral decisions every day - some most might agree with - others may seem "convenient" or amoral to others. We don't try to control those decisions that others make. We should not make any moral decision for anyone other than ourselves. Only God knows the mind of man, let Him guide the moral decisions of each of us. I would rather trust a woman to make this decision for herself than the government or any other individual to make moral decisions for all of us.


I'm a man too, but that bears no weight whatsoever on whether I consider an innocent human life worthy.
The fact that said life depends on a female body is irrelevant. A 2 day old infant is just as dependent, yet we don't offer post-birth abortion as a "choice".
It is still a life. It is no more the woman's choice to destroy it as it is the man's.
On the flip side, is a man given the option to abort the baby regardless of the woman's choice? He played just as much a role in the creation of that life.(this is rhetorical to demonstrate inequality)

It is the government's job to ensure our rights and liberties, regardless of our gender, race, age, etc...
The right to life is PARAMOUNT among these.
It is not the government's role to dictate morals to the people, but this is not a question about morals.
It is a question about a right to life.
The life of an unborn human being has just as much worth as my very own.
It is a cruel game we play when we begin to decide which human lives are more worthy.


----------



## dsdmmat

Kauboy said:


> It is a cruel game we play when we begin to decide which human lives are more worthy.


It is done everyday in our society on so many levels and we don't bat an eye.

I don't believe anyone has the right to tell anyone else what they are supposed to do with their body. That maynot be popular but then again it is the internet so who cares.

Abortion is a fact of modern life as much as diseases are. If a person has the right to refuse life saving medical treatments for them or their child because of religion or pull the plug on a loved one they also most certainly have the right to terminate a unplanned or undesired pregnancy.


----------



## PaulS

Kauboy,
I don't disagree on anything you said. My question is, "who decides when it is a life?". Who among us can make that decision for everyone? That is a purely moral decision - it is the one only we can make for ourselves.
There is no hard,cold, answer that fits everyone. The Bible doesn't tell us when life begins, the great scientists can say when a human life begins, and if they could would everyone be able to accept that as truth? Probably not. It is a moral decision.


----------



## SARGE7402

Kauboy said:


> I'm a man too, but that bears no weight whatsoever on whether I consider an innocent human life worthy.
> The fact that said life depends on a female body is irrelevant. A 2 day old infant is just as dependent, yet we don't offer post-birth abortion as a "choice".
> It is still a life. It is no more the woman's choice to destroy it as it is the man's.
> On the flip side, is a man given the option to abort the baby regardless of the woman's choice? He played just as much a role in the creation of that life.(this is rhetorical to demonstrate inequality)
> 
> It is the government's job to ensure our rights and liberties, regardless of our gender, race, age, etc...
> The right to life is PARAMOUNT among these.
> It is not the government's role to dictate morals to the people, but this is not a question about morals.
> It is a question about a right to life.
> The life of an unborn human being has just as much worth as my very own.
> It is a cruel game we play when we begin to decide which human lives are more worthy.


Question: If you jerk it out of the woman and it's able to breath on it's own and it's heart still beats is it alive?

if the answer to that is yes, then an abortion is killing a viable life and it's murder. you can parse it from now until the cows come home. you can still defer to the nine wise men. it's still murder and you will have to answer for it when you go to meet your maker


----------



## PaulS

Most fetuses that are under 24 weeks would die as soon as you cut the umbilical cord. Their lungs are not able to absorb oxygen from the air. Their bodies are so small that they will succumb to hypothermia even if their lungs could work.

Does that mean that abortions are ok up to 24 weeks? not for me. I have a grandson that was born at 23 weeks - he was kept alive mechanically and given hormones to get his lungs to work. He is a fighter and an achiever. There was a 24 week baby born to a couple the day before M. was born, she died an hour after birth. M. had to fight to breathe for the first three months of his life. He was on a monitor for three more months after he came home because he would get tired and just stop breathing. He would start again if he was prodded. We were never sure if the next day would be his last but he got through all the stuff and now he is a leader in his school and is likely to be a leader in the future. He has a real interest in the constitution and in the rights it protects. 

I don't have an answer to when a human life begins. Not one that would fit every person or every situation. I leave that decision for the individuals living in the situation that requires that very personal, moral decision to be made.


----------



## Arklatex

PaulS said:


> Most fetuses that are under 24 weeks would die as soon as you cut the umbilical cord. Their lungs are not able to absorb oxygen from the air. Their bodies are so small that they will succumb to hypothermia even if their lungs could work.
> 
> Does that mean that abortions are ok up to 24 weeks? not for me. I have a grandson that was born at 23 weeks - he was kept alive mechanically and given hormones to get his lungs to work. He is a fighter and an achiever. There was a 24 week baby born to a couple the day before M. was born, she died an hour after birth. M. had to fight to breathe for the first three months of his life. He was on a monitor for three more months after he came home because he would get tired and just stop breathing. He would start again if he was prodded. We were never sure if the next day would be his last but he got through all the stuff and now he is a leader in his school and is likely to be a leader in the future. He has a real interest in the constitution and in the rights it protects.
> 
> I don't have an answer to when a human life begins. Not one that would fit every person or every situation. I leave that decision for the individuals living in the situation that requires that very personal, moral decision to be made.


The question is not whether the fetus is able to support his or herself. But rather if the fetus has a SOUL... If you believe the baby has a soul than it is MURDER. I agree with Kau in that it not only takes 2 to tango but that the act in itself is avoidable. You have to take responsibility if you wanna screw before marriage. Or after for that matter.


----------



## Kauboy

dsdmmat said:


> It is done everyday in our society on so many levels and we don't bat an eye.
> 
> I don't believe anyone has the right to tell anyone else what they are supposed to do with their body. That maynot be popular but then again it is the internet so who cares.
> 
> Abortion is a fact of modern life as much as diseases are. If a person has the right to refuse life saving medical treatments for them or their child because of religion or pull the plug on a loved one they also most certainly have the right to terminate a unplanned or undesired pregnancy.


It isn't "their" body.
They made a choice with "their" body when they chose to engage in sex. That was the end of their choice. After that choice, consequences happen.
Dealing with the consequences of one's actions are what make us responsible adults.
If you are an irresponsible adult, and incapable of dealing with the consequences of your choices, you should not be having sex... or driving a car... or owning a firearm... etc.


----------



## Kauboy

PaulS said:


> Kauboy,
> I don't disagree on anything you said. My question is, "who decides when it is a life?". Who among us can make that decision for everyone? That is a purely moral decision - it is the one only we can make for ourselves.
> There is no hard,cold, answer that fits everyone. The Bible doesn't tell us when life begins, the great scientists can say when a human life begins, and if they could would everyone be able to accept that as truth? Probably not. It is a moral decision.


Personally, I think there is a simple answer to this.
It is a life when it is easily identified as a new DNA combination. (at conception)
It is NOT the body of the mother, and it is NOT the body of the father.
It is a new combination of the two, which should have every protection afforded to it as either parent enjoys.

Whether it is "viable" or not is another point of irrelevance, intended to confuse the subject and allow an "out" for what should be an easily decided thing.
Viability is a state of something capable of working successfully under the environmental conditions appropriate for it.
If left alone, the zygote successfully becomes a fetus, and the fetus successfully becomes a baby, and the baby is successfully birthed.
The idea that a baby at any point before full term should be able to live on it's own outside of the mother in order to be called "viable" is disgusting.
The state of "viability" is determined by the progression of the life and the environment it would naturally exist in.
Until ready for delivery, that environment is the uterus.
Considering a life to not be viable because you've removed it from it's natural environment is a flaw in logic.
If you take a fish out of water, is it no longer a viable life?
A fish's viability depends on water, just as a fetus depends on the uterus.

If we consider it from another option, and try to tie the baby's survival chances to the mother's body, we reach another flawed conclusion.
If the mother's body is the place where the baby would develop and survive, but it is not old enough to live on it's own outside of the mother's body, then when do we make *this* determination for when an abortion could be justified?
Even if the baby is fully developed, it still can't sustain itself. Is the "viability" of a baby 2 days from birth any different from a 2 day old baby?
Neither can feed itself. Neither can clothe itself. Neither can sustain its own body temperature.
Neither would be viable by these standards. Is it justified to abort either one?

This is the confused world in which people find themselves when they think a "choice" is still available.

It should be quite clear. It is a new life upon conception. Period.


----------



## dsdmmat

Kauboy said:


> If you are irresponsible adult, and incapable of dealing with the consequences of your choices, you should not be having sex... or driving a car... or owning a firearm... etc.


Yeah good luck with that line of thinking in the modern era.


----------



## Kauboy

Arklatex said:


> The question is not whether the fetus is able to support his or herself. But rather if the fetus has a SOUL... If you believe the baby has a soul than it is MURDER. I agree with Kau in that it not only takes 2 to tango but that the act in itself is avoidable. You have to take responsibility if you wanna screw before marriage. Or after for that matter.


I don't even claim for the thing to have a soul.
To me, this isn't a religious debate at all, and some folks don't believe the soul exists.
It is simply a life. An innocent life that can be condemned to death with no trial, or even a voice of opinion on the matter.


----------



## Kauboy

dsdmmat said:


> Yeah good luck with that line of thinking in the modern era.


I don't need luck.
Due to inaction by the population to enforce such a thing, the government will begin doing so eventually.
They are already trying to take our guns.
The "elite thinkers" are already deciding that automated cars will force the requirement that humans no longer be able to control their vehicles.
Governments will begin to institute family laws that will limit the number of children one can have, or force sterilization of the adults.

This is *already* happening around the world.
Don't be so naive to think it's just my idea.


----------



## dsdmmat

Kauboy said:


> I don't need luck.
> Due to inaction by the population to enforce such a thing, the government will begin doing so eventually.
> They are already trying to take our guns.
> The "elite thinkers" are already deciding that automated cars will force the requirement that humans no longer be able to control their vehicles.
> Governments will begin to institute family laws that will limit the number of children one can have, or force sterilization of the adults.
> 
> This is *already* happening around the world.
> Don't be so naive to think it's just my idea.


Teaching abstinence has worked so well.......
Apples and oranges, 
Guns control and abortion not even close to the same thing.

Tyranny and abortion not close to the same thing.


----------



## PaulS

Kauboy,
You are a man with solid morals and a will to stand behind your moral ethics. I applaud that. Your conviction that a human life begins at conception is less common than it used to be and that is a shame.

It disheartens me to know that you would force your morals on others with different values. Morals are far too personal to be proclaimed by a few - or even by a majority over the rest. That is a tactic used to control people in lands that are controlled by religious beliefs at the hands of fanatics who force their interpretations on those under their control.

It matters not that my personal convictions mirror your own but that you would force those convictions on others that concerns me.


----------



## tango

See, here we are--abortion, abortion, abortion---


----------



## Kauboy

PaulS said:


> Kauboy,
> You are a man with solid morals and a will to stand behind your moral ethics. I applaud that. Your conviction that a human life begins at conception is less common than it used to be and that is a shame.
> 
> It disheartens me to know that you would force your morals on others with different values. Morals are far too personal to be proclaimed by a few - or even by a majority over the rest. That is a tactic used to control people in lands that are controlled by religious beliefs at the hands of fanatics who force their interpretations on those under their control.
> 
> It matters not that my personal convictions mirror your own but that you would force those convictions on others that concerns me.


You misunderstand my position. I am not stating that the woman should adhere to my morals. I am defending the life of an innocent human being, since it would appear that the one person that child *SHOULD* be able to count on for protection considers the child to be a burden, and worthy of death for that reason.
It just happens to be a comsequence of my defense of that child that the woman carrying it must uphold her duties as a sexually active female, and carry that child to term. I don't even care if it is considered a punishment.
We punish fathers for impregnating women and then abandoning them. Why can we not also punish mothers who made a bad decision? Instead, we, as a society, have presented this option as a "fix" for their lapse in judgement.

It still bothers me that most people only consider the ordeal from the woman's perspective, and not the child's. If given an equal voice, which do you think would win favor in the eyes of the public? The one begging for life, or the one asking to kill?

I do not believe I am impressing my morals on anyone by declaring that all life is sacred and worthy of protection. This is universal.
Again, she chose to engage in the only act that can lead to natural pregnancy. She *DID* make her "choice".
With that said, if she had no choice, such as in the case of rape, it would be my preference that she carry that baby to term, and then offer it for adoption. That life is still innocent, regardless of the circumstances that brought about its existence. I would completely understand if she did not want to take that option, and this would be the ONLY scenario in which I would consider the choice to abort as understandable. Not desireable, but understandable.


----------



## Kauboy

dsdmmat said:


> Teaching abstinence has worked so well.......
> Apples and oranges,
> Guns control and abortion not even close to the same thing.
> 
> Tyranny and abortion not close to the same thing.


Of course abstinence works. My wife is the only woman I've ever had sex with. That was how I was raised.
What has failed, is a socitey that *should* be protecting children from this horrific over-exposure to sex in nearly every single medium of entertainment we have. Society has made sex "normal" for anyone without designating that a certain maturity is required to understand its purpose. Thus, 13 year olds think they should be doing it.
You speak about abstinence as if that's been the message pushed in everybody's face. When in reality, it's been quite the opposite since the "sexual revolution" of the 60's. Where have you been?


----------



## dsdmmat

Kauboy said:


> Of course abstinence works. My wife is the only woman I've ever had sex with. That was how I was raised.
> What has failed, is a socitey that *should* be protecting children from this horrific over-exposure to sex in nearly every single medium of entertainment we have. Society has made sex "normal" for anyone without designating that a certain maturity is required to understand its purpose. Thus, 13 year olds think they should be doing it.
> You speak about abstinence as if that's been the message pushed in everybody's face. When in reality, it's been quite the opposite since the "sexual revolution" of the 60's. Where have you been?


I am living in reality. It is not possible to legislate morality or responsibility. Those who have the qualities are being out populated by those who don't. You cannot teach them responsibility you can only show them concequences and our liberal government has made sure there are none.

Outlawing Abortion would just increase crime and starvation among the portion of the population that feel life is not fair and have their hand out. If you really wished to stop irresponsible pregnancies you stop the government providing for people by the mouth they have to feed.


----------



## Arklatex

^^^ sad but true ^^^


----------



## Slippy

In the mid 1970's a popular couple got pregnant while in high school. Tim and Susan were there names. Tim quit school, got his GED, married Susan, got a job, went to college at night, got a better job and they busted their asses for 40 years. They aregrandparents today and still married. 

That does not happen today.


----------



## dsdmmat

Slippy said:


> In the mid 1970's a popular couple got pregnant while in high school. Tim and Susan were there names. Tim quit school, got his GED, married Susan, got a job, went to college at night, got a better job and they busted their asses for 40 years. They aregrandparents today and still married.
> 
> That does not happen today.


The government has replaced the father (or sperm doner) as the bread winner. Why marry the father when the government will pay for the single mother to get housing, food, clild care and clothing? Plus when she gets knocked up again all she has to do is go down and file for more stuff from the government.

We have generations on welfare, that is their legacy they teach the offspring how to get ahead without putting forth any effort.


----------



## Kauboy

dsdmmat said:


> I am living in reality. It is not possible to legislate morality or responsibility. Those who have the qualities are being out populated by those who don't. You cannot teach them responsibility you can only show them concequences and our liberal government has made sure there are none.
> 
> Outlawing Abortion would just increase crime and starvation among the portion of the population that feel life is not fair and have their hand out. If you really wished to stop irresponsible pregnancies you stop the government providing for people by the mouth they have to feed.


I find no fault with what you're saying here.
I don't care about whether or not outlawing abortion adversely affects the criminal committing the act, just as I don't care that a man gets life or death for committing 1st degree murder.
I ONLY care that it might keep innocent human lives from being destroyed.
Our laws have two functions.
They punish the criminal for breaking them, and deter others from making the same decision.
True, I cannot force morality or responsibility on another. But I can damn sure call for punishment when the rights of the innocent are violated.


----------



## dsdmmat

Kauboy said:


> I find no fault with what you're saying here.
> I don't care about whether or not outlawing abortion adversely affects the criminal committing the act, just as I don't care that a man gets life or death for committing 1st degree murder.
> I ONLY care that it might keep innocent human lives from being destroyed.
> Our laws have two functions.
> They punish the criminal for breaking them, and deter others from making the same decision.
> True, I cannot force morality or responsibility on another. But I can damn sure call for punishment when the rights of the innocent are violated.


There in lies the rub, you want to define the moment of life and so does everyone else.

Rights for the most part in this country are bestowed on the breathing not the gestating.


----------



## SARGE7402

PaulS said:


> Kauboy,
> You are a man with solid morals and a will to stand behind your moral ethics. I applaud that. Your conviction that a human life begins at conception is less common than it used to be and that is a shame.
> 
> It disheartens me to know that you would force your morals on others with different values. Morals are far too personal to be proclaimed by a few - or even by a majority over the rest. That is a tactic used to control people in lands that are controlled by religious beliefs at the hands of fanatics who force their interpretations on those under their control.
> 
> It matters not that my personal convictions mirror your own but that you would force those convictions on others that concerns me.


Paul

It's not about morals. It's about the definition of murder.

you can sugar coat it all you like, but it's murder pure and simple


----------



## Kauboy

dsdmmat said:


> There in lies the rub, you want to define the moment of life and so does everyone else.
> 
> Rights for the most part in this country are bestowed on the breathing not the gestating.


That's simply not true.
If a pregnant woman is murdered, the life of her unborn child is ALSO counted in the victims lost, and an additional charge added.
Life begins when the DNA sequence is unique from the mother or the father.
It is a new being at that very moment. Lung capacity plays no role in it.


----------



## ekim

SARGE7402 said:


> Paul
> 
> It's not about morals. It's about the definition of murder.
> 
> you can sugar coat it all you like, but it's murder pure and simple


While I agree, it is as seen through your eyes and it seems many disagree with our / your view. Right or wrong, who decides, it seems those with the most votes so far! Some see it as the right thing to do morally!


----------



## dsdmmat

Kauboy said:


> That's simply not true.
> If a pregnant woman is murdered, the life of her unborn child is ALSO counted in the victims lost, and an additional charge added.
> Life begins when the DNA sequence is unique from the mother or the father.
> It is a new being at that very moment. Lung capacity plays no role in it.


That is not always the case, it was the case with the murder of the lady in SF but, I have not seen it in any other case.

As I stated you want to define when life happens as does everyone else. Until Abotrion is determined to be illegal I would speculate your definition of when life begins is not the lawful definition in the USA.

Just to add insult to injury, when did the US start convicting pregnant women with child abuse for smoking during pregancy?


----------



## Kauboy

dsdmmat said:


> That is not always the case, it was the case with the murder of the lady in SF but, I have not seen it in any other case.
> 
> As I stated you want to define when life happens as does everyone else. Until Abotrion is determined to be illegal I would speculate your definition of when life begins is not the lawful definition in the USA.
> 
> Just to add insult to injury, when did the US start convicting pregnant women with child abuse for smoking during pregancy?


The "Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004" is a U.S. federal law that recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim if they are injured or killed during the commission of numerous federal crimes. The act defines a "child in utero" as "a member of the species **** sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".
By federal statute, the child in the womb is considered a victim in a murder case. My definition of when life begins is covered.
The only thing that saves current aborters from falling under this act is that it defines 60 crimes that would qualify, and abortion is not one of them. (unfortunately)

When a case is tried as a state case, this law does not apply, but 38 states have enacted similar legislation.

In reading up on this bill a little closer, the limp-spined law makers were cautious to tip-toe lightly, and specifically called out abortion as being exempted. Disgusting, if you ask me.

After signing the bill into law, President Bush was quoted as saying, "Any time an expectant mother is a victim of violence, two lives are in the balance, each deserving protection, and each deserving justice. If the crime is murder and the unborn child's life ends, justice demands a full accounting under the law."
There are many reasons that I still consider my vote for that man to be a good one, and this was one of them.

EDIT: Since I'm an unabashedly proud Texan, I went and looked up the Texas version of this law and found this:
"Texas law defines an individual as a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth."
That makes me even more proud, but still doesn't seem to be enough to overrule murder by the mother.


----------



## Denton

dsdmmat said:


> I am living in reality. It is not possible to legislate morality or responsibility. Those who have the qualities are being out populated by those who don't. You cannot teach them responsibility you can only show them concequences and our liberal government has made sure there are none.
> 
> Outlawing Abortion would just increase crime and starvation among the portion of the population that feel life is not fair and have their hand out. If you really wished to stop irresponsible pregnancies you stop the government providing for people by the mouth they have to feed.


I'm curious; about how old are you?

Abortion has not always been a birth control measure. Life has not always been cheap.

The mantra, "You can't legislate morality" is false. That is exactly what laws are. Laws are the codification of right and wrong. Morality is the understanding of right and wrong.

Things have gone topsy-turvy in the last few decades, as the social engineers have ridiculed subjugated the very moral foundation of the nation while at the same time made our legal system to be corporate in nature.

Those in true charge don't want us to be good, moral, righteous, freedom-loving people as the founding fathers expected us to be. Such people are intolerant of tyranny. No, they want us to be more like animals; livestock to be more exact. We are to be some that is owned, not free men who are to be governed by a system that we own.

While I don't know how old you are, I like to think you are 40 or below. That would make your position totally understandable as I believe we past the tipping point at about that time. Cultural conditioning and social engineering is a hard thing to fight when you are born into a time when it is in full swing.


----------



## dsdmmat

Denton said:


> I'm curious; about how old are you?
> 
> Abortion has not always been a birth control measure. Life has not always been cheap.
> 
> The mantra, "You can't legislate morality" is false. That is exactly what laws are. Laws are the codification of right and wrong. Morality is the understanding of right and wrong.
> 
> Things have gone topsy-turvy in the last few decades, as the social engineers have ridiculed subjugated the very moral foundation of the nation while at the same time made our legal system to be corporate in nature.
> 
> Those in true charge don't want us to be good, moral, righteous, freedom-loving people as the founding fathers expected us to be. Such people are intolerant of tyranny. No, they want us to be more like animals; livestock to be more exact. We are to be some that is owned, not free men who are to be governed by a system that we own.
> 
> While I don't know how old you are, I like to think you are 40 or below. That would make your position totally understandable as I believe we past the tipping point at about that time. Cultural conditioning and social engineering is a hard thing to fight when you are born into a time when it is in full swing.


Abortion has always been a factor, it just wasnt codified into law. Even in the dark ages women could go to someone and get a potion/chemical that would induce labor or a menstral cycle aborting the fetus. 
If they were not aborted they were carried to term and left to die.

I am 50 actually. I would counter that life has always been cheap after WWII, we have thrown good lives away on land we never intended to keep or defend. To prevent the next false assumption about me, I have never voted for a democrate or a socalist and never will.

My cultural conditioning has been from the Military (Father a Marine, Mother an RN) since day one. I don't see the tyranny from the right any different from the tyranny on the left.


----------



## dsdmmat

Kauboy said:


> The "Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004" is a U.S. federal law that recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim if they are injured or killed during the commission of numerous federal crimes. The act defines a "child in utero" as "a member of the species **** sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".
> By federal statute, the child in the womb is considered a victim in a murder case. My definition of when life begins is covered.
> The only thing that saves current aborters from falling under this act is that it defines 60 crimes that would qualify, and abortion is not one of them. (unfortunately)
> 
> When a case is tried as a state case, this law does not apply, but 38 states have enacted similar legislation.
> 
> In reading up on this bill a little closer, the limp-spined law makers were cautious to tip-toe lightly, and specifically called out abortion as being exempted. Disgusting, if you ask me.
> 
> After signing the bill into law, President Bush was quoted as saying, "Any time an expectant mother is a victim of violence, two lives are in the balance, each deserving protection, and each deserving justice. If the crime is murder and the unborn child's life ends, justice demands a full accounting under the law."
> There are many reasons that I still consider my vote for that man to be a good one, and this was one of them.
> 
> EDIT: Since I'm an unabashedly proud Texan, I went and looked up the Texas version of this law and found this:
> "Texas law defines an individual as a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth."
> That makes me even more proud, but still doesn't seem to be enough to overrule murder by the mother.


Thank you for the education, I was unaware of the Federal law.
Life could get interesting if someone convicted under this law was able to appeal it all the way to the SCotUS. Then they would be forced to make a determination if 2004 law or abortion is constituational. However I highly doubt either side of the issue wants to take a chance on how the court would rule on it.


----------



## Denton

dsdmmat said:


> Abortion has always been a factor, it just wasnt codified into law. Even in the dark ages women could go to someone and get a potion/chemical that would induce labor or a menstral cycle aborting the fetus.
> If they were not aborted they were carried to term and left to die.
> 
> I am 50 actually. I would counter that life has always been cheap after WWII, we have thrown good lives away on land we never intended to keep or defend.
> 
> My cultural conditioning has been from the Military since day one. I don't see the tyranny from the right any different from the tyranny on the left.


Murder is as old as Genesis, too. 50 means you are old enough to look back to the days when abortion was argued, rationalized, and then allowed under the lie of protecting the woman. Today, as we knew would be the case, it is viewed as birth control. We knew where it would go.

I, too, was military from day one. That people like us join as did our fathers and forefathers is no real mystery. That is no reason to not understand how the nation has "evolved," so to speak.


----------



## dsdmmat

Denton said:


> Murder is as old as Genesis, too. 50 means you are old enough to look back to the days when abortion was argued, rationalized, and then allowed under the lie of protecting the woman. Today, as we knew would be the case, it is viewed as birth control. We knew where it would go.
> 
> I, too, was military from day one. That people like us join as did our fathers and forefathers is no real mystery. That is no reason to not understand how the nation has "evolved," so to speak.


I understand how the county has evolved, the difference is I don't see it the same as you.


----------



## Rev316

PatriotFlamethrower said:


> Your reasoning is the same bizarre, and frankly irresponsible, reasoning that the pro-abortionists have used for decades. "Back alley" abortions, and rich versus poor, and all of the other excuses that led the Supreme Court to sanction infanticide in 1973.
> 
> Are there any statistics for the instances of "back-alley" abortions? How about statistics for the number of deaths due to "back-alley" abortions?
> 
> So a few desperate females, who don't accept reproductive responsibility for their actions, die from "back alley" abortions, and this justifies the murder of over 57 million unborn babies?
> 
> Let's ensure that the irresponsible, can't-be-bothered-with-a-baby females receive top medical care when they decide to kill their babies, and in the process 57 million unborn babies will die "safely"? I would describe that as GHOULISH, at best.
> 
> How about women, and the men who impregnate them, accept responsibility for their sexual promiscuity, and not be allowed to use "safe" infanticide as a method of BIRTH CONTROL?


Ghoulish indeed
http://scallywagandvagabond.com/201...d-girl-beaten-family-force-miscarriage-fetus/

Public beat down and loss of welfare is definitely in order


----------



## PaulS

There are less brutal ways to cause a miscarriage. There are dozens of herbal medicines that have been used for centuries.
It is still an "abortion" no matter how it is accomplished. 

The only abortion that I feel should be legal is a "retroactive" abortion for out of control children that should be legal to age 21.  (just joking)


----------



## Rev316

PaulS said:


> There are less brutal ways to cause a miscarriage. There are dozens of herbal medicines that have been used for centuries.
> It is still an "abortion" no matter how it is accomplished.
> 
> The only abortion that I feel should be legal is a "retroactive" abortion for out of control children that should be legal to age 21.  (just joking)


And politicians????????


----------



## Denton

Don't forget about lawyers. First thing we do....


----------



## SARGE7402

ekim said:


> While I agree, it is as seen through your eyes and it seems many disagree with our / your view. Right or wrong, who decides, it seems those with the most votes so far! Some see it as the right thing to do morally!


Hey it worked for hitler and the jews right so it's got to be right?


----------



## PatriotFlamethrower

PaulS said:


> I am a man, it is easy for me to say that abortion is wrong. I cannot make that decision for a woman, under any circumstances. Birth control is not perfect in any form and they either stop conception before it happens or terminates the growth after conception. There is no place in government to make moral decisions. Moral decisions are best left to the individual. The question of when a human life begins is easy for me - but then I am a man. When does a human life begin? Another moral question. Our rights, according to the founding fathers, begin at birth. They are a birth rite of the human being.
> 
> I hope that no woman ever has to make that choice. It is as traumatic as taking any life in self defence and she has to live with the consequences of that choice for the rest of her life. when the choice must be made, only the woman involved can have the responsibility for making the correct choice under the surrounding circumstances and from her own moral character.
> 
> I should not have to pay for a procedure that I see as morally objectionable. Should I have to pay to raise that child? Should I adopt an unwanted child? Would it be right to allow a child to grow up without love and leadership?
> 
> Government can't make this decision! They should not be allowed to make any moral decision! We each make moral decisions every day - some most might agree with - others may seem "convenient" or amoral to others. We don't try to control those decisions that others make. We should not make any moral decision for anyone other than ourselves. Only God knows the mind of man, let Him guide the moral decisions of each of us. I would rather trust a woman to make this decision for herself than the government or any other individual to make moral decisions for all of us.


The decision on whether or not a female does or does not want to become a mother, shall be made BEFORE the female has unprotected sex with a man. PERIOD. If that decision is not made at that time, then the female, and the male, should be held responsible for the consequences of their sexual transgression.

Women should NOT have the right to choose whether an unborn baby lives or dies.

I happen to be a reverend. Therein lies my belief in the sanctity of human life, ESPECIALLY human life that cannot defend itself. From a moral standpoint, the consequences of using infanticide as a form of birth control will be addressed in the afterlife, if not before.


----------



## William Warren

Denton said:


> Don't forget about lawyers. First thing we do....


I suggest you read Henry VI: that 's a quote from the play. It's about a psychopath named Jack Cade, who has dreams of becoming King, and is bragging to his hangers-on about what he'll do ...

JACK CADE.

I thank you, good people:- there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on 
my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like 
brothers, and worship me their lord.

DICK the Butcher.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.​
It's a play about a band of low-lifes who want to establish a dictatorship and deprive the people of their rights.

William Warren


----------



## William Warren

Kauboy said:


> Natural pregnancy is only possible through one act.
> If one engages in that act, the potential natural consequence is pregnancy
> Is it really "wishful thinking" to believe that a person of sound mind and body
> shouldn't be expected to deal with the consequences of their actions?


I think you mean to write "should be expected. As I wrote, I think that they should. I, however, and not God, and I don't have Harry Potter's magic wand to wave, and I'm damned sure not the massa of the plantation who knows whats best for the lower classes. In other words, your religious beliefs and mine do not have the force of law, and we both have to live with that.



> Kindly point to where any of these acts implies an innocent life should be snuffed.


This is a survivalist forum. If you were living in a world WROL, would you think that your daughter should bear a child caused by rape? Consider your answer carefully: in a post-apocalyptic world, victory is measured by the simple fact of who gets to breed, so if you would choose to deny a rape victim access to medical care - even as primitive as it's likely to be - you also reward the rapist, who gets to spread his genes at your expense.

Of course, any geneticist - or any doctor - could explain the effects of incest on infants. What chance would such a child have, in a world where only the smartest, most clever, and quickest would survive?

William Warren


----------



## Kauboy

William Warren said:


> I think you mean to write "should be expected. As I wrote, I think that they should. I, however, and not God, and I don't have Harry Potter's magic wand to wave, and I'm damned sure not the massa of the plantation who knows whats best for the lower classes. In other words, your religious beliefs and mine do not have the force of law, and we both have to live with that.
> 
> This is a survivalist forum. If you were living in a world WROL, would you think that your daughter should bear a child caused by rape? Consider your answer carefully: in a post-apocalyptic world, victory is measured by the simple fact of who gets to breed, so if you would choose to deny a rape victim access to medical care - even as primitive as it's likely to be - you also reward the rapist, who gets to spread his genes at your expense.
> 
> Of course, any geneticist - or any doctor - could explain the effects of incest on infants. What chance would such a child have, in a world where only the smartest, most clever, and quickest would survive?
> 
> William Warren


I *did* mean "should". You are correct, and thank you.

I don't understand why you tied my defense of the innocent to "religious beliefs" that you think I'm trying to force as if they were law.
My belief is rooted in the natural law of the right to life. All humans, and it could be argued for all creatures in general, have a right to life. This isn't some opinion based on belief in a deity. It is universal.

This is a forum for discussion on preparing for hard times. A world without adequate medical care that is harsh and cruel would be a terrible place to raise a child. A child brought about by rape would be even harder to bear.
All that said, you still didn't tell me how that implies that the life of an innocent person should be snuffed out.
It's a bit grotesque to refer to abortion as "medical care". It is murder, sir. The hands chosen to commit it are of no consequence.
The rapist receives no benefit from a child being born out of their reach. That is a fiction you have fabricated into a point of argument.

As gross as the topic of incest is, the offspring is only at risk if the two parents share deleterious recessive genes, which could present themselves in the child. Assuming healthy parents, with healthy ancestry, the risk is low. In fact, with excellent parental stock, the child could be even better equipped to deal with a hard world. It's all in the genes.
The risk certainly isn't high enough to consider killing the unborn child simply because it "may" have an unknown disability.
If that were the case, all children in such a world should be killed, since they all have a chance to be born less than perfect.

If you're looking for a reason to justify killing an innocent human, you'll find one.
I won't.


----------



## Denton

William Warren said:


> I suggest you read Henry VI: that 's a quote from the play. It's about a psychopath named Jack Cade, who has dreams of becoming King, and is bragging to his hangers-on about what he'll do ...
> 
> JACK CADE.
> 
> I thank you, good people:- there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on
> my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like
> brothers, and worship me their lord.
> 
> DICK the Butcher.
> The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.​
> It's a play about a band of low-lifes who want to establish a dictatorship and deprive the people of their rights.
> 
> William Warren


It figures someone would condescendingly suggest to a fan of the theater he read the play from which I quoted in the first place. I also figures it would be someone who doesn't really know me. :21:


----------

