Check out the bumper sticker, for 2012, photo by CovenBuster.
Posted on 02/20/2010 2:42:51 PM PST by onyx
Ron Paul Wins CPAC 2012 Presidential Straw Poll
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The Pauls, and Palin, and McCain, and those like them, publicly admit the child is a person, and still say the states can kill them if they want.
Ron, just say no. Please.
Human rights trump states rights!
No state has the authority to “allow” innocent babies to
be slaughtered.
5th and 14th amendments state that none shall be deprived of life, liberty
or property without due process of law.
GAWD help us!
Check out the bumper sticker, for 2012, photo by CovenBuster.
I reckon these straw polls don't amount to a hill of beans.
I agree that human rights trump states rights, and that banning abortion throughout the USA is better than banning it in some states and not others.
The fact remains that making it illegal in many states is better than having it legal in every state.
You have yet to prove that it wouldn't.
You are right. Not even a small hill of beans. Romney has won several, but it never translated into a nomination thus far.
There are plenty of parental consent laws, they haven't prevented a single abortion.
There are areas of the country where there aren't abortuaries within hundreds of miles, yet the women who live there still travel to have abortions.
There are federal laws against partial birth abortion, yet they are still performed.
There are federal laws against federally-funded abortions, but they never lowered the number of abortions. All any of these conditions have done is to make abortion less convenient, but it hasn't stopped them.
Abortions have lessened somewhat over the past decade or so (but they seem to be on the rise again), but all the data indicates that this is because of people becoming more opposed to abortion, not because of any laws or conditions.
What would you guys do with out that little quote from 1975, if you notice, even though Reagan was speaking to a libertarian audience, he still went back to his social conservatism in the interview after that less than defining give away to the audience that you guys seem to cling to like a board in the middle of the ocean.
a bumper sticker doesn’t mean Paul’s running anymore than the “911 is an inside job” bumper sticker is true
You and others make a good point. Primarily, at the onset of this Republic, there were only a handful of Christian denominations. Despite what we might consider today to be relatively youthful ages of marriage, 16, or even younger, there was the overwhelming Christian, monogamous, heterosexual marriage, and really, nothing else was considered.
Since then there have been a number of different religious paradigms invented or dredged out of the Dark Ages or before and presented as some sort of religious redifinition of marriage.
There, however hangs the quandry.
In the event the State, subject to the will of its people, tries to limit marriage to the old Judeo-Christian paradigm, (which is fine with me, even though by readily making marriage and divorce available, the state is the entity which has caused more damage to the institution of marriage than the traditional Christian churches would have), there will be an outcry from splinter religions, the a-theistic, the nonbelievers, and those from the Islamic and other groups who have markedly different practices on first Amendment grounds. I'm surprised the homosexuals haven't pulled that out of their hats yet, even though I personally will not recognize such a union on par with marriage.
If, indeed, the benefit of aa stable home environment to raise children was the object (to raise better citizens for the state), why did the state undermine the institution of marriage by facillitating divorce? Surely, the greater difficulty in ending a marriage would make people more cautious when entering into such an arrangement, and tend to remove frivolity from a choice which would likely be lifelong.
Instead, the state has removed the constraints to provide divorce on demand, which effectively makes the environment for raising children within the traditional family framework less stable.
The answer, of course, is that the Socialists in our Government have been actively attacking the family since the '60s, and in doing so, justifying the encroachment of the State into the familial relations of us all.
Without this, there would have been no 'broken homes', at least not on the scale we know today, and there would have been no need for the massive expansion of Social Services entities which comprise the largest and most expensive of governmental leviathans today, and which continue to cause damage to the traditional concept of family, in direct contradiction to the concept of having stable environments in which to raise children. Such is in their interest, after all.
Instead, the rearing of children (thanks as well to the advent of the two-wage earner family), is increasingly being taken over by the state.
None of these factors is isolated, after all, it was the State which sought to purge God from the schools, which instituted sex education form K through 12, which continues to 'educate' children well past their years for accusing kindergardeners of 'sexual abuse' for hugging another kid who says "Ick!" in response.
I have no problem with the State merely regulating marriage, but the State did not stop there, and with the changes which have come with that, the State further has the ability to define what constitutes a marrige, between whom, and has effectively usurped the power of the Church in doing so.
Keep in mind that (at least in the Christian and Jewish traditions), marriage is defined by scripture, and is relatively immutable, but the State is not so constrained.
LOL. You asked how I “knew” and of course I can’t “know” for certain, since he might not be alive, but he always runs, and he already has bumper stickers, so draw your own conclusions, just as I’ve drawn mine. FWIW, I have no interest in the little guy’s candidacy, but you apparently do. I think he’s a nuisance who ought to run under the banner of his own Libertarian party.
It always has, for many many, centuries, even here in America the state regulated marriage in the colonies and after our nation was created.
You have to ask yourself, do you want Homosexual Churches and Islamic Mosques defining marriage in America and setting their own age limits?
-Who could marry? (In George Washington's time, Virginia)
-Any free white over the age of 21 could marry provided they had obtained the lawful license or published banns.
-It was illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to marry without consent from a parent or legal guardian.
-It was illegal for servants still serving an indenture or apprentices to marry without their master or mistresses permission.
-It was illegal for any white to marry an enslaved or free black.
-Virginia did not recognize marriages between slaves.
What are your Top Five recommendations?
Ron Paul hates Jews?
Um..what?
Ron Paul and John McCain are political opposites.
Not when it comes to their pro-choice for states position on abortion. They’re identical twins.
The MSM is “talking up” Ron Paul because there is a concerted effort of late to paint him as a fringe loon (the label fits easily due to 9/11 truhthers who are many of his followers). The MSM has an interest in painting Paul as a loon because his Bill in the House demanding to audit the FED has passed and it is also out of committee. Only the House leadership (Pelosi and her minions) are standing in its way of it becoming law and being enforced.
From the Left’s perspective *those who own the MSM), the FED CANNOT be allowed to be audited because the gold reserves that are supposed to be there are no more. Thus, if they paint Paul as a loon, they discredit his Bill. And if they paint the CPAC conservatives as following Paul, they must be loons too. This serves to discredit Republicans in general and whoever the Repubs end up actually nominating for President is discredited (by association) in particular.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.