Posted on 10/03/2015 7:53:33 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[[how about reason, facts, logic?]]
find me someone who is reasonable, factual and logical to argue the points with, and I will- someone who can at least understand the points brought up- without launching into liberal nonsense that has nothing to do with the points brought up-
[[Yes I am advocating birth control both as a measure of population control]]
oh, and find me someone who isn’t a flaming liberal too while you’re at it- I suppose a libertarian would be semi-ok to argue with, but not much better-
[[for me to make that allegation would be illogical.]]
Now you’re catching on- the first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem
[[Let us stop this name-calling]]
But apparently it’s ok for Nathan to use the words ‘conservative’ in a pejorative manner- another fairly typical liberal argument ‘tactic’ (Do as I say, not as I do)
Whatever liberal
The points already brought up stand- We are Not overpopulated- Not even close- and to continue stating we are shows nothing but stubborn obstinance, and a mind hell bent on parroting the usual liberal drivel we see on sites such a hufpo and democratic underground- So, like they say- “if the shoe fits...”-
[[and as a matter of natural human right]]
what ‘right’ would that be? Your ‘right’ to demand sterilization? You ‘right’ to demand people not enjoy a family? You ‘right’ to demand that couples use birth control?
I’m having a little trouble understanding your ‘natural human right’ here- Apparently you think natural human right really means ‘rights according to nathanbedford’ (Which apparently are much much higher than the Rights afforded man by God
Excuse the expression, but the Feds have a hard-on for Wyoming. They gave Riverton (and other small towns) and roughly a million acres of the State to the Wind River Tribe, (Yep, the EPA did that), even though they have no Constitutional authority to change the boundaries of a State without Congressional Approval (which they did not have). Included in the parcel was the town of Pavilion where the EPA tried and failed to show a connection between fraccing and groundwater problems.
Considering tens of millions prefer the denser populated urban areas, there is plenty of land left if we just keep the Government from driving people off it.
Thanks for confirming my point
exactly- more and more people are moving to the country- but the fact that people live in cities should in NO way infer that we should control the population- Those advocating such liberal drivel are insane- Their basic mantra is “I don’t like sitting In traffic, traffic causes pollution, therefore we should restrict how many people there are” Or “A state or two is going trough a drought, therefore we should restrict how many people there are”
BRILLIANT reasoning!
Then you’ll likely hear them wexclaim with all due alarmism that “We’re using up all the resources in areas- therefore we need to restrict how many people there are” (apparently not realizing that resources are NOT overwhelmed throughout the us and CAN be imported ot cities just fine
Then they will likely exclaim “People are starving all over the world- therefore we should restrict how many people there are” But the FACT is that these people are not starving because there isn’t enough food- (The world actually produces enough food to feed billions more people than there are on the planet)- The problem is that people do NOT want to spend the money to get the food to those who are hungry- It’s a selfish problem,, NOT an overpopulation problem, and advocating a solution that restricts how many people there are is NOT the answer-
Then you’ll likely hear “It takes a lot of space to produce all the wood, food, resources that man consumes- therefore we should restrict how many people there are”- Again this is liberal nonsense! There is still a VAST amo0unt of livable workable space untouched In the world- We haven’t even scratched the surface yet!
Depopulationists are sick twisted Anti-God, Anti-life proponents who can think of no one else but themselves- They don’t sitting in traffic, so their solution is to cull the population- They don’t like conserving water when they CHOOSE to live in a desert, so their solution is to restrict the amount of people- They don’t like smelling exhaust from vehicles, so their solution is to require people to forgo families
Margaret Sanger would be proud of the sick twisted logic of the left these days
7 acres does not sound like a lot, but it’s a huge amount taken as a whole for every person In the us- Especially when you figure most people do not get the full 7 acres- like you said meaning those that do live in country get far more per person (Where I live I could head into the woods, and walk in a straight line and not get to civilization for weeks- most of it being habitable land)
Considering that you could take all the people In the world, and not only fit them into texas, but they would get approx. 1,100 square feet of room- meaning they could all live in an average sized home- and you would have the rest of the world uninhabited
Put these folks in skyscraper apartment buildings, and you would have much of texas open and free country as well- with plenty of open free land to grow crops, store refuse, get materials from etc- We still wouldn’t exhaust the resources of the world, much less the US-
This example of course is NOT to state we should do such a thing, but to illustrate how ridiculous the idea is that the world is overpopulated- When you take into consideration that billions prefer to live in small spaces, that leaves vastly more land per person for those that don’t, and that leaves vast swaths of land completely untouched
Even taking into consideration the resources needed to feed, cloth etc this concentrated population, there would still be a majority of the world’s useable livable land untouched-
The simple fact is that people only look at cities, where people prefer to group up, and declare the world is overpopulated based on things they see and don’t personally like, such as having to sit In traffic, having to conserve water during drought seasons (after which there is plenty of water)
Again, the logic used by the left/depopulationists is simply illogical propaganda driven, anti-God, anti-life scare mongering
However, nobody is suggesting this. Nevertheless, your use of the term dystopia is remarkably ironic.
Do you really think your right to drink soda from a 16 ounce cup is in jeopardy in sparsely populated North Dakota as it is in densely populated New York City? Do you really think in a society of 310 million people we can survive without zoning laws limiting your right to use your property? You just lost liberty. It was not so when I was a youngster with 140 million people.
Really? You think the nanny state soda ban in NYC has something to do with a shortage of soda? Have you got a single shred of data to back this up?
This is not a conservative question, we don't have to deny that there is insufficient habitable and desirable land for the doubling of American population every fifty years in order to maintain our conservative credentials.
There is absolutely NOTHING conservative about your views.
I don't know where this notion that growing population is good comes from among conservatives.
Because NO CIVILIZATION in the history of the world has survived without population growth.
Is it because misguided conservatives do not want to admit a predicate that allows for abortion?
What PRECISELY is the predicate that "allows" for the slaughter of 60 MILLION INNOCENT AMERICANS? Please explain how the American Holocaust has been beneficial.
I am curious, in light of your screen name, which babies do you think should be predicated for termination in your dystopian fantasy?
Is it because there is a Roman Catholic tradition that does not want to admit a predicate for birth control?
Prior to the 1930s NO CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION supported contraception. Then, in the early 20th century, very wealthy and powerful elites embraced eugenics and decided that they could create a utopian dystopian new world order if they could eliminate large segments of non-Caucasian and "feeble-minded" persons.
Is it to sustain the Wall Street Journal's editorial approach of open borders? Is it because there is a misguided conservative tradition that no land use controls can be accepted even when we need actual protection from our neighbors?
There is a huge difference between curtailing illegal immigration and eugenic population control.
The idea of Jeffersonian democracy, the idea of the New England Cracker Barrel democracy, only works when there is sufficient space for man to live independent both of his neighbor and the government.
I know this will outrage someone with a screen name such as yours; but, WE DO NOT LIVE IN A JEFFERSONIAN DEMOCRACY, the United States of America is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC - there is a difference.
Double your population and halve your liberties
Really? Does halving the population double your liberties? Because that seems to be the governing theory behind your dystopian fantasy.
Early on, God commanded us to be fruitful and multiply.
He told us to subdue the earth.
At their core, population control advocates simply don’t trust God to put His blessing on the fruit of what He has commanded.
Without faith it is impossible to please Him. And without faith it is impossible to enjoy God’s richest blessings, in the here and now, and unto eternity.
We distrust and disobey God at our own peril, and to our own great disadvantage.
You certainly have a point.
Of course such an anti-Christ attitude encompasses everything I wrote, even if it does go beyond it.
2. Even the Founding Fathers, despite their own accomplishments against the tyrannical British Crown of George III, distrusted the very fellow citizens who won that revolution.
3. They provided for a misguided scheme of electing the Senate by having their fellow politicians in the state legislatures possess the only votes to elect an oligarchical Senate.
4. All men are sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God and state legislators are among the MOST CORRUPT of men.
5. By the beginning of the Twentieth Century, it had become manifestly clear that U. S. Senate elections had become auctions in which corrupt special interests vied with one another as to which could, individually or in combination with others, make the winning bid to choose its own wholly owned U. S. Senator. Therefore election by state legislatures was scrapped in favor of popular election by the entire electorate, all of which would be affected by decisions of the U. S. Senate. Bad news for corrupt corporate cronies and boodlers and comparatively better news for the rest of us.
6. We ain't going back to an utterly failed and anti-democratic model.
7. Yet the fantasy is being developed that, if only we could give the power back to the state legislators (What am Ah bid for this fine U. S. Senate seat? Big Pharma bids $1 million per state legislator who votes for Big Pharma's candidate and the $$$$ will be sucked from the sick whether they like it or not. Big Endless Trade Deal bids $1.2 million per legislator sucked out of the no longer existing wages of Americans of modest means! Big Agriculture bids $1.4 million per legislator and, since we all gotta eat, we will all pick up the tab! Etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum ad nauseam), we would attain some sort of political Nirvana.
8. Democratic election of U. S. Senators often produces very ugly results such as Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., Hillary Rodham Rodham, Kirsten Gillibrand, Richard Blumenthal, Chris Murphy, Little Dick Durbin, Mark Nancyboy Kirk, BahBah Boxer, Diane Feinswine, Sheldon White, Butch Mikulski, Patrick Leahy, Susan Collins, Mitch McConnell, Thad Cockroach, John Cornyn, Lamar Alexander, Robert Corker, and so many others but we get some like Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions, Ben Sasse, Joni Ernst, Rand Paul (?), Jim Inhofe, Marco Rubio (not perfect but da*n good) and all too few others but at least we get SOME who are not corporate crony kneepad wearers.
9. Perhaps we can improve the system of choosing Senators but back to state legislative election of Senators is a degeneration of an already flawed system and not a solution.
10. Finally, rights are given by God to individual human beings. Properly speaking, neither federal nor state nor local, much less international, governments have rights.
I agree with three of your priorities in this argument. First and foremost, abortion should be prohibited by law as the unjustifiable homicide of an innocent human being. Second, though I believe that birth control is a very bad idea, I agree that it should be legal like many other bad ideas. In a free society, we ought to be free to behave badly so long as no one is harmed. Finally, these issues must be argued on the merits.
I do not agree with you as to alleged overpopulation. Bob434 is right that you can fit the entire human race into Texas although not comfortably. I was born in and lived in Connecticut, a rather small and urban state, until 15 years ago. Driving from courthouse to courthouse in many parts of the state, I spent a lot of time on interstates 95, 84, and 91 and numerous state limited access highways. Five minutes outside any major city, a driver would not see a single human habitation but rather vast areas of trees and forest and farmland. I can only imagine what it is like in less densely populated states.
The lawyer (later a judge) who argued Griswold vs. Connecticut was a friend. His name was Joe Clark. He was one of nine children in a strongly Catholic family and he had nine children of his own. He was a terrific state court judge generally in courts reserved to criminal cases. At the time of Griswold, he was an assistant prosecutor in the court covering criminal matters at New Haven.
Judge Clark encouraged my representation of arrested pro-lifers and often invited me into chambers for private discussions having nothing to do with my actual cases. He told me that we would never overturn Roe vs. Wade permanently until we overturned Griswold vs. Connecticut and its pernicious fiction of a "constitutional right to privacy" the sheer invention of which is the linchpin of both Roe vs. Wade and Griswold vs. Connecticut. No one ever said that the state had an CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION to prohibit birth control and, of course, no such obligation existed even then or since.
Judge Clark died of a heart attack while walking home from the New Haven courthouse where he was serving at the time. Keep him in your prayers if such is your belief as it is mine and was his.
When SCOTUS issued its social revolutionary decision in Griswold, Yale Law Professor Thomas Emerson (all purpose legal utility infielder for the revolutionary left although far old enough to know better) said in the then still conservative New Haven Register something to the effect that, with birth control secured as a "right to privacy," it was time to go for abortion as similarly secured. And so it was that Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton and a slew of similar cases found their way into the courts and have resulted in 60 million murders to date.
I am a Roman Catholic and I believe that birth control is a very bad habit to develop but I concede without reservation that whether other people use it is none of my business. I have enough challenges in my own life and do not need to run the lives of other folks. Forced virtue is not virtue. OTOH, abortion ought to be prohibited in any sane an moral society. We have no right (again, rights are granted to individual persons by God) to take the life of an innocent other. We have been relentlessly been propagandized by the baby killers for at least fifty years now and arguments from "overpopulation" are usually part and parcel of that effort as a rationalization for baby killing.
Granting that you are pro-life, you should not be surprised when your argument for the proposition of "overpopulation" is misconstrued by other pro-lifers. I am familiar enough with your posting history here to know that you are no liberal.
God bless you and yours!
I'm going to mostly sit back and watch. People can be misunderstood, and may say things which reflect views for which they haven't thought out the consequences. But it certainly does seem that someone who takes a founder of the Klan for his online avatar may have more problems than an unfortunate avatar.
People who advocate population control, whether voluntary or involuntary, open themselves to all sorts of opportunities for accusations that there are certain parts of the population which are undesirable and whose growth should be controlled. Certainly that is not a conservative view.
But I've said things before which were misunderstood, and I'm raising this in the hope that this is a misunderstanding.
[[No one ever said that the state had an CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION to prohibit birth control]]
Off topic, but your statement raises a question- judges have the discretion to prevent certain couples from having children- (even though it is a VERY limited cases by case basis, based on certain things like the ability of a couple or single person to raise a child, abuse considerations etc)-
Would decisions like that actually be based on a constitutional obligation to protect those that can’t protect themselves (ie: a child)?
Back on topic- You may think He isn’t a liberal- but He is espousing liberal ideology, and when a ‘conservative’ espouses terrible liberal ideology such as population control, then that person is what we call a rino- Someone who plays both sides of the fence
[[Granting that you are pro-life,]]
how is someone who thinks couples should be prevented from having children a ‘pro-life’ person? That is anti-life in most people’s books- I know he doesn’t call for legislation to prevent life, however, just holding the ideology that there are too many people and that the population should be restricted is a distinctly liberal rallying call
If there was a republican congressperson who thinks abortion is fine, I would not call that person a conservative, but rather a rino- While abortion and population control are ‘sort of’ two different issues, they both tie into one another-
All of these regulations are permitted, and arguably required, by a whole slew of laws passed by Congress and signed by the President between 1955 and 1972.
The problem of the EPA, or whatever agencies replace it, won’t go away until the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and all the other legislation of a similar nature is repealed or amended to prevent these outcomes.
When Senator Barrasso introduces legislation to do this, I will commend him.
Speeches don’t count.
I am not at all comfortable with judges having the power to order anyone not to procreate and I cannot imagine the "constitutional" basis of such a power. This is yet another case of liberals having temper tantrums and deciding that someone somewhere just must have the power and inclination to give them what they lust for and the usual place to which they turn is the unelected judiciary which will usually rush in where the elected politicians (who may well agree with the liberal moonbats) fear to tread.
A child is NOT protected by anything that prevents the child from being born. As preventions go, many forms of birth control (condoms, diaphragms and such) at least do not kill a child who has been conceived and is thus alive. IUD's and very probably the "birth control pill," and certainly IUDs and Plan B are killers that prevent successful implantation in the uterus. Once sperm and egg have united even before traveling down the Fallopian Tube, a new DNA and a new human being exist.
Taking custody from a parent or parents is a lot simpler and does not kill. Offering rapists and other criminals an option of castration by chemical at least puts the burden where it belongs. I am not very comfortable with that power residing in government either, but again, being unable to conceive children is markedly less barbaric than killing the child.
My own views as to Nathanbedford are based on many mutually respectful exchanges with him here in recent years. This is the first time that I can remember disagreeing with him on a matter of importance. I take him at his word that he is pro-life. I disagree with his belief in "overpopulation." By the time we find ourselves "overpopulated" we shall have moved on to populate temperate and supportive planets in other solar systems.
All liberals make it a habit to be factually wrong on most matters of importance. Nathanbedford IMHO is seldom wrong and therefore no liberal or Rino. If everyone who is factually wrong about something is therefore a liberal, some of my views would qualify me as a liberal or Rino.
I was a state chairman of College Republicans and Young Republicans back when they were seriously conservative and I tended to be the firebrand in those groups. I was also a state chairman of Ronald Reagan's challenge to Feckless Ford. I was the primary volunteer attorney for 1130 people arrested shutting down abortion mills in my state and most were charged with felonies and only 30 were convicted of anything (more the clients' doing than mine). I am not a consistent economic conservative as once I was, more of a populist as I age.
Get to know Nathanbedford better and you will find that you are probably going to like and respect him. What I call a "Republican" Congresscritter who thinks abortion is fine is a barbarian headed straight for hell unless he/she repents.
I am a bit to Nathanbedford's right on one other issue. He apparently believes it possible that the original distinguished Confederate Lieutenant General MAY have had some responsibility for the Fort Pillow (KY) massacre of a mixed group of Union soldiers including many blacks. Repeated Congressional committees of inquiry uncovered compelling evidence that Forrest was commanding troops who were attacking a Union transport vessel on the nearby river and far enough away not to be involved in the massacre. The charges against Forrest were brought by men who were not even present and were proven to be liars who perjured themselves before Congress. In the North's triumphant aftermath of the late unpleasantness between the Union and the Confederacy, they were never indicted. Forrest was never charged in any way and seems exonerated under the circumstances.
God bless you and yours!
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.