Free Republic

Jim,

I am not pushing abortion and I do not plan any further involvement in discussions of the topic on FR based on this experience. What concerns me is that in 30 years of involvement in Virginia politics all I’ve ever seen the issue do is get good candidates for public office defeated by vermin and this leads me to believe that draconian laws are the wrong approach, and that what is actually needed to get rid of the 95% of abortions that you really want gone is economic initiatives. That is actually taking place in Germany and Russia at present. That’s what I tried to get across here but nobody could tell that from all the straw men standing around.

Why are you now ADVOCATING the same Darwinism you claim to oppose?

I am not ADVOCATING anything; I was trying to describe the real world for you and several others here because it doesn't sound like you understand it but my own tolerance limit for nastiness and ignorance has just been exceeded and I'm outta this discussion.

You sound like you’re ready to go to war over this one issue. Funny thing, so are THEY... Another question you need to ask yourself is this: how much control do you think you’re ever going to have over demoKKKrats wanting abortions after CW-II and after the country has been split up over the issue? I still like persuasion and the idea of making it possible for people to marry and start families in their late teens and early twenties better than I like draconian laws.

Draconian laws?! Are you saying that women have a RIGHT to murder their own children because being pregnant may be inconvenient?

Here's what I AM saying.... I would advise women against abortions in something like 95% of cases. That other five percent of cases involve questions of rape or genetic compromise and the like; all you could hope to accomplish by banning those abortions is the destruction of the Republican party and the conservative movement. Ninety percent of Down Syndrome pregnancies in the industrialized world end in abortion. When you are being beaten nine to one in the marketplace of ideas or in the application of those ideas, you should not be talking about "having a moral absolute".

The 95% of abortions you want to get rid of are the ones young women are having to avoid "ruining their lives" which would have amounted to young married women happily having first children a hundred years ago. The way you get rid of those abortions is again make it both respectable and economically feasible for people to marry and start families in their late teens and early twenties as it was a hundred years ago.

Aside from all of that there actually is a question of the effect of Roe/Wade on crime and, worse, on the national percentage of demoKKKrats. Until somebody makes a study of that one, you have to assume that without Roe/Wade, it might have been twenty years since anybody other than a DemoKKKrat ever won any sort of an election in America.

I'm not trying to poop parties or be a devil's advocate here, just stating the obvious. Religion is the study of how the world ought to be; economics is the study of how the world actually is, and the world we live in is a hard one.

The question of UFOs and ancient astronauts...

This is the reason for probes to the near stars. To make a long story very short, there was a space-faring civilization in our own system prior to a very recent series of catastrophic events from which those people would have had no way of knowing whether anything in this system would have remained habitable at all. They almost certainly would have tried to escape out to the near stars. Artifacts of that endeavor are in fact found in our system.

Criminals are one thing, demoKKKrats are another. What percentage of the people aborted since 1973 would have been lifelong demoKKKrats?? I mean, are there really that many Republicans and conservatives having abortions out there?? Unless you can answer that, there’s an obvious potential problem with wanting to pass draconian laws.

My advice to people living in these areas: trap a dozen of so of those fricking monsters, put them in a truck, and turn them loose in Central Park, NYC.

Also on the same page is Geert Wilders’ closing remarks at court both text and an embedded youtube video, must see material.

"60 percent negatives. That's almost impossible to overcome."

Reality check FRiends. It's true.

As a bare minimum, were Palin to run, the republican party would have to entirely defuse the abortion issue somehow or other and that would probably mean publicly forswearing any intent to pass draconian laws particularly in cases of rape or genetic compromise. Women are fifty one percent of the electorate and that stuff just plain scares too many of them too badly.

The guys lawyer correctly pointed out that on St. Valentine’s Day, 1929, all of Al Capone’s employees were dressed up like cops... Jury took about fifteen minutes to find the guy totally innocent. That was for wasting two state cops and at least two federal agents who had busted his door down with no warning or anything of the sort on a bad tip.

If you think about it, a certain set of conditions created the Milky Way; it would be funny if that set of conditions only ever occurred once.

Well known by whom?

Everybody. The lack of intermediate fossils was one of the two rationales for Gould, Eldridge et. all to want to develop the newer version of evoloserism called 'punctuated equilibria' or 'punk-eek'.

If Macroevolution were possible there would be fossil evidence of it. There isn’t any, and that’s well known.

This thing in Libya is about Soros wanting to control that $5T which Libya represents

George Soros and Bork Obunga are trying to perpetrate a bank robbery in broad daylight and using American military assets to do it.

As Ellen Brown noted:

Another anomaly involves the official justification for taking up arms against Libya. Supposedly it’s about human rights violations, but the evidence is contradictory. According to an article on the Fox News website on February 28:

As the United Nations works feverishly to condemn Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi for cracking down on protesters, the body’s Human Rights Council is poised to adopt a report chock-full of praise for Libya’s human rights record.

The review commends Libya for improving educational opportunities, for making human rights a “priority” and for bettering its “constitutional” framework. Several countries, including Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia but also Canada, give Libya positive marks for the legal protections afforded to its citizens — who are now revolting against the regime and facing bloody reprisal.

Whatever might be said of Gaddafi’s personal crimes, the Libyan people seem to be thriving. A delegation of medical professionals from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus wrote in an appeal to Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin that after becoming acquainted with Libyan life, it was their view that in few nations did people live in such comfort:

[Libyans] are entitled to free treatment, and their hospitals provide the best in the world of medical equipment. Education in Libya is free, capable young people have the opportunity to study abroad at government expense. When marrying, young couples receive 60,000 Libyan dinars (about 50,000 U.S. dollars) of financial assistance. Non-interest state loans, and as practice shows, undated. Due to government subsidies the price of cars is much lower than in Europe, and they are affordable for every family. Gasoline and bread cost a penny, no taxes for those who are engaged in agriculture. The Libyan people are quiet and peaceful, are not inclined to drink, and are very religious.

They maintained that the international community had been misinformed about the struggle against the regime. “Tell us,” they said, “who would not like such a regime?”

In other words, Khadaffi's government is arguably the best the slammite world has to offer and a man would pretty much have to be deranged to want to rebel against it. Khadaffi was on the edge of pulling all of Africa out from under the IMF and BIS and that apparently was too much for the NWO crowd.

The idea of those slammite-brohood fools creating a central bank prior to having a country pretty much tells the story: Soros simply told them that if they played ball with him, he'd put them in charge of Libya.

Defence lawyer Irven Box asked jurors to close their eyes and imagine what they would do if they were confronted with the same situation.

How about tie the perp up in a bag, wait till it gets dark, take bag to river, and heave ho??

If God created life with the ability to evolve...

He didn't.

If man can’t create something it’s a terribly safe bet that the something won’t ever happen by chance.

Those experiments went on into the 40s and 50s. That’s not a hundred years ago.

In other words, scientists expected fruit fly experiments to prove the theory of evolution and it blew up in their faces and DISPROVED it.

Evolution posits that mutations create new kinds of creatures and then natural selection determines which amongst both old and new creatures goes on living.

Fruit flies breed new generations every couple of days. If you run continuous experiments on fruit flies over several decades, as they did, then you're dealing with more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of monkeys, apes, hominids, or humans on this planet. They subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and then combined the mutants every possible way. All they ever got was sterile freaks and fruit flies; no other kind of insect or anything else was ever produced.

The results were so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists publicly denounced evolution at that time including the famous case of Richard Goldschmidt which you can find easily enough on google.

The utter failure of those experiments was due to the fact that our entire living world is based on an information code and the only information there ever was in that picture in the first place was that for fruit flies. The discovery of the RNA/DNA info code in the mid 60s should by all rights have ended the debate. There is no rational reason for anybody to believe in evolution after that discovery.