• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

An offer for Oldtimer

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Legalize it all. Then, any felonious activity under the influence results in a hanging offense. Just like 3 DWI's is a felony, so shall be infringements upon society under the influence of mind altering substances. Simple, effective, cheap.

I have no desire to prevent anyone, any freedom, until your freedom encroaches upon my right to exist. I will defend my right to exist by any means neccessary. I will feel no shame over my right to exist. My life is worth my defense of it.
 
Soapweed said:
As an afterthought, Oldtimer, I will bet you fifty bucks you don't attend any church services today. If you do attend one hour of any church's service, I will give this church the fifty bucks. If you don't attend a church today, you won't owe me a thing. :wink:

He couldn't do that after all that would cut into his belly up to the Bar time. Those jam sessions with the drunks sure yield words of wisdom for the guy. :???:
 
Martin Jr. said:
No, it is not the responsibility of the government, or the preachers or the churches.

It is the responsibility of the general public, most importantly the parents, and must be guided by the laws of our God in heaven.
Going to church, praying, setting a good example, are all very important in this.
The government should not be making laws that lead us to be at odds with our religion or the laws of God.

In a lot of ways I agree with you Martin- but take it one step further as I don't think government should have been involved with outlawing much of this moral/clean life issues in the first place...Its been when government climbs in bed with Church (like the WCTU) that they greatly increase and aggravate the problem...
 
OT's a real Libertarian, not wanting any laws, except when it comes to laws handing out free "morning after" pills, at the expense of taxpayers.
 
hypocritexposer said:
OT's a real Libertarian, not wanting any laws, except when it comes to laws handing out free "morning after" pills, at the expense of taxpayers.

Since they have been approved by the medical community I think they should be made available....

If you want to be nice to all the ladies and pay for them thats fine and dandy... :wink:

I don't personally think government should pay for them- but have come to the realization that in the real world its much cheaper to pay the cost of "morning after" pills than it is the costs of paying to raise a welfare or unwanted child until they are 18...And then the lifetime cost of ongoing social issues that often come with unwanted children....
 
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
OT's a real Libertarian, not wanting any laws, except when it comes to laws handing out free "morning after" pills, at the expense of taxpayers.

Since they have been approved by the medical community I think they should be made available....

If you want to be nice to all the ladies and pay for them thats fine and dandy... :wink:

I don't personally think government should pay for them- but have come to the realization that in the real world its much cheaper to pay the cost of "morning after" pills than it is the costs of paying to raise a welfare or unwanted child until they are 18...And then the lifetime cost of ongoing social issues that often come with unwanted children....


So you think all these "unwanted children" came about, because the taxpayer was not paying for birth control?
 
How well has having access to birth control through other programs worked so far, OT?

Taxpyer funded birth control programs has accomplished little in preventing unwanted pregnancies.

For example, among white mothers in all age groups, illegitimacy shot from 20% in 1990 to 36% in 2010. Meanwhile, black illegitimacy "stabilized" at 72%. Overall, 41% of American children were born out of wedlock in 2010, up from 28% on 1990.

Astoundingly, for any 22-year-old woman with a 2-year-old child, the chances that her baby was born out of wedlock are 63%. That's nearly double the rate for her age group in 1990!


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/the_demographic_that_matters.html#ixzz2Cblvtbr1
 
hypocritexposer said:
How well has having access to birth control through other programs worked so far, OT?

Taxpyer funded birth control programs has accomplished little in preventing unwanted pregnancies.

For example, among white mothers in all age groups, illegitimacy shot from 20% in 1990 to 36% in 2010. Meanwhile, black illegitimacy "stabilized" at 72%. Overall, 41% of American children were born out of wedlock in 2010, up from 28% on 1990.

Astoundingly, for any 22-year-old woman with a 2-year-old child, the chances that her baby was born out of wedlock are 63%. That's nearly double the rate for her age group in 1990!


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/the_demographic_that_matters.html#ixzz2Cblvtbr1

On an educational channel show the other day- they said thru birth and marriage records it had been determined that 30% of the babies born in 1830 had been conceived out of wedlock....
The only difference back then is most fathers (or the fellow accused of being the father :roll: ) could be forced to marry the woman- and there was not as many fatherless kids running around..
 
So have the existiing birth control programs, that give out free birth control, been successful, in preventing unwanted prenancies?

That's your reasoning for the taxpayer funded birth control and morning after pill, thrtough obamacare, correct?
 
hypocritexposer said:
So have the existiing birth control programs, that give out free birth control, been successful, in preventing unwanted prenancies?

That's your reasoning for the taxpayer funded birth control and morning after pill, thrtough obamacare, correct?

Who knows? There is no way of showing if something prevented a negative that didn't occur ......

More than 99% of women aged 15–44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method.

Common sense tho says that with the amount of contraceptives used and the percentage of women using them- they have had to have had a major impact in preventing unwanted pregnancies/children....
 
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
So have the existiing birth control programs, that give out free birth control, been successful, in preventing unwanted prenancies?

That's your reasoning for the taxpayer funded birth control and morning after pill, thrtough obamacare, correct?

Who knows? There is no way of showing if something prevented a negative that didn't occur ......

More than 99% of women aged 15–44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method.

Common sense tho says that with the amount of contraceptives used and the percentage of women using them- they have had to have had a major impact in preventing unwanted pregnancies/children....


So at least 99% of women have access to birth control and can also afford it?

So what was your reasoning for the taxpayer/employer to pay for it, through obamacare, even when against their religious beliefs?
 
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
So have the existiing birth control programs, that give out free birth control, been successful, in preventing unwanted prenancies?

That's your reasoning for the taxpayer funded birth control and morning after pill, thrtough obamacare, correct?

Who knows? There is no way of showing if something prevented a negative that didn't occur ......

More than 99% of women aged 15–44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method.

Common sense tho says that with the amount of contraceptives used and the percentage of women using them- they have had to have had a major impact in preventing unwanted pregnancies/children....


So at least 99% of women have access to birth control and can also afford it?

So what was your reasoning for the taxpayer to pay for it, through obamacare?

The taxpayers are already paying for it thru medicaid and many other state programs.... Might as well have it offered in insurance plans.....
 
The taxpayers are already paying for it thru medicaid and many other state programs.... Might as well have it offered in insurance plans....

sounds like another "feel good logic'.. liberals are famous for dreaming up..

is this next?

I think we should force you to pay for FREE drugs for drug addicts.. since the taxpayer is already paying for it and it would reduce crime..


and have programs to distribute free drugs to kids,.. since some will get hooked anyways..


same liberal logic.. same twisted results..
 
This is something Ot would be proud of. Sick people out there and colleges ok this!


After effectively barring conservative columnist Ann Coulter from speaking on campus last week, the Jesuit college Fordham University welcomed infanticide and bestiality advocate Peter Singer for a panel discussion on Friday.

According to Fordham's media relations website, Singer, a tenured Princeton bioethics professor, spoke from 4 to 6 p.m. in a panel the university promised "will provoke Christians to think about other animals in new ways."

Singer has long lamented the societal stigma against having sex with animals.

"Not so long ago," Singer wrote in one essay, "any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. But … not every taboo has crumbled."

In the essay, titled "Heavy Petting," Singer concluded that "sex across the species barrier," while not normal, "ceases to be an offence [sic] to our status and dignity as human beings."

"Occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop" when humans have sex with their pets, he claimed.

In addition to supporting bestiality and immediately granting equal legal rights to animals, Singer has also advocated euthanize the mentally ill and aborting disabled infants on utilitarian grounds.

In his 1993 essay "Taking Life," Singer, in a section called "Justifying Infanticide and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia," wrote that "killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person."

"Very often it is not wrong at all," he added, noting that newborns should not be considered people until approximately a month after their birth.

Both Singer and his supporters maintain that ethics experts must often confront taboo topics to arrive at greater philosophical truths.

The Catholic Cardinal Newman Society's blog spoke out against Fordham's decision to allow Singer a speaking event in a recent blog post. "Be assured, this is not a Peter Singer scandal. This is a Fordham scandal. The moderator of the event is Charles Camosy, a Fordham theologian," the society wrote.

However, James Schall, a Jesuit and a senior government professor at Georgetown University, defended Singer's appearance at Fordham in an email to The Daily Caller.

"Basically, the Church is not afraid of any idea, if it has a fair chance freely to explain its own position," Schall said. "Normally, a university is the place, but this [issue] demands more liberty to hear the Catholic view than most places permit."

Schall also condemned Singer's views in no uncertain terms.

"His position is lethal really, and incoherent, but too much of the culture accepts it," Schall added.
 
Oldtimer said:
redrobin said:
The real problem is sin. Legalizing immorality, alcohol, drugs, sodomy, laziness, etc. doesn't make it ok with God. It's still sin.

"What the country needs is dirtier fingernails and cleaner minds."

-- Will Rogers

Which brings to question is cleaner minds (morality, sinning, etal) the job of government-- or should that be the responsibility of the Preachers and Churchs :???:

What say you Red Robin..
Cleaner minds as you put it is the result of less sin. Of course less sin is the job of any government, family, church, school teacher, etc. Any decent person that claims to believe in God , as you do ( I assume we're talking about the same God, not some sun god or the muslim god allah or allen or what ever his name is) would agree.
 
Did God lie to us in Genesis when he created all the plants and looked and said it is GOOD?Can a conservative limit free will when God did not?Is there a comandment that says thuo shalt not smoke rope?
 
Hell, I say mail the pill with their welfare , WIC, food stamps & housing assistance, Checks, & tell them It's Obama medicine, & we'll thin some of the "47%" out ! :shock: :eek: :wink: 8)
 
smalltime said:
Did God lie to us in Genesis when he created all the plants and looked and said it is GOOD?Can a conservative limit free will when God did not?Is there a comandment that says thuo shalt not smoke rope?

Smalltime do you know what a castor bean is?? Eat a few....goodbye... God created them as well...Many plants God created at not intended to be consumed in any way by humans.
 
I have a problem with the statement that 30% of children in 1830 were born out of wedlock. Don't believe verything that the educational channel says.

I did a quick search and found that in Ireland: 1821-1830 there was a 1.1% rate of illegitimacy, from 1831 - 1840 it increased to 2.1% and in from 1841 - 1850 to 2.4%

Maybe in some societies there was a high rate, but 30% seems to be way out of kilter.
 
Martin Jr. said:
I have a problem with the statement that 30% of children in 1830 were born out of wedlock. Don't believe verything that the educational channel says.

I did a quick search and found that in Ireland: 1821-1830 there was a 1.1% rate of illegitimacy, from 1831 - 1840 it increased to 2.1% and in from 1841 - 1850 to 2.4%

Maybe in some societies there was a high rate, but 30% seems to be way out of kilter.


and it hasn't improved, even with all the"free" birth control they are giving out. :wink:


I don't believe the 30% rate either, but if that's what they want to claim, then it doesn't do them any favours, when claiming that planned parenthood and all the other birth control problems are reducinng unwanted pregnancies.

whether you give out free birth control or not, it still comes down to whether a couple is willing to use, and in need of, birth control.

Why should an insurance pool pay for condoms for a married couple, in which the male is "fixed"?
 

Latest posts

Top