christiefan915
Catalyst
No, not all women. Just the ones who hooked up with you, sweetie.
Today's the Big Day!
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.11
- Start date
No, not all women. Just the ones who hooked up with you, sweetie.
And it's denial time in rightie land.
Look at what he said, ID. He doesn't think birth control should be available.
icedancer2theend
Verified User
Link us to the quote
Damo posted it earlier:
"“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country…. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
christiefan915
Catalyst
Definitely true about abortion. Every October my church hands out pamphlets urging the members not to vote for politicians who are pro-choice, as if it's the one defining factor that separates the good from the bad. Yet the Church is also against capital punishment and I have yet to see them actively promoting political bans on it, like they do for abortion.
And as far as artificial contraception, I'm pretty sure Benedict is the latest Pope to still uphold Humanae Vitae.
The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)
Unlawful Birth Control Methods
14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p...ts/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
icedancer2theend
Verified User
Then he's going to experience a huge back-lash by voters. Holding the view as a Catholic that birth control (not condoms or other barrier methods) is immoral is nothing new. Providing title X funding for contraception is likewise nothing new- Giving carte blanche to states for contraception for all, is new and I support any candidate who opposes it.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Hand not raised.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Even a liberal Catholic can admit that there is a pretty big difference between capital punishment and abortion, in that one is used far more frequently, and that it also has zero victims guilty of a capital offense. As for conservative Catholics, while many will point out that the Church's lack of activism on the subject gives them some latitude, many others are starting to oppose capital punishment. I, myself, wasn't raised to oppose capital punishment, yet I do oppose it now, and have argued many times the benefits to society of ending it.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Griswald found that a state banning contraception is unconstitutional. Allowing any state to ban birth control would therefore require the overturning of Griswald vs CT.
"“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country…. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
I had already linked that in this thread. And before you go around accusing me of being in la la land, you really should educate yourself as to what the candidates you are loudly supporting have actually stated.
Otherwise someone might mistake you for an idiot.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
This is incoherent. What are you babbling about?
You got caught not knowing what you were talking about, and shooting off your big mouth accusing others who do know what they are talkng about, of being in "la la land". You retort with an incoherent post about a bunch of bullshit.
Rick Santorum opposes birth control, and is promising to actively oppose its use as President. Stop babbling incoherently about what's new, title X, or some invented "carte blanche for contraception for all". You were caught.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
IMO it’s important to note the mainstreaming of so-called “State’s rights”. Once the most discredited of all ideologies, the extreme right has dug up that stinking corpse, slapped some lipstick on it, sprayed it with eau de horseshit, and are marching it around in some sort of bizzaro world’s Weekend at Bernie’s.
Now they have every moron and swindler in the world puffing up with importance and saying “state’s rights” as if that is some sort of get-out-of-the-looniebin-free card. It isn’t. They pretend it is a brave, principled position taken by those with integrity. It’s not.
The swindlers know its history, and in that category I count Damo. Damo is the King of both false equivalence and of the “who am i? where am i? how did I get here?” right wing hokey pokey. Just give him the beat and two seconds, and then watch him dance.
There is nothing principled about claiming that the federal government is tyrannical so we must create 50 different smaller states with tyrannical powers. Through its history from the very beginning, this ideology has been used to keep the n*ggers down, to keep the bitches in their place, and to empower and support a white, hierarchical, patriarchy. The idiots, and
I’ll let everyone figure out who those are, have never read the Federalist papers, and certainly not the anti-Federalist papers. They don’t know that the originating rallying cry of the anti-federalists, the “state’s rights” crew, was “they’ll free your n*ggers!” (Patrick Henry)
Just try running on a platform claiming it’s okay if individual states adopt laws that would punish the white male for glancing in what is deemed by some authority “ a sexual manner” at a black woman, by whipping him to death, and see what happens.
State’s rights has always been about empowering the ruling elite, and the white male, and disempowering the woman and the person of color. That is not principled. No one who supports it has “integrity”.
Then you have your 10th’ers like STY. STY is not an idiot, a swindler, or a hypocrite. He’s just bug-shagging nuts. He’s the guy you pray never moves in next door to you. But chances are he won’t because guys like him live on lots of land, in the middle of nowhere, and if you are on the spread next to his, you are probably thrilled he moved in and ran out to buy him the decoder book for your next double top secret underground meeting where you and three other nutballs are plotting to overthrow the government.
So you have your idiots, your liars and swindlers, and your nutballs.
Trust me, they are almost all white. Interestingly, they do have more female collaboration. However, historically this is not a mystery. White woman who collaborated with the patriarchy, embracing their own inferior position within that hierarchy, have always been rewarded, often quite handsomely. They could even have a black person tortured and killed for looking at them. And that’s power. The trick in later years, was fooling the lower classes of women to collaborate with this system which simply was never going to reward them. That was done with the culture wars which feed on hate and resentment.
State’s rights: a discredited, poisonous, and nonsensical ideology.
Now they have every moron and swindler in the world puffing up with importance and saying “state’s rights” as if that is some sort of get-out-of-the-looniebin-free card. It isn’t. They pretend it is a brave, principled position taken by those with integrity. It’s not.
The swindlers know its history, and in that category I count Damo. Damo is the King of both false equivalence and of the “who am i? where am i? how did I get here?” right wing hokey pokey. Just give him the beat and two seconds, and then watch him dance.
There is nothing principled about claiming that the federal government is tyrannical so we must create 50 different smaller states with tyrannical powers. Through its history from the very beginning, this ideology has been used to keep the n*ggers down, to keep the bitches in their place, and to empower and support a white, hierarchical, patriarchy. The idiots, and
I’ll let everyone figure out who those are, have never read the Federalist papers, and certainly not the anti-Federalist papers. They don’t know that the originating rallying cry of the anti-federalists, the “state’s rights” crew, was “they’ll free your n*ggers!” (Patrick Henry)
Just try running on a platform claiming it’s okay if individual states adopt laws that would punish the white male for glancing in what is deemed by some authority “ a sexual manner” at a black woman, by whipping him to death, and see what happens.
State’s rights has always been about empowering the ruling elite, and the white male, and disempowering the woman and the person of color. That is not principled. No one who supports it has “integrity”.
Then you have your 10th’ers like STY. STY is not an idiot, a swindler, or a hypocrite. He’s just bug-shagging nuts. He’s the guy you pray never moves in next door to you. But chances are he won’t because guys like him live on lots of land, in the middle of nowhere, and if you are on the spread next to his, you are probably thrilled he moved in and ran out to buy him the decoder book for your next double top secret underground meeting where you and three other nutballs are plotting to overthrow the government.
So you have your idiots, your liars and swindlers, and your nutballs.
Trust me, they are almost all white. Interestingly, they do have more female collaboration. However, historically this is not a mystery. White woman who collaborated with the patriarchy, embracing their own inferior position within that hierarchy, have always been rewarded, often quite handsomely. They could even have a black person tortured and killed for looking at them. And that’s power. The trick in later years, was fooling the lower classes of women to collaborate with this system which simply was never going to reward them. That was done with the culture wars which feed on hate and resentment.
State’s rights: a discredited, poisonous, and nonsensical ideology.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
That was a joke son...a joke...get it?
Ehhh ok...it was in bad taste....just that old Souix City/Davenport Rivalry.
if that's what passes as a joke in Davenport, you've met your Waterloo.....
icedancer2theend
Verified User
I have no problem admitting I was "caught" <eye-roll> as if that makes some startling point in light of my own admission. That you are unaware of his comments within the context of title X funding and states rights shows your own uninformed state, but then when have you ever needed a comprehensive platform to beat your hairy chest? Your likewise "lost state" over current affairs regarding "contraception for all" at the cost to tax payers is typical of your screaming rants. I know we are all supposed to berate Santorum as a "looney tune" because he holds religious convictions and supports the "stinking corpse" of States Rights, but alas some of us understand Constitutional powers and protections.
icedancer2theend
Verified User
President Obama avoided full support of same-sex marriage during the LGBT Democratic National Committee fundraiser for his campaign in New York June 23. There were protesters outside urging him to fully "evolve" on the issue, since he has gone back and forth on his position over the years.
Obama also referred to the battle being fought in New York for gay marriage. He said the issue was a state's rights issues, which did not seem to placate those who wanted him to come out for full marriage equality.
Obama also referred to the battle being fought in New York for gay marriage. He said the issue was a state's rights issues, which did not seem to placate those who wanted him to come out for full marriage equality.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Another post filled with nothing but blather. Your continued attempts at diversion are par for the course when you are desperately attempting to cover for your ignorance. I've always loved your habit of throwing out phrases you read on Townhall in the silly belief that anyone with any education wouldn't be able to see that you are a know-nothing.
Title x! State's rights! The Constitution!
Uh-huh. Let me know when you can cobble together a coherent thought on any of the above. Or on anything at all.
I have no interest in your continued nonsense. Just don't ever think you've fooled me. You have a very shallow knowledge-base and struggle to write over your head. And I know it. Always have.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
More desperate obfuscation.
Firstly, Obama's state's rights position on gay marriage has nothing to do with banning birth control, which has been ruled unconstitutional and can only be accomplished by overturning Griswald vs Connecticut. One seeks to strip rights which have already been won, the other seeks to prevent an expansion of rights.
More importantly, are you under the impression that if Obama says something it puts liberals in a corner? Let me fill you in on something. Liberals aren't you. Unlike the people here, I know you from way back. From back when you were the loudest defender of the unitary executive (though of course, you did not actually know what that phrase meant), the biggest cheerleader for war, war powers, the patriot act, gitmo, etc etc. So of course, you, in the tradition of right-wing projection, believe that liberals must be the same.
Most liberals believe Obama is wrong on gay marriage. Liberals believe that the federal government, and the Constitution, should always be used to expand freedoms and rights. Not to deny and strip them. This is an ideology. It's a damned fine one, and I'm proud to call it my own.
Finally, just because Obama is wrong on gay marriage, and in the way of the politician, using right-wing language in order to justify himself, doesn't change the history of state's rights in this country, nor make it any less of a poisonous ideology with practical misogynistic, racist, and freedom-limiting outcomes.
sedan
red panda
I have noticed that icedancer2theend will sometimes copy and paste from articles without indicating that she has done so.
Is this sloppy posting? Or is this a way to compensate for poor writing and appear more intelligent?
It's a mystery!
Man, am I glad you said something! Her answer had me completely baffled - furrowed brow, the works. I thought it was either way over my head, or just some crazy babble, but didn't want to spend any time at all trying to decipher it...