68
   

The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 09:16 am
@reasoning logic,
We cross posted.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 09:23 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Please, please, Spendius...tell me you are not going to use "withdrawal" or "no orgasm" as your "natural method."


What are you talking about here Frank? I'm talking about the whole relationship without contraception between two healthy adults of the opposite sex who fancy each other rotten or, if you prefer, are in love.

We have now mobile phones programmed to beep at a certain time of day to remind ladies to take their pill.

I think this sort of thing is roughly what Mr Santorum was talking about when I saw him last night. That the Permissive Society is a mistake. The Temple of Isis in Rome was opened and closed periodically. And the Permissive Society began with the pill.

When the august Financial Times of London chooses to run a banner headline BOOM IN DISHONESTY some might think Mr Santorum is right.

It seems plain to me though that Mr Obama is not a Christian. If I was to lend $100 to one of the candidates at 10% I would lend it to Mr Santorum.

And y'all have a choice. As you do between Campbell's Tomato Soup and Heinz Tomato Soup.

spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 09:38 am
@Frank Apisa,
There's no such thing as abstinence Frank. The nocturnal emission kicks in and that's something else. But patience is required and this is the "NOW!" epoch.

What are you meaning by abstinence? Abstinence from what?
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 09:55 am
@blueveinedthrobber,
Men have control, they can choose not to have sexual intercourse and can choose to use a condom or try those other natural methods spendious was alluding to. Women can choose not to have sexual intercourse or get prescription drugs to keep from having a baby. A couple in relationship may choose together what they should do but in the end no one should be forced to have a baby against their wishes and biologically a woman has the choice to decide what to do with her own body. A man can't be forced to have sexual intercourse, so the time to worry about child support would be before sexual intercourse. After that point, any consequences are the responsibility of both parents. In the middle ages women had to resort to "herb women" and such like to avoid having a baby and hoped her husband didn't find out and be accused of dabbling in witch craft. Basically the man was in control of his wife in all things legally. It was that circumstances I was referring to when I said luckily we are not in the middle ages anymore.

But we have strayed from the topic of this thread, and I will just leave it there.

0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 10:18 am
@spendius,
Quote:
What are you talking about here Frank? I'm talking about the whole relationship without contraception between two healthy adults of the opposite sex who fancy each other rotten or, if you prefer, are in love.


Nice try, Spendius, but earlier, you wrote:

Quote:
And if you could put down all your ridiculous sex "education" you will find that ladies can protect themselves in a variety of ways all of which are natural and require no intervention by business interests. 4,899,109


Quote:
Are you seriously trying to maintain that a woman cannot prevent being impregnated without contraception? #4,899,163



Quote:
They either chose not to use the natural methods in order to have a baby or they didn't know how to use them. How can they have had a kid if they used them? Are you saying they don't work? If so it is an admission. They do work. #4,899,226


Quote:
Natural methods are 100% guaranteed. Non-natural methods are not 100%.
The natural method is two healthy adults rolling in the hay naked and having fun and determined to produce no after effects and knowing how not to. #4,899,249


You were talking about contraception.

Describe the "natural method" of contraception that is 100% effective.

Or just acknowledge that there is no such method.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 10:23 am
Santorum is a crazed self righteous zealot who thinks he is some kind of prophet to bring Christianity back to the US and mainline protestants who he thinks are spawns of Satan.

Quote:
Back in 2008, Rick Santorum traveled to Ave Maria University in Florida to deliver an address to students attending the Catholic university founded by Domino's Pizza founder Tom Monaghan which he moved from Michigan as part of his effort to build his own personal theocracy in Naples.

Santorum told the students at Ave Maria how lucky they were to be living in a time when God's Army is more needed than ever because all of the major institutions in society were under attack by Satan.

The audio of Santorum's remarks is still posted on the Ave Maria website and the bulk of his speech was dedicated to explaining how God had used him, his political career, and even the death of his son Gabriel in the fight to outlaw abortion in America.

But Santorum began his remarks by explaining to the students in attendance how every institution in America has been destroyed by Satan; from academia to politics with even the church having fallen under His sway - not the Catholic church, of course, but "mainline Protestantism" which is in such "shambles" that it is not even Christian any longer:

This is not a political war at all. This is not a cultural war. This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country - the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age? There is no one else to go after other than the United States and that has been the case now for almost two hundred years, once America's preeminence was sown by our great Founding Fathers.

He didn't have much success in the early days. Our foundation was very strong, in fact, is very strong. But over time, that great, acidic quality of time corrodes even the strongest foundations. And Satan has done so by attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that have so deeply rooted in the American tradition.

He was successful. He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions. The place where he was, in my mind, the most successful and first successful was in academia. He understood pride of smart people. He attacked them at their weakest, that they were, in fact, smarter than everybody else and could come up with something new and different. Pursue new truths, deny the existence of truth, play with it because they're smart. And so academia, a long time ago, fell.

And you say "what could be the impact of academia falling?" Well, I would have the argument that the other structures that I'm going to talk about here had root of their destruction because of academia. Because what academia does is educate the elites in our society, educates the leaders in our society, particularly at the college level. And they were the first to fall.

And so what we saw this domino effect, once the colleges fell and those who were being education in our institutions, the next was the church. Now you’d say, ‘wait, the Catholic Church’? No. We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic, sure the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country and the Protestant ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it. So they attacked mainline Protestantism, they attacked the Church, and what better way to go after smart people who also believe they’re pious to use both vanity and pride to also go after the Church.

After that, you start destroying the Church and you start destroying academia, the culture is where their next success was and I need not even go into the state of the popular culture today. Whether its sensuality of vanity of the famous in America, they are peacocks on display and they have taken their poor behavior and made it fashionable. The corruption of culture, the corruption of manners, the corruption of decency is now on display whether it’s the NBA or whether it’s a rock concert or whether it’s on a movie set.

The fourth, and this was harder, now I know you’re going to challenge me on this one, but politics and government was the next to fall. You say, ‘you would think they would be the first to fall, as fallible as we are in politics,’ but people in political life get elected by ordinary folks from lots of places all over the country where the foundations of this country are still strong. So while we may certainly have had examples, the body politic held up fairly well up until the last couple of decades, but it is falling too.


source
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 10:27 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank - you know I always like to read you, but this thread has over 100,000 views and it's a safe bet most of those lookups are due to its title, not because readers are too young to have heard of the birds and the bees. Why not go to the evolution thread where Spendius is already involved in a sex ed argument?
Link to Wandel's evolution thread: http://able2know.org/topic/121621-648#post-4900261

Any actual conservatives on this thread? I can't find a single one of us who believes the convention will nominate Romney. Or Paul.
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 10:30 am
@revelette,
Quote:
Santorum told the students at Ave Maria how lucky they were to be living in a time when "God's Army" is more needed than ever because all of the major institutions in society were under attack by Satan.


It does not take many words like that to know he could easily be the type to take "God's army" to a place like Iran.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 10:37 am
@High Seas,
I think you have it wrong. This thread has so many views because the regulars like me and you come here frequently to hear what is being said around the water cooler.

Don't you know this is a water cooler thread? It does not take great intellect for a thread to have high ratings or high reviews, just look at this thread bellow if you doubt me.

http://able2know.org/topic/33349-766
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 10:42 am
@High Seas,
You think they will nominate Santorum?
spendius
 
  -4  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 10:43 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Describe the "natural method" of contraception that is 100% effective.

Or just acknowledge that there is no such method.


Sheesh Frank. Did you not understand the post on Sterne's justly famous blank page. I left a similar space in the post. Whatever floats your boat plus the determination.

Is it really that difficult to understand?
blueveinedthrobber
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 10:44 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Yeah, but we are trying to come to a "natural method" that will pass muster with the people who are against artificial birth control. Somehow, I doubt they are touting back door entry.


n0 argument there, that's for damn sure. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 11:07 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Sheesh Frank. Did you not understand the post on Sterne's justly famous blank page. I left a similar space in the post. Whatever floats your boat plus the determination.

Is it really that difficult to understand?


Why not just assume I am a moron...and actually spell out what you are suggesting? Tell us what the method you are proposing is.

The reason you are going through all this nonsense, Spendius, is because you do not want to acknowledge there is no "natural method" that is 100% effective.



http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/bc_chart.html#


Effectiveness:

Abstinence 100% effective

The Patch 92% effective

Ring 92% effective

The Pill 92% effective

Female condom 79% effective

Male condom 85% effective

Birth Control shot 97% effective

Diaphragm 84% effective

Morning after pill 98% effective

IUD 99% effective

“Natural methods” 75% or less effective
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 11:11 am
@High Seas,
Quote:
Frank - you know I always like to read you, but this thread has over 100,000 views and it's a safe bet most of those lookups are due to its title, not because readers are too young to have heard of the birds and the bees. Why not go to the evolution thread where Spendius is already involved in a sex ed argument?


But HS, it has become an aspect of the debate about the Repub. nomination. It is as valid a subject for this thread as the tax policies or foreign policies of the candidates are.

revelette's slice of Mr Santorum's address makes that sufficiently clear. He is bidding for that section of voters who generally agree with that speech.

I am attempting to draw a distinction between a society without contraception and one with it and encouraged by government subsidy. The cultural tone of either. Such subsidy might be seen as being similar to the One Child policy in China.

Mr Obama deliberately opened the debate and the candidates for the nomination have responded. Mr Santorum taking the lead. What could be more on topic? Especially when few of us understand the details of tax or foreign policy.

I'm trying to colour in the spaces in Mr Santorum's stance and consider whether he is right to think it will carry him to the White House.

Despite being Emperor and offering financial inducements and promotions, Augustus could not get the Roman citizens to produce the required number of children. And I hardly suppose anybody thinks that they didn't engage in the jollies so often.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 11:20 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Why not just assume I am a moron...and actually spell out what you are suggesting? Tell us what the method you are proposing is.


I am beginning to think you are a moron Frank. Just as Mr Sterne left each reader free to describe widow Wadman's attractions so do I leave him or her free to describe their own methods of fun with 100% certainty of not causing an unwanted pregnancy.

I'm not proposing any method. There is no method.
Frank Apisa
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 11:34 am
@spendius,
Quote:
I am beginning to think you are a moron Frank.


Actually, since I am continuing this discussion with you, Spendius, I am beginning to suspect the same thing about myself.

Quote:
Just as Mr Sterne left each reader free to describe widow Wadman's attractions so do I leave him or her free to describe their own methods of fun with 100% certainty of not causing an unwanted pregnancy.


That makes no sense. You asserted there was a method. I've asked you to offer it for consideration.

Quote:
I'm not proposing any method.


No, not now. Now that you realize you have nothing to offer.


Quote:
There is no method.


There you go, Spendius. All that earlier stuff was nonsense. There is no "natural method" that is 100% effective. In fact, there is no natural method which is as effective as artificial contraception...which is pretty much what I said all along.

Thanks for finally acknowledging it.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 11:57 am
@Frank Apisa,
Congratulations, Frank. I believe you're the very first one to break through spendi's facade of "I know it all!"
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 12:02 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Oral. Manual.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 12:03 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Yeah, but we are trying to come to a "natural method" that will pass muster with the people who are against artificial birth control. Somehow, I doubt they are touting back door entry.

Now you're raising the bar. That wasn't your question, originally.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Feb, 2012 12:05 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
Oral. Manual.


Depends where your orals and manuals wander.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 04:18:33