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

Were you at the Mass Frank or did you learn of it through a liberal media source?

You seem a little too easily unsettled to me. Are all agnostics so sensitive?

Anyway--you have admitted that the **** had not been scared out of you and you said it had in a literary communication where idiom is only used in reported speech. In other words you indulged in gross hyperbole as a means of persuading others to adopt your general position in regard to the Catholic Church which, as I understand it, has about 80 million American adherents.

There is a vast difference between what people actually do and the officially sanctioned position of an institution.

The fact that a large number of people break the speed limit every day does not mean that the government should start approving of them doing so and reducing the fines or offering financial inducements.

Can you not see that the Church has no alternative but to express disapproval of artificial conception no matter what its members do. Planned parenthood is a terrible thing to contemplate at the official level.

As Veblen famously said--"the illegitimacy rate represents the triumph of the hormones over the proprietaries." One might think evolutionists would agree with that.

You have a not so subtle eugenics experiment on your hands and the sooner you admit it and get on defending it the clearer your thinking will become.

If I may quote Immanuel Kant--

"We need only look at the attempts to deal with morality in the favourite style. We shall find an amazing mishmash. . . the special constitution of human nature. . .perfection. . . happiness. . . God. . . a little of this, and a little of that."

Will you explain to us why the Church is attacking women when its policy is to leave them alone in their natural state with regard to sexual activity and to stitch up any bloke who has the nerve and arrogance to get them with a child he does not want and to insist that he takes responsibility for what he has done.

How would you like to be taking 20 odd poison pills every month in case your partner arrives home a bit elated after the Giants won the game?

The weather here in New Jersey is looking good today, although it is a bit cooler than I would like it to be.

How's the weather where you are, JTT?

Go back and read the comment in context, Spendius...and it will all become clear.

I never did any such thing. This statement is gross hyperbole on your part.

It wouldn't bother me!

And obviously it doesn't bother most women. 98% of all Catholic women do so (or use other means of contraception)...and 99% of all women in general do so.

So what is your point?

After puzzling over that very same question for quite some time now I finally reached the conclusion that he has no relevant point. I think it can summed up as contraceptives ruin the mood and are only out there for people to make money therefore they shouldn't be used by anyone seriously interested in romance.

I made the point. That the Church can't officially approve of it. That's the point and I was careful to make it. So what's your point asking me what my point was when I had made it in the post you are faking responding to.

And if the Government finances it there is a slippery slope to eugenics and the Hatchery & Conditioning Centre. Not in our lifetimes of course. So it's no skin off my nose if it does. It might even be the best policy.

People our age on seeing the first motor car might have predicted where it would get to in 100 years. No doubt erring on the cautious side. Predicting it does not imply approval or disapproval.

I'm seeing if you have the courage of your convictions about where State organised artificial conception leads to. That the "free" kits will impact on poor people the most, and are obviously intended to, is not a value judgement. Or whether they impact certain ethnic groups the most.

And there's a difference between things happening and talking about them in polite company. How real would you like to get?

One can't be seen to be peeking under the veil of reality because you don't care for Mr Santorum or some other transient whim.

Huxley's other important prediction is coming true.

And I notice that your figures are pointless if you fail to distinguish between "contraception" and "artificial contraception". And that has been pointed out to you too.

So all in all I take it you are not really reading my posts.

Why not? There is absolutely nothing that prevents the Church from officially approving of it...assuming "it" means artificial contraception.

The pope could do it by decree tomorrow. Hell, he could do it today.

Dont let JTT **** you Frank. I understood you perfectly.

Why not? The Catholic church changed from not eating meat on Fridays. Where in the bible does it say "no meat on Fridays?" Where does the bible say "no contraception?"

Yes, a sure sign of premeditated sex.

Not an iota of a chance. You obviously do not understand the situation. I've explained it enough and you are unaffected. Stone wall job.

It would join the materialist camp. You seem to think that the doctrine is not a pragmatic one.

You are in a historical pseudomorphosis Frank. It's a minerology metaphor.

An old culture sits squat upon the new one. Not just now. Generally.
The new one can't get for going because of it and is inhibited in its expression forms which battle with it. It even causes the new one to be unable to reach full self-consciousness. As Spengler wrote--



It's geared up substantially in cities where a frenetic chattering class, which controls Media, is reduced to constant theorising and not doing.

Such a notion predicts a dictator at some point who imposes the will of a do-er. All you need to get there is the mishmash of conflicting theories causing paralysis. And all of the theories are valid within the limited terms of reference they begin with. 51--48 votes in the Senate. As if that is a victory for the 51. A 2% swing at the next election and there is a change in the Senate. Even on School Boards. It's 8--6 one year and 6--8 the next.

There is a principle in political philosophy that the more conscious we are of being governed the less we are governed. So if you don't wish to be governed you rack up the consciousness of being governed. Chattering political theory is then, essentially, a protest at being governed at all. Which makes sense of course because freedom is antithetical to being governed.

Nobody talks of freedom here. We laugh at such idiotic concepts. There's no governing with concepts.

When Aneurin Bevan had listened to the various concepts concerning the introduction of a National Health Service it was so confusing that he is said to have banged his fist on the desk shouting "just ******* do it." For better or for worse. We think it wonderful. The Tories think it wonderful now because if they don't they'll get wiped out.

A pal of mine fell down at work aged 47. Ambulence, hospital, slice, chop, snip, stitch, two weeks in IC, never worked since. Could have been a hobo. £70,ooo's worth it is said. Just name, date of birth, address. Nothing to pay. Taxi home. Drugs free ever since. Monthly checks. No fine print.

What anxiety there must be when that doesn't happen.

I went blind in one eye suddenly, without any warning, as I lay soaking in the bath. Doctors, opticians, eye hospital, two days studying the topography of my retina, operation, taxi home, restored vision. Name, date of birth, address. It was all I was ever asked. £10,000's worth I was told. Mind you I have paid out plenty as well on beer and smokes. But I never minded that.

It's the anxiety relief that really counts. We are nannied all to **** here. Lovely.

And that's not a relevant point?? Sheesh!!!!!!!

What could be more romantic than "ette" endings? What's a "revel"? To make merry and indulge in boisterous activities. What?? Under bureaucratic guidance from Washington?

No stonewall job, Spendius. In fact, I agree…not an iota of a chance.

But you are a logical person, Spendius…and you realize that just because there is not an iota of a chance of him doing it….DOES NOT MEAN IT CANNOT BE DONE.

There is no church doctrine about artificial contraception that could not be undone by an infallible pope in an instant…and you know that.

We’ve got too many people on the planet already. He ought to get off his chair and do it.

BTW revelette, (what a romantic name). Germaine Greer made the exact same point in Sex and Destiny.

What do you mean saying I have no relevant point? Mailer made it too.

Yes--it's business. They got in your bed and conditioned how you go about the job. Sure as eggs.

Try it under your own steam sometime. See the difference.

I have explained to you before why the no meat on Friday came in. The Vatican owned a fishing fleet. And it was a way of stopping the toffs eating all the meat.

The Bible is against spilling the seed on stony ground. Onan.

spendi, Many countries/communities are landlocked with very little or on fish to be had, and if they are available, cost more than most other meats.

It cannot be done because the Church would cease to have meaning if it was. It wouldn't be the Church if it did it. The Church cannot do it by internal logic.



There are natural contraceptive processes. Contraception prevents you discovering them. Then you think they don't exist. And they do. I gave one. In ribald form. The porn studs practice another. They demonstrate the determination I told you about a few pages ago.

There are others too difficult to discuss associated with temperature, acidity and extrusion.

You wrote,

Most Catholic women already use contraceptives. To deny women the right to use contraceptives is a man-made policy with no women input. Men shouldn't be making women contraception issues a concern; women are capable of doing that themselves, and they do. Those men do not understand that you cannot legislate or force church-based morals on anybody. They must learn to live in the real world.

Nothing about tissue then.