Re: What your neighbors may not know, but maybe should:

Dr. Evil Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:40 am

Jammer wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:First off, natural law would refer to natural sunlight, not light bulbs. The use of incandescent light bulbs creates an unnecessary strain on our power grid, effecting others.

Your comment clearly reveals that you don't have a clue on what Natural Law is. You are completely off target whenever you refer to Natural Law. I'm not sure if I have the patience to go thru that exercise with you in addition to this one. Therefore I suggest you strike up a dialogue with Gomezz as he seem to understand it pretty well.

You keep saying that, but you're too chicken shiit to offer anything of your own. So your comments don't hold much water.

Gomezz Adddams Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:44 am

Dr. Evil wrote:Do bears use guns to defend themselves? Or what's naturally available to them?

They would if they had thumbs.

Gomezz Adddams Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:52 am

Dr. Evil wrote:An unborn child is part of their mother's body.

Wrong. Unless the unborn child is a clone of it's parent, the child has a unique DNA structure separate from it's parents. Therefore it can not be part of the female's body. But then that's science and Libs, while they profess an affinity for science, they really just make it up as their argument turns into gibberish. Beat it to fit; paint it to match reasoning.

Dr. Evil Mon Apr 17, 2017 12:01 pm

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:Do bears use guns to defend themselves? Or what's naturally available to them?

They would if they had thumbs.

Excellent point... cheers

Dr. Evil Mon Apr 17, 2017 12:03 pm

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:An unborn child is part of their mother's body.

Wrong. Unless the unborn child is a clone of it's parent, the child has a unique DNA structure separate from it's parents. Therefore it can not be part of the female's body. But then that's science and Libs, while they profess an affinity for science, they really just make it up as their argument turns into gibberish. Beat it to fit; paint it to match reasoning.

I'm going to leave that alone because there's no reason to turn this into an abortion thread Suspect

Gomezz Adddams Mon Apr 17, 2017 12:14 pm

Dr. Evil wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:An unborn child is part of their mother's body.

Wrong. Unless the unborn child is a clone of it's parent, the child has a unique DNA structure separate from it's parents. Therefore it can not be part of the female's body. But then that's science and Libs, while they profess an affinity for science, they really just make it up as their argument turns into gibberish. Beat it to fit; paint it to match reasoning.

I'm going to leave that alone because there's no reason to turn this into an abortion thread

So you deny then the science that has proven that an unborn child is unique from it's parents?

Dr. Evil Mon Apr 17, 2017 12:34 pm

Jammer wrote:Your incoherent rambling is really quite embarrassing, so I am going to try to help you out. Let's start with the actual liberties and not get all confused on the examples some of which were a little strange. In any event, that does not take away from the actual rights and principles Beck is addressing. Anyhow, take each of the points below and let us know WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH THEM OR NOT.

Glenn Beck’s points in his video are:

You have the RIGHT (Liberty) to:

1. To raise your child as you see fit
2. To eat all the trans fats you want and sugary beverages in any size container you want
3. To Live Free
4. To create
5. To keep the fruits of your labors

Done.

Darth’s points are:
1. How about if you don't want to bake a cake for a couple of faggots because it is against your beliefs?

As I've said before, I understand that religious fredom is paramount here. But we also have civil rights to consider. This has been extremely tough for me. Ultimately I have to lean towards the rights of the business owner to follow their beliefs and the rights of patrons to conduct their business accordingly. Before you go jumping up and down keep in mind that this takes the fight to the streets. We're talking about long time friends and family never talking to one another again. We're talking about fist fights. We could very well be talking about a form of civil war. Don't think I'm exaggerating. I've seen it before. A nearby town closed its doors several years ago. The state wanted the small schools in SD to be closed, but they wouldn't man up and do it. They changed the compensation formula and left it up to the districts to close themselves. So rather than have the people mad at the state, they were mad at each other. It was a disaster. Not the type of let the people choose for themselves utopia you read about in conservative propaganda.

2. How about if you don't want mentally unstable misfits who are "transgendering" or "self identifying as" to go into the same bathroom as your young daughter?

Same as the previous question. Let them choose.

3. How about if you don't feel your hard earned dollars should go to fund an abortion factory?

You're not funding abortion.

4. How about you don't want you tax dollars going to some liberal slug that is too lazy to work and claims they are disabled?

Or conservative slug? Welfare is much cheaper than prison, right? How about your tax dollars going to entice Walmart to come to town?

I will warn you that they are all consistent with YOUR DEFINITION OF LIBERTY. Anyhow, let’s start there. If you agree with those points, then you are consistent with your definition of liberty and what you believe in. In which case, you will get some points on your side of the ledger as we go thru this discussion.

Dr. Evil Mon Apr 17, 2017 12:35 pm

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:An unborn child is part of their mother's body.

Wrong. Unless the unborn child is a clone of it's parent, the child has a unique DNA structure separate from it's parents. Therefore it can not be part of the female's body. But then that's science and Libs, while they profess an affinity for science, they really just make it up as their argument turns into gibberish. Beat it to fit; paint it to match reasoning.

I'm going to leave that alone because there's no reason to turn this into an abortion thread

So you deny then the science that has proven that an unborn child is unique from it's parents?

I don't deny anything. I'm just not interested into making this an abortion thread.

Gomezz Adddams Mon Apr 17, 2017 12:46 pm

Dr. Evil wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:An unborn child is part of their mother's body.

Wrong. Unless the unborn child is a clone of it's parent, the child has a unique DNA structure separate from it's parents. Therefore it can not be part of the female's body. But then that's science and Libs, while they profess an affinity for science, they really just make it up as their argument turns into gibberish. Beat it to fit; paint it to match reasoning.

I'm going to leave that alone because there's no reason to turn this into an abortion thread

So you deny then the science that has proven that an unborn child is unique from it's parents?

I don't deny anything. I'm just not interested into making this an abortion thread.

You are the only one talking abortion. I'm stating that your claim that an unborn child is part of the mother's body is patently false because the DNA of the unborn is not identical to the mother's. To say otherwise is to deny a verifiable scientific fact.

Jammer Mon Apr 17, 2017 1:07 pm

Dr. Evil wrote:
Jammer wrote:Your incoherent rambling is really quite embarrassing, so I am going to try to help you out. Let's start with the actual liberties and not get all confused on the examples some of which were a little strange. In any event, that does not take away from the actual rights and principles Beck is addressing. Anyhow, take each of the points below and let us know WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH THEM OR NOT.

Glenn Beck’s points in his video are:

You have the RIGHT (Liberty) to:

1. To raise your child as you see fit
2. To eat all the trans fats you want and sugary beverages in any size container you want
3. To Live Free
4. To create
5. To keep the fruits of your labors

Darth’s points are:
1. How about if you don't want to bake a cake for a couple of faggots because it is against your beliefs?

2. How about if you don't want mentally unstable misfits who are "transgendering" or "self identifying as" to go into the same bathroom as your young daughter?

3. How about if you don't feel your hard earned dollars should go to fund an abortion factory?

4. How about you don't want you tax dollars going to some liberal slug that is too lazy to work and claims they are disabled?

I will warn you that they are all consistent with YOUR DEFINITION OF LIBERTY. Anyhow, let’s start there. If you agree with those points, then you are consistent with your definition of liberty and what you believe in. In which case, you will get some points on your side of the ledger as we go thru this discussion.

You're the Dumbass that told me to tell you what I thought, all last night and you started up again this morning... gawd you're retarded.

You just can’t help being an asshole, can you? Normally I treat you just as bad, but I have been trying to be kind and patient with you in this discussion. When you made the statement:

Liberty to me means the right to do what you want, when you want, how you want, without debate, so long as it doesn't impede another's safety or right to the same.

I thought perhaps there was a chance that there was a place where we could finally find at least a degree of commonality. And while I seriously doubted it, I wanted to give it a try. But as usual, thinking that you can have a conversation with a socialist liberal just is not a sane thought.

The stupid way you have tried to respond to these questions is just embarrassing. You sound like a complete idiot or someone who was trying to cover up a lie. So unless you want to get serious about this, I am ready to come to the conclusion that your statement above was just an out and out lie in order to deceive people.

So last chance, either make a SERIOUS attempt at this or let’s forget it and I will just realize that you do NOT have any level of acceptance to that statement. It was just a LIBERAL LIE.

SO, LAST CHANCE – YOUR CHOICE.

Dr. Evil Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:01 pm

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:An unborn child is part of their mother's body.

Wrong. Unless the unborn child is a clone of it's parent, the child has a unique DNA structure separate from it's parents. Therefore it can not be part of the female's body. But then that's science and Libs, while they profess an affinity for science, they really just make it up as their argument turns into gibberish. Beat it to fit; paint it to match reasoning.

I'm going to leave that alone because there's no reason to turn this into an abortion thread

So you deny then the science that has proven that an unborn child is unique from it's parents?

I don't deny anything. I'm just not interested into making this an abortion thread.

You are the only one talking abortion. I'm stating that your claim that an unborn child is part of the mother's body is patently false because the DNA of the unborn is not identical to the mother's. To say otherwise is to deny a verifiable scientific fact.

It was actually Jammer talking about abortion in his Glenn Beck video. Scientists have found a multitude of different DNA's in the human body. Skin, blood, brain, etc... all naturally occurring without introduced pathogens and all part of the human body. So to say that a different strain of DNA in a woman's body is automatically it's own being is well, foolish. Back to my original statement. A newly formed cell, possibly an eventual baby, depends on the health and wellbeing of its mother until the point that it can live alone or possibly with the aid of an experienced medical team. Health and wellbeing are sometimes hard to come by for a woman herself, much less to provide for another. Hence the natural right given to a woman to decide if she is able to bear and care for a child. Look at the malnutrition in the underdeveloped and overpopulated parts of the world. Does that seem natural to you? Does that seem like nature's plan?

Dr. Evil Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:07 pm

Here's some food for thought on what how mothers in nature choose what is best for their offspring and their own 'community'.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140328-sloth-bear-zoo-infanticide-chimps-bonobos-animals/

It's a really interesting read. I'm glad you were so insistent that we talked about this.

Dr. Evil Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:34 pm

Jammer wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:
Jammer wrote:Your incoherent rambling is really quite embarrassing, so I am going to try to help you out. Let's start with the actual liberties and not get all confused on the examples some of which were a little strange. In any event, that does not take away from the actual rights and principles Beck is addressing. Anyhow, take each of the points below and let us know WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH THEM OR NOT.

Glenn Beck’s points in his video are:

You have the RIGHT (Liberty) to:

1. To raise your child as you see fit
2. To eat all the trans fats you want and sugary beverages in any size container you want
3. To Live Free
4. To create
5. To keep the fruits of your labors

Darth’s points are:
1. How about if you don't want to bake a cake for a couple of faggots because it is against your beliefs?

2. How about if you don't want mentally unstable misfits who are "transgendering" or "self identifying as" to go into the same bathroom as your young daughter?

3. How about if you don't feel your hard earned dollars should go to fund an abortion factory?

4. How about you don't want you tax dollars going to some liberal slug that is too lazy to work and claims they are disabled?

I will warn you that they are all consistent with YOUR DEFINITION OF LIBERTY. Anyhow, let’s start there. If you agree with those points, then you are consistent with your definition of liberty and what you believe in. In which case, you will get some points on your side of the ledger as we go thru this discussion.

You're the Dumbass that told me to tell you what I thought, all last night and you started up again this morning... gawd you're retarded.

You just can’t help being an asshole, can you? Normally I treat you just as bad, but I have been trying to be kind and patient with you in this discussion. When you made the statement:

Liberty to me means the right to do what you want, when you want, how you want, without debate, so long as it doesn't impede another's safety or right to the same.

Yaaaa, you've been sooo hospitable...

I thought perhaps there was a chance that there was a place where we could finally find at least a degree of commonality. And while I seriously doubted it, I wanted to give it a try. But as usual, thinking that you can have a conversation with a socialist liberal just is not a sane thought.

The stupid way you have tried to respond to these questions is just embarrassing. You sound like a complete idiot or someone who was trying to cover up a lie. So unless you want to get serious about this, I am ready to come to the conclusion that your statement above was just an out and out lie in order to deceive people.

So last chance, either make a SERIOUS attempt at this or let’s forget it and I will just realize that you do NOT have any level of acceptance to that statement. It was just a LIBERAL LIE.

SO, LAST CHANCE – YOUR CHOICE.

I don't know how much more serious I can get. I'm not sure what you're looking for. What your neighbors may not know, but maybe should: - Page 25 3584648792

Jammer Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:51 pm

Dr. Evil wrote:
Jammer wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:
Jammer wrote:Your incoherent rambling is really quite embarrassing, so I am going to try to help you out. Let's start with the actual liberties and not get all confused on the examples some of which were a little strange. In any event, that does not take away from the actual rights and principles Beck is addressing. Anyhow, take each of the points below and let us know WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH THEM OR NOT.

Glenn Beck’s points in his video are:

You have the RIGHT (Liberty) to:

1. To raise your child as you see fit
2. To eat all the trans fats you want and sugary beverages in any size container you want
3. To Live Free
4. To create
5. To keep the fruits of your labors

Darth’s points are:
1. How about if you don't want to bake a cake for a couple of faggots because it is against your beliefs?

2. How about if you don't want mentally unstable misfits who are "transgendering" or "self identifying as" to go into the same bathroom as your young daughter?

3. How about if you don't feel your hard earned dollars should go to fund an abortion factory?

4. How about you don't want you tax dollars going to some liberal slug that is too lazy to work and claims they are disabled?

I will warn you that they are all consistent with YOUR DEFINITION OF LIBERTY. Anyhow, let’s start there. If you agree with those points, then you are consistent with your definition of liberty and what you believe in. In which case, you will get some points on your side of the ledger as we go thru this discussion.

You're the Dumbass that told me to tell you what I thought, all last night and you started up again this morning... gawd you're retarded.

You just can’t help being an asshole, can you? Normally I treat you just as bad, but I have been trying to be kind and patient with you in this discussion. When you made the statement:

Liberty to me means the right to do what you want, when you want, how you want, without debate, so long as it doesn't impede another's safety or right to the same.

Yaaaa, you've been sooo hospitable...

I thought perhaps there was a chance that there was a place where we could finally find at least a degree of commonality. And while I seriously doubted it, I wanted to give it a try. But as usual, thinking that you can have a conversation with a socialist liberal just is not a sane thought.

The stupid way you have tried to respond to these questions is just embarrassing. You sound like a complete idiot or someone who was trying to cover up a lie. So unless you want to get serious about this, I am ready to come to the conclusion that your statement above was just an out and out lie in order to deceive people.

So last chance, either make a SERIOUS attempt at this or let’s forget it and I will just realize that you do NOT have any level of acceptance to that statement. It was just a LIBERAL LIE.

SO, LAST CHANCE – YOUR CHOICE.

I don't know how much more serious I can get. I'm not sure what you're looking for.

Well you could begin by taking EACH of the points listed and merely saying whether you agreed with them or not, rather than some of the ridiculous statements you made. Whether a bear uses a gun or not is immaterial and merely a deflection from answering the question straight-up.

Dr. Evil Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:55 pm

Dr. Evil wrote:
Jammer wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:
Jammer wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:You people have no clue what the word 'liberty' means, do you??

I go with a Lockean definition:

"All men are naturally in a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man."

Too bad the Libs don't subscribe to this vein of thought

Liberty to me means the right to do what you want, when you want, how you want, without debate, so long as it doesn't impede another's safety or right to the same.

Well first off, that is not completely accurate. How so? Second that is not consistent with the majority of your comments on this forum. Examples? And third, it comes nowhere near close to the actions that you see coming from liberals either on TV or on your street. Their behavior and beliefs are quite different from that definition. WHY IS THAT? I register as an Independent because I don't associate with bleeding heart liberals. No seriously, I've been on a few forums and they make me want to vomit almost as bad as you. But humor me with some examples if you must.

Well it is obvious from that reply that you are clueless and your George Soros funded website has no answers for you. I will eventually get around to your question of “How so” later. Otherwise knowing how you operate, you will use that question as a deflection to get away from the tough spot that you are in.

So let’s begin with the examples. Rather than give you the very long laundry list of examples that I have, I will do it one at a time. Also, I hope some other conservatives jump in and give you their examples. They will probably come up with much better examples than I will. You are going to find out that YOUR past comments on this forum and the behavior of liberals is totally inconsistent with your statement.

Let’s start with where YOU wrote: Liberty to me means the right to do what you want, when you want, how you want, without debate, so long as it doesn't impede another's safety or right to the same.

EXAMPLE #1: If that is an accurate statement, how can you or any liberals be opposed to my ability to own, possess or use any type of gun?

As I've said numerous times, I have no issue with gun ownership. That includes whatever gun you want to own. I believe that you have the right to use that/those guns to protect your home in whatever way you see fit. I believe that you have the right to take your guns another person's private property, with their consent, and shoot them in a manner that is safe for the people on the property around you. I believe that you have the right to take your guns to an accredited facility and use them in a manner that is safe to those around you that are not in that facility. I believe that anybody who wants to carry a gun in public has the right to prove to their fellow citizens that they are capable of conducting themselves properly should, and this is a longshot, the situation arise that they would need to use it.

As per the Constitution these are all subject to regulation. The first three specifically should be dependent on the individuals history, and the fourth should also require ongoing certification.

A few things:

Any more mentions of Soros and this conversation is over.

I will let you by with not answering the "How so" for now, but only because you make me laugh.

Finally, and probably most importantly, I'm curious what you think is so natural about a gun? Nature seems to be the Right's litmus test for whether something is a natural right. Do guns grow in trees? At least many gay people are born that way, even though it may not be what you consider 'natural', but where do guns come from?

In reference to "the bear".

Jammer Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:07 pm

Dr. Evil wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:
Jammer wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:
Jammer wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:You people have no clue what the word 'liberty' means, do you??

I go with a Lockean definition:

"All men are naturally in a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man."

Too bad the Libs don't subscribe to this vein of thought

Liberty to me means the right to do what you want, when you want, how you want, without debate, so long as it doesn't impede another's safety or right to the same.

Well first off, that is not completely accurate. How so? Second that is not consistent with the majority of your comments on this forum. Examples? And third, it comes nowhere near close to the actions that you see coming from liberals either on TV or on your street. Their behavior and beliefs are quite different from that definition. WHY IS THAT? I register as an Independent because I don't associate with bleeding heart liberals. No seriously, I've been on a few forums and they make me want to vomit almost as bad as you. But humor me with some examples if you must.

Well it is obvious from that reply that you are clueless and your George Soros funded website has no answers for you. I will eventually get around to your question of “How so” later. Otherwise knowing how you operate, you will use that question as a deflection to get away from the tough spot that you are in.

So let’s begin with the examples. Rather than give you the very long laundry list of examples that I have, I will do it one at a time. Also, I hope some other conservatives jump in and give you their examples. They will probably come up with much better examples than I will. You are going to find out that YOUR past comments on this forum and the behavior of liberals is totally inconsistent with your statement.

Let’s start with where YOU wrote: Liberty to me means the right to do what you want, when you want, how you want, without debate, so long as it doesn't impede another's safety or right to the same.

EXAMPLE #1: If that is an accurate statement, how can you or any liberals be opposed to my ability to own, possess or use any type of gun?

As I've said numerous times, I have no issue with gun ownership. That includes whatever gun you want to own. I believe that you have the right to use that/those guns to protect your home in whatever way you see fit. I believe that you have the right to take your guns another person's private property, with their consent, and shoot them in a manner that is safe for the people on the property around you. I believe that you have the right to take your guns to an accredited facility and use them in a manner that is safe to those around you that are not in that facility. I believe that anybody who wants to carry a gun in public has the right to prove to their fellow citizens that they are capable of conducting themselves properly should, and this is a longshot, the situation arise that they would need to use it.

As per the Constitution these are all subject to regulation. The first three specifically should be dependent on the individuals history, and the fourth should also require ongoing certification.

A few things:

Any more mentions of Soros and this conversation is over.

I will let you by with not answering the "How so" for now, but only because you make me laugh.

Finally, and probably most importantly, I'm curious what you think is so natural about a gun? Nature seems to be the Right's litmus test for whether something is a natural right. Do guns grow in trees? At least many gay people are born that way, even though it may not be what you consider 'natural', but where do guns come from?

In reference to "the bear".

I have no idea what you mean by that silly answer. It appears that you have NO INTENTION of merely saying whether you either AGREE or DISAGREE with each point.

Dr. Evil Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:42 pm

How hard is it to read my post?? Let me try saying it another way to see if you can better understand.

I believe in the Castle Doctrine and agree that it is a natural right so long as no innocent bystanders are effected. The Castle Doctrine being the right to protect yourself within your home or property to whatever extent you see fit.

Jammer Mon Apr 17, 2017 4:17 pm

Dr. Evil wrote:How hard is it to read my post?? Let me try saying it another way to see if you can better understand.

I believe in the Castle Doctrine and agree that it is a natural right so long as no innocent bystanders are effected. The Castle Doctrine being the right to protect yourself within your home or property to whatever extent you see fit.

That does not really answer the question. This is your last chance to either AGREE or DISAGREE with the issues or principles listed by Darth and what was in the Beck video. From your comments so far as disjointed as they are and how they try to deflect in every angle, I must conclude that you do not accept the 2nd Amendment nor agree with the Natural Law principle that a person has the right to protect themselves from harm by any reasonable means at any time.

Dr. Evil Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:02 pm

Jammer wrote:
Dr. Evil wrote:How hard is it to read my post?? Let me try saying it another way to see if you can better understand.

I believe in the Castle Doctrine and agree that it is a natural right so long as no innocent bystanders are effected. The Castle Doctrine being the right to protect yourself within your home or property to whatever extent you see fit.

That does not really answer the question. This is your last chance to either AGREE or DISAGREE with the issues or principles listed by Darth and what was in the Beck video. From your comments so far as disjointed as they are and how they try to deflect in every angle, I must conclude that you do not accept the 2nd Amendment nor agree with the Natural Law principle that a person has the right to protect themselves from harm by any reasonable means at any time.

How could that possibly not answer the question? I already agreed. How am I deflecting? Just because you say it doesn't make it true. I'm sure I don't accept your misguided interpretation of the 2nd amendment, but that doesn't mean that I don't accept it. What is the point of the 2nd amendment if the authors of the Constitution felt that you had a natural right to carry a gun at all times in all places? Wouldn't it's mere existence prove that it's not their intention?

Jammer Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:21 pm

JACKOFF JONES IS AN ASSHOLE
I AM FINISHED WITH THE EVIL PIECE OF DOGSHIT

To all conservatives, I apologize for this ridiculous litany of liberal drivel that has been brought to this thread by the biggest dipshit I have seen in a long time. The asshole never had any intention of actually answering. As usual, he only wants to distort, misrepresent and outright lie about things. He has an agenda of bringing communism to this country and nothing is going to stop the asshole. I am embarrassed for not taking my own advice and never ever engaging a REPRESSIVE LIBERAL in a conversation. It never works out, they are EVIL.

I am going to try to sit down in an hour or two and put together some thoughts on Natural Law. It is not a well understood issue and I think the more us conservatives study it, the better off the world will be. I will try to post this yet tonight, but I have something to do for the next couple of hours.

Dr. Evil Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:28 pm

Jammer wrote:
JACKOFF JONES IS AN ASSHOLE
I AM FINISHED WITH THE EVIL PIECE OF DOGSHIT

To all conservatives, I apologize for this ridiculous litany of liberal drivel that has been brought to this thread by the biggest dipshit I have seen in a long time. The asshole never had any intention of actually answering. As usual, he only wants to distort, misrepresent and outright lie about things. He has an agenda of bringing communism to this country and nothing is going to stop the asshole. I am embarrassed for not taking my own advice and never ever engaging a REPRESSIVE LIBERAL in a conversation. It never works out, they are EVIL.

I am going to try to sit down in an hour or two and put together some thoughts on Natural Law. It is not a well understood issue and I think the more us conservatives study it, the better off the world will be. I will try to post this yet tonight, but I have something to do for the next couple of hours.

You mean feed and rape the women and children you have locked up in your basement?

nightlight88 Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:20 pm

You mean feed and rape the women and children you have locked up in your basement?[/quote]

No wonder you are considered an asshole by most posters here.

Dr. Evil Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:31 pm

nightlight88 wrote:

You mean feed and rape the women and children you have locked up in your basement?

No wonder you are considered an asshole by most posters here.[/quote]

Oh and he's a saint??

JACKOFF JONES IS AN ASSHOLE
I AM FINISHED WITH THE EVIL PIECE OF DOGSHIT

Spare me your drama... Rolling Eyes

Darth Cheney Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:22 pm

Jammer wrote:
JACKOFF JONES IS AN ASSHOLE
I AM FINISHED WITH THE EVIL PIECE OF DOGSHIT

To all conservatives, I apologize for this ridiculous litany of liberal drivel that has been brought to this thread by the biggest dipshit I have seen in a long time. The asshole never had any intention of actually answering. As usual, he only wants to distort, misrepresent and outright lie about things. He has an agenda of bringing communism to this country and nothing is going to stop the asshole. I am embarrassed for not taking my own advice and never ever engaging a REPRESSIVE LIBERAL in a conversation. It never works out, they are EVIL.

I am going to try to sit down in an hour or two and put together some thoughts on Natural Law. It is not a well understood issue and I think the more us conservatives study it, the better off the world will be. I will try to post this yet tonight, but I have something to do for the next couple of hours.

One of my favorite quotes:

Never argue with an idiot...they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience every time.

Jackoff Jones fits this criteria. The left makes up "facts" as they go with complete disregard for truth or historic evidence. They appeal to other brain dead liberals who know nothing. That is how they reproduce and infect the populous. They know nothing nor have any intelligent thought within their capacity besides spouting liberal untruths. Liberalism truly is a terrible mental disease which there is no known cure. They are like a sub-species...perhaps the missing link they so what to prove. There is a fairly good chance they (liberals) did evolve directly from apes which explains their mental capacity and urge to incite violence to those you disagree.

Jammer Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:52 pm

This comment is intended ONLY for conservatives. Dumbass liberals need to stay away as you will never accept a single word and we are tired of your dumbass comments.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Natural Law is not the easiest thing to understand. It is easy to accept once you hear the concept, but it is often difficult to sort thru when man-made legislation to govern us is being produced. That might explain a few dumb votes by a FEW Republicans.

The Founding Fathers were extremely strong advocates of Natural Law. In fact, they used its concepts to justify their actions to separate from England. They envisioned the teachings of Marcus Tullius Cicero helping them achieve his vision of the grandeur and promise of a society based upon a Republic and Natural Law. They shared his belief and thought that they could create a country of prosperity and justice for them and their posterity. We are extremely lucky in this great country and need to thank them every day for their wisdom.

Obviously, there were other noted scholars that help influence the Founding Fathers on Natural Law, but Cicero was more than likely their prime source. Cicero simply felt that there was a Supreme Creator of the universe and He put in motion a set of rules by which the universe conforms to. Cicero called this law, Natural Law and that it was the TRUE law. He said that it was unchanging and everlasting and it was a sin to alter it, try to abolish it or vainly try to repeal it.

Sometimes it is easier to give examples of natural law than a definition. However, that typically only has value when talking with a conservative. If you are talking to a liberal they will pick apart the example rather than trying to understand the principle and how it applies to our lives.

The two examples that are often given are that of gravity and human sexuality. Any legislature in this country can pass a law outlawing gravity, but if they go to the top of the Empire State Building and jump off to see if the building is complying with their man-made law, they will quickly understand no matter how many votes they had in the legislature, man cannot override Natural Law.

Another usual example that is given is human sexuality as it demonstrates Natural Law quite well for a conservative because it is so self-evident. For instance, a man and a woman have observably different but complementary sexual parts that are capable of biological union. This union between a man and a woman can produce a sperm that fertilizes a female egg and lead to creation of life. That’s how the laws of nature from our Creator has ordained it. It works no other way. Therefore, sexual union between homosexuals is in violation of this Natural Law.

And yes, Natural Law also applies to economic issues. It is interesting that the system of Free Market Capitalism conforms to Natural Law while socialism does not. Hence it is no surprise that Free Market Capitalism is the only economic system in the history of mankind that has generated true prosperity.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/natural-law.asp

Investopedia wrote:DEFINITION of 'Natural Law'
A set of rules inherent in human behavior and human reasoning that governs human conduct. Natural law is preexisting and is not created in courts by judges. Philosophers and theologians throughout history have differed in their interpretations of natural law, but in theory, natural law should be the same throughout time and across the world because it is based on human nature, not on culture or customs.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he acknowledged the Laws of Nature (Natural Law) and of Nature’s God as rationale for our separation from England.

The Declaration of Independence states:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

When Martin Luther King, Jr. was fighting against segregation, he cited Natural Law as the reason for segregation being unjust. In fact, he was probably the greatest spokesman for natural law in the 20th century when he denounced segregation because it betrayed the natural-law principles of the Declaration of Independence.”

http://blog.acton.org/archives/20826-martin-luther-king-jr-and-natural-law.html

http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/natural-law-from-a-birmingham-jail.html

Today REPRESSIVE LIBERALS for the most part are clueless on what Natural Law is and the bounds it places on us. However, there are also many REPRESSIVE LIBERALS who don’t like the dictates of Natural Law and simply reject it just like they do with the Laws of Natures God. I am not sure which one Jackoff Jones is, but probably the clueless category fits. However, I also firmly believe based on all his comments on this forum that even if he understood Natural Law, he would reject it.

REPRESSIVE LIBERALS who want to fundamentally transform human nature and our country especially on issues like marriage, family, sexuality and gender, find that Natural Law is their chief foe. Therefore, most REPRESSIVE LIBERALS will do with natural law what they do with biblical law and other moral laws — they will pick the applications they like and ignore or reject those they don’t. Even worse, you have the EVIL CRETINS like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer or any REPRESSIVE LIBERAL who was elected to Congress or any State Legislature will try to remake the natural law in their own image.

I personally think an important and easy take away for conservatives from this discussion might be the simple fact that two of the very biggest supporters of Natural Law in this country have been Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr. That is interesting because the REPRESSIVE LIBERALS try to claim these two individuals as their heroes and patriarchs. However, nothing could be further from the truth. When demonrats try to say that Jefferson was the founder of the demonrat party, that is complete bullshit. The founder of the demonrat party was Andrew Jackson one of the evilest men in this country. Bottom-line, neither Jefferson or King believed in anything the REPRESSIVE LIBERALS and the demonrat party stand for today.

I BET YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS MIGHT BENEFIT FROM KNOWING THAT

Sponsored content