TexasCHLforum.com

http://townhall.com/columnists/laurahol ... page/full/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Key paragraph:

we do not hold the values we do because they garner votes. We hold the values we do because we believe that they are time-tested principles without which a civilized, free and prosperous society is not possible. We defend the unborn because we understand that a society which views some lives as expendable is capable of viewing all lives as expendable.

First it was abortion. Then came euthanasia. Now Obamacare will consider the elderly expendable and deny lifesaving treatment. The next step is to eliminate the disabled and the "undesirables" so that society can be "healthy" and every citizen a "contributor".

These aren't predictions. They're inevitable based on historical evidence.

Excellent article. Very well spoke and straight at the heart.

The republican candidate was so uninspiring that even the republican base didn't like him, until he was the nominee. The democrat nominee was an incumbent and very popular with the democrat base. That pretty much sums up the election.

tallmike wrote:The republican candidate was so uninspiring that even the republican base didn't like him, until he was the nominee. The democrat nominee was an incumbent and very popular with the democrat base. That pretty much sums up the election.

Not to mention they dropped Romney like a hot potato after losing. I expect his last visible appearance was lunch with Obama last week. His 15 minutes has expired.

baldeagle wrote:http://townhall.com/columnists/laurahol ... page/full/

Key paragraph:

we do not hold the values we do because they garner votes. We hold the values we do because we believe that they are time-tested principles without which a civilized, free and prosperous society is not possible. We defend the unborn because we understand that a society which views some lives as expendable is capable of viewing all lives as expendable.

First it was abortion. Then came euthanasia. Now Obamacare will consider the elderly expendable and deny lifesaving treatment. The next step is to eliminate the disabled and the "undesirables" so that society can be "healthy" and every citizen a "contributor".

These aren't predictions. They're inevitable based on historical evidence.

Abortion may be a first practical step, but the philosophy of collectivism already contains complete justification for the elimination of anyone and everyone in the doctrine "for the good of the collective." There is no killing, on however large a scale, that cannot be justified by the collectivist imperative.

WinoVeritas wrote:

tallmike wrote:The republican candidate was so uninspiring that even the republican base didn't like him, until he was the nominee. The democrat nominee was an incumbent and very popular with the democrat base. That pretty much sums up the election.

Not to mention they dropped Romney like a hot potato after losing. I expect his last visible appearance was lunch with Obama last week. His 15 minutes has expired.

I think that's a real shame. This man and his running mate were the "dream team" we needed to right the ship of state.
We do not need charisma and inspiring rhetoric so much as we need honest, capable leaders. Romney was both, and more.
America lost a real opportunity to redeem herself.

I don't know what Romney and BHO talked about at lunch, but BHO could improve his cabinet and his cred considerably if he would find a place for Romney.
Probably won't happen, for purely political reasons

Logan's Run (1976)
An idyllic sci-fi future has one major drawback: life must end at 30.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Green Recycling at its peak- no carbon footprint at all after age 30 if you are recycled at age 30

Speaking of green ...recycling people ...
Soylent Green (1973)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In an overpopulated futuristic Earth, a New York police detective finds himself marked for murder by government agents when he gets too close to a bizarre state secret involving the origins of a revolutionary and needed new foodstuff.

VMI77 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:http://townhall.com/columnists/laurahol ... page/full/

Key paragraph:

we do not hold the values we do because they garner votes. We hold the values we do because we believe that they are time-tested principles without which a civilized, free and prosperous society is not possible. We defend the unborn because we understand that a society which views some lives as expendable is capable of viewing all lives as expendable.

First it was abortion. Then came euthanasia. Now Obamacare will consider the elderly expendable and deny lifesaving treatment. The next step is to eliminate the disabled and the "undesirables" so that society can be "healthy" and every citizen a "contributor".

These aren't predictions. They're inevitable based on historical evidence.

Abortion may be a first practical step, but the philosophy of collectivism already contains complete justification for the elimination of anyone and everyone in the doctrine "for the good of the collective." There is no killing, on however large a scale, that cannot be justified by the collectivist imperative.

Here is one of the next steps
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/30/uk-do ... me-to-die/

It always amazes me how the socialists tout their desire to save everyone from whichever paper target that they set up this week and then, when the salvation plans are implemented, they conspicuously fall short of helping almost everyone, especially the most vulnerable.

chasfm11 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:http://townhall.com/columnists/laurahol ... page/full/

Key paragraph:

we do not hold the values we do because they garner votes. We hold the values we do because we believe that they are time-tested principles without which a civilized, free and prosperous society is not possible. We defend the unborn because we understand that a society which views some lives as expendable is capable of viewing all lives as expendable.

First it was abortion. Then came euthanasia. Now Obamacare will consider the elderly expendable and deny lifesaving treatment. The next step is to eliminate the disabled and the "undesirables" so that society can be "healthy" and every citizen a "contributor".

These aren't predictions. They're inevitable based on historical evidence.

Abortion may be a first practical step, but the philosophy of collectivism already contains complete justification for the elimination of anyone and everyone in the doctrine "for the good of the collective." There is no killing, on however large a scale, that cannot be justified by the collectivist imperative.

Here is one of the next steps
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/30/uk-do ... me-to-die/

It always amazes me how the socialists tout their desire to save everyone from whichever paper target that they set up this week and then, when the salvation plans are implemented, they conspicuously fall short of helping almost everyone, especially the most vulnerable.

It's because they don't really care about the downtrodden, who are just tools they use for getting their way and imposing their will --they use the vulnerable and downtrodden as icons and images in order to exploit the natural inclinations of people who do care. I'll go ahead and break Goodwin's law and point out that mentally and physically impaired children were the first victims of the Nazis, so today's "democratic socialists" aren't breaking any new ground.

And BTW, the UK already kills off old people.....they call it something innocuous like "the Manchester Pathway,"......can't remember for sure the modifier for "pathway."

VMI77 wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:http://townhall.com/columnists/laurahol ... page/full/

Key paragraph:

we do not hold the values we do because they garner votes. We hold the values we do because we believe that they are time-tested principles without which a civilized, free and prosperous society is not possible. We defend the unborn because we understand that a society which views some lives as expendable is capable of viewing all lives as expendable.

First it was abortion. Then came euthanasia. Now Obamacare will consider the elderly expendable and deny lifesaving treatment. The next step is to eliminate the disabled and the "undesirables" so that society can be "healthy" and every citizen a "contributor".

These aren't predictions. They're inevitable based on historical evidence.

Abortion may be a first practical step, but the philosophy of collectivism already contains complete justification for the elimination of anyone and everyone in the doctrine "for the good of the collective." There is no killing, on however large a scale, that cannot be justified by the collectivist imperative.

Here is one of the next steps
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/30/uk-do ... me-to-die/

It always amazes me how the socialists tout their desire to save everyone from whichever paper target that they set up this week and then, when the salvation plans are implemented, they conspicuously fall short of helping almost everyone, especially the most vulnerable.

It's because they don't really care about the downtrodden, who are just tools they use for getting their way and imposing their will --they use the vulnerable and downtrodden as icons and images in order to exploit the natural inclinations of people who do care. I'll go ahead and break Goodwin's law and point out that mentally and physically impaired children were the first victims of the Nazis, so today's "democratic socialists" aren't breaking any new ground.

And BTW, the UK already kills off old people.....they call it something innocuous like "the Manchester Pathway,"......can't remember for sure the modifier for "pathway."

BINGO! Just as I will go you one further and say that they don't care about ANY "protected class". In fact, the elite upper echelons of the political left most likely despise the very groups that they garner the most votes from. The "gay lobby", for instance...if they no longer needed them, they would go right under the wheels of the bus. As it is, they are a useful political tool and are wielded as such.

RPB wrote:Logan's Run (1976)
An idyllic sci-fi future has one major drawback: life must end at 30.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Green Recycling at its peak- no carbon footprint at all after age 30 if you are recycled at age 30

Speaking of green ...recycling people ...
Soylent Green (1973)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In an overpopulated futuristic Earth, a New York police detective finds himself marked for murder by government agents when he gets too close to a bizarre state secret involving the origins of a revolutionary and needed new foodstuff.

"Brave New World" (Aldous Huxley), as well as "1984" and "Animal Farm" (both by George Orwell), give a good insight into the thinking of the elitist political left. Orwell was a leftist, but of a different stripe than those who came to dominate that side, and I believe he came to worry about them as much as, or more than, the political right.

Heartland Patriot wrote:BINGO! Just as I will go you one further and say that they don't care about ANY "protected class". In fact, the elite upper echelons of the political left most likely despise the very groups that they garner the most votes from. The "gay lobby", for instance...if they no longer needed them, they would go right under the wheels of the bus. As it is, they are a useful political tool and are wielded as such.

Well, I getcha, but they really do care about one protected class: THEIRS.

All this "Gimme My Free Stuff" (GMFS) bits do is turn us against one another. Read the bit in Atlas Shrugged where Dagny find the stowaway on her train. He recounts the decline of Starnesville. How the "From each according to his ability, to each according to their need" turned friendly neighbors into bitter enemies fighting over their slice of a shrinking pie. Was talking to someone about the 'health care' law last night. It's not designed to provide health care at all. It's designed to turn us against each other to fight over the shrinking pie that our 'leaders' place on the table in front of us. First, they'll cut off the infants and elderly. Then those with disabilities. Anyone find it odd that the UN treaty on the disabled (failed to be ratified yesterday) required the 'registration' of all disabled children? Why 'register' them? I can think of several reasons for doing so, many of them nefarious.

Romney said, "When elected, I'll put America back to work." 51% said, "Screw that!"

JALLEN wrote:Romney said, "When elected, I'll put America back to work." 51% said, "Screw that!"

Now that's good right there... I predict you will be quoted on that one.