The great and all-powerful political thread!
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
Rabid Headbanger
New Metal Member
It is. The law is on a one child, two child generation rotation.
Your could have had more then one kid, but the government would withhold benefits.
ohiogrinder
New Metal Member
- Mar 15, 2006
- 5,392
- 13
- 0
Ah yes,
Also it was the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution that was passed to limit it to two terms but there is a loophole to that.If a President died in office or stepped down and the VP now becomes President and finishes the Original Presidents term. Then the VP/P can run for two terms which would make it technically 3 terms. This could of happened with Harry Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson and Gerald Ford though they chose not to.
Rabid Headbanger
New Metal Member
I know Wiki isn't always accurate but this if fairly accurate imo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy
Rabid Headbanger
New Metal Member
Yeah... I don't see how it's that bad. Get the womans tubes tied after the first child. problem solved.
perhaps you want to be a daddy of more then 1 child... or how this is a macho society if the child is female u want to try to have a male one as well... plus here's a thought.. why not let them neuture you after 1 child instead of tying the females tubes lol ... you'll be more placid and enjoy life more 
Rabid Headbanger
New Metal Member
perhaps you want to be a daddy of more then 1 child... or how this is a macho society if the child is female u want to try to have a male one as well... plus here's a thought.. why not let them neuture you after 1 child instead of tying the females tubes lol ... you'll be more placid and enjoy life more
It's... uh, called a vasectomy. You shoot blanks, but you can still fuck.
Matt
Active Member
Montu... anyways call it what you will (which i know its called vasectomy)... i still consider it getting ur balls cut off even if just a little part of it lol ... the point is why the woman and not the man instead? ... all is fair in love n war...
Rabid Headbanger
New Metal Member
They don't cut it they tie it. They can undo it to. It's all still intact.
And the woman because another man could knock her up. It's easier to keep track of on child per woman then one child per man.
Not that I agree with it.
Uber-bump.
I've heard a lot about Ron Paul... what is his stance on gay rights? I have heard nothing on his stance on that.
I've heard a lot about Ron Paul... what is his stance on gay rights? I have heard nothing on his stance on that.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
AchrisK
Weakling
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
Ron Paul has a brain on his head in terms of foreign policy. However he is a republican, he is pro-life, he wants to get rid of the income tax, and the media has demonized him, so he has no chance. He is against gay marriage and pro dont' ask don't tell. Also:
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal governments hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nations history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the peoples allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nations Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal governments hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nations history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the peoples allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nations Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."
AchrisK
Weakling
I think some of what he says is true, though that will not fly these days in America. The US is becoming more and more secular. I am not sure how he can imagine that completely getting rid of income tax is a good idea. We are in a lot of debt.
Similar threads
