Conservative Does No Mean Christian.

ChChoda said:

You figure it out yet John?

Click to expand...

Yep.

You've bought into Goebbel's Big Lie theory.

Repeat something often enough....

Johnnyorganic said:

Yep.

You've bought into Goebbel's Big Lie theory.

Repeat something often enough....

Click to expand...

So, opposing all killing, is an objective position, you say. I guess then, supporting all killing, is objective , too? Because it's, "consistent"?

Goebbels would be proud of you, John.

"With regard to the Jewish Question, the Führer is determined to make a clean sweep of it. He prophesied that, if they brought about another world war, they would experience their annihilation. That was no empty talk. The world war is here [this was the week Germany declared war on the United States]. The annihilation of Jewry must be the necessary consequence. The question is to be viewed without any sentimentality. We’re not there to have sympathy with the Jews, but only sympathy with our own German people. If the German people has again now sacrificed around 160,000 dead in the eastern campaign, the originators of this bloody conflict will have to pay for it with their lives."

ChChoda said:

So, opposing all killing, is an objective position, you say. I guess then, supporting all killing, is objective , too? Because it's, "consistent"?

Goebbels would be proud of you, John.

"With regard to the Jewish Question, the Führer is determined to make a clean sweep of it. He prophesied that, if they brought about another world war, they would experience their annihilation. That was no empty talk. The world war is here [this was the week Germany declared war on the United States]. The annihilation of Jewry must be the necessary consequence. The question is to be viewed without any sentimentality. We’re not there to have sympathy with the Jews, but only sympathy with our own German people. If the German people has again now sacrificed around 160,000 dead in the eastern campaign, the originators of this bloody conflict will have to pay for it with their lives."

Click to expand...

Objective does not automatically translate into moral or ethical.

As your posted quote proves, Goebbels was subjective in who he wished dead.

Just like you.

So it is not me he would have been proud of, is it?

Johnnyorganic said:

Objective does not automatically translate into moral or ethical.

As your posted quote proves, Goebbels was subjective in who he wished dead.

Just like you.

So it is not me he would have been proud of, is it?

Click to expand...

Goebbels preached the doctrine of killing all the jews.

You preach the doctrine of killing nothing. How is your position any more objective than Goebbels?

Me, I realize that William Rehnquist was constitutionally right in taking the position that he did. That's why I quote him when referring to Roe, and link to his dissent in support of my adopted stance. You, on the other hand, have yet to refer to Blackmuns majority position, in defense of your stance (or lack thereof). It's because Blackmun is irrelevant in your formulations. You think something, John, therefore it is (the obviously correct stance). Just like the Washington elites, Harvard professors, radical environmentalists, liberal voters...

ChChoda said:

Goebbels preached the doctrine of killing all the jews.

You preach the doctrine of killing nothing. How is your position any more objective than Goebbels?

Me, I realize that William Rehnquist was constitutionally right in taking the position that he did. That's why I quote him when referring to Roe, and link to his dissent in support of my adopted stance. You, on the other hand, have yet to refer to Blackmuns majority position, in defense of your stance (or lack thereof). It's because Blackmun is irrelevant in your formulations. You think something, John, therefore it is (the obviously correct stance). Just like the Washington elites, Harvard professors, radical environmentalists, liberal voters...

Click to expand...

Goebbels did not advocate killing everybody, just select groups.

Selective.

I have no interest in defending Justice Blackmun's stance as you call it. You are the one who compared me to him. And I have provided an example where I disagree with him.

Johnnyorganic said:

Goebbels did not advocate killing everybody, just select groups.

Selective.

I have no interest in defending Justice Blackmun's stance as you call it. You are the one who compared me to him. And I have provided an example where I disagree with him.

Click to expand...

You can try, but you won't succeed...as you've continually shown...

Objectively, why is "opposing all killing" rational and realistic? What facts support this "objective" stance you've taken? "Objective", like so many other stances you've taken...


"Republicans are just like the Democrats...except, the Republicans need to adopt the Democrats stance on religion...and abortion "rights"...and gay marriage "rights"..."

PadawanBater said:

State sanctioned murder is still murder bro, no matter who pulls the trigger or pushes the plunger.

Click to expand...

Facts of life...

Birth, and, death... I don't feign to disdain either...that would be silly.

ChChoda said:

You can try, but you won't succeed...as you've continually shown...

Objectively, why is "opposing all killing" rational and realistic? What facts support this "objective" stance you've taken? "Objective", like so many other stances you've taken...


"Republicans are just like the Democrats...except, the Republicans need to adopt the Democrats stance on religion...and abortion "rights"...and gay marriage "rights"..."

Click to expand...

I said Republicans would be well served by taking the Democratic approach to religion.

I never said abortion is a right. But I have repeatedly said privacy is.

I never said gay marriage was a right, either. But Equal Protection Under the Law is.

You should try comprehending what I actually said instead of telling me what you wished I had said.

Johnnyorganic said:

I said Republicans would be well served by taking the Democratic approach to religion.

I never said abortion is a right. But I have repeatedly said privacy is.

I never said gay marriage was a right, either. But Equal Protection Under the Law is.

You should try comprehending what I actually said instead of telling me what you wished I had said.

Click to expand...

"Republicans are just like the Democrats...except, the Republicans need to adopt the Democrats approach toreligion...and privacy, especially concerning abortions...and the application of equal protection under the law, especially in the case of gay marriage..."

Democrat approach to religion...Not God bless America! God damn america!

Democrat approach to privacy..."This is how you put a condom on a banana, Suzy. I know Suzy, an abortion is easier!"

Democrat approach to equal protection under the law..."The law states, privileges associated with marriage shall be conferred to unions consisting of one man and one woman, gay, straight, bisexual, whateva"...Fuck that! That's a breach of the 14th motherfucking amendment!

damn you guys are getting all caught up in the nuances of this shit..we have people all over the obama admin that commit felony's ..charlie wrangle does not pay tax..( A FELONY) ...just had to step down.the whole US congress under the democrats protected them.
you have barney frank who was sleeping with a executive from fannie mae and freddie mac all the time he was funneling trillions of dollars to that company..still in office and still holds his position.you had bill clinton who sold the whole country down the tube and we are still paying the price for these idiots...
what we have here folks is a illegal unconstitutional ..felonious government that is illegal.
no citizen of this country is under any obligations to follow the laws of a country whos elected servants do not follow the law.
this country was not founded to be a tyranny..but that is what you have..
resistance to tyranny is obedience to god.
according to the declaration of independence it is your DUTY to throw off such government.
i declare the US government null and void and not to be followed.

max420thc said:

i declare the US government null and void and not to be followed.

Click to expand...

Seconded.

You forgot to mention bankrupt!

you have to get out of the mentality there are differences between the democratic party and republican party.
GOP in banks and companys get the grease..DEMOCRATS IN...banks and companys get greased with our money..it is completely corrupted at this time.PROGRESSIVES are the problem in both partys. they both want total government control of everything...just for their guys though..we would be better off without a government

PadawanBater said:

Fuck the entire body of the corrupt US government. It's not the game that's fucked up, it's the players and their allegiances to corporate America.

An overhaul of the entire system, from the House to the Senate, the executive branch and the entire administration, as well as the Supreme Court and the Justice Dept. is needed. Corruption is everywhere.

After that, the media should be regulated, not by the body of government, but by the citizens. Since so many idiots will watch things like Jersey Shore willingly, we need to arrange a system where ratings do not mean profits. A system where correct information is the only information that gets passed on as credible fact and an educated population that knows how to recognize fact from bias manipulating a reaction to form your opinion. The people who lie get held accountable for it, so they can't lie any more, if they continue to lie they lose credibility and nobody believes the lies they spout so no credible news organization gives these asshole pundits incentive to keep lying. Right now the media is centered on profits, real journalism hasn't been around since Vietnam and regulations and censorship are everywhere suppressing truth and pushing propaganda. Science organizations are seen as untrustworthy and the media manipulates real information.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that the players are bad. However I also think the game is rigged, for some of us anyway. Those of us who do not consent.

If everybody that was affected by the game consented to the rules, then I'd say the game isn't rigged. The framers of our government did as good a job as anyone could forming a government but one thing they could not possibly do was set up a government that was truly by unanimous consent.

They did the next best thing, formed a Representative Republic with separation of powers. But it still is a system built on a fallacy, it is not a government that represents everybody, it is however, a government that insists everybody is controlled by it.

Did the slaves or poor whites agree to this form of government? No. Did women, no, they were not considered. Did the subsequent unborn, you and I consent? No. Then it cannot possibly be a government of universal consent. Consent is when all parties agree, not some or even most parties, all.

Now here's a radical idea, why couldn't a person choose how they wish to be governed? If competition in the free market improves services why couldn't competing parallel governments exist in the same physical environ? That way each person would be consenting.

I think this is the part where I ask you to read the book - Market For Liberty.

PadawanBater said:

If the GOP would drop the huge gov. spending (just like the dem), get rid of the Jesus platform, put American people above American corporations, and try to reason a different way to handle tenuous situations globally, then shit! we might have something!

Click to expand...

They could do all of those things but then they couldn't continue to criticize Ron Paul and boo him when he wins the CPAC straw poll

Rob Roy said:

.....it is not a government that represents everybody, it is however, a government that insists everybody is controlled by it.

Click to expand...

unanimous consensus is an impossibility. there will always be those who do not consent, as well as those who wish to lead and those who wish to follow. this government was not set up to lead, our representatives were designed to serve. the totalitarian forms that have grown within our government were not built into the original design, they have developed through the greed of the powerful and the negligence of the people.

undertheice said:

unanimous consensus is an impossibility. there will always be those who do not consent, as well as those who wish to lead and those who wish to follow. this government was not set up to lead, our representatives were designed to serve. the totalitarian forms that have grown within our government were not built into the original design, they have developed through the greed of the powerful and the negligence of the people.

Click to expand...

Yes, good points.

...and the "serving" wasn't supposed to be them taking a piece of pie from one persons plate and reallocating it to anothers under the guise of the good of society. It was to have been the protection of rights, not the replacement of rights. But then you already know that.

Rob Roy said:

But then you already know that.

Click to expand...

i think i've been shouting that from the roof tops for quite some time.