# Politics and News > SOCIETY & humanities >  Progressive Ideology:  Return to the Dark Ages

## usfan

The history of man is a record of a journey of enlightenment, with occasional setbacks and long periods of superstition & oppression.  The reformation, the age of reason, the scientific method, & the enlightenment were all interrelated, & built upon each other to free man from the dark ages of superstition, elitism, & a ruling aristocracy. 

The Reformation ended the Dark Ages.  Here are some of the characteristics of that time:
1. There was an elite ruling class.  They were separate & privileged.  They believed & acted on their superiority over the huddled masses.
2. Their mandates were absolute.  They spoke for God & the Universe, & nobody could question them.  Everyone else was expected to submit to their pontifications.  Truth & reason were irrelevant, as the mandates from the elite were supreme.  There was no appeal to Reason, Science, or a Higher Law.
3. Superstition & submission to the elite were indoctrinated into everyone.. not critical thinking & discovery.  The institutions of men required absolute devotion, loyalty, & submission, & were not to be questioned.
4. Wealth was concentrated in the hands of the elite, ruling classes.  There was no middle class.  The privileged elite did not work, themselves, but were leeches & looters of the production from the working class.The ruling elite were above the laws that they themselves decreed & enforced.
5. Violence & intolerance of diverse views were used to keep the reins of power, & any dissenters were targets of their wrath.  Non conformity was punishable by death.

The Reformation was the beginning of the end of the dark ages.
1. Sola Scriptura.  Man's edicts were not absolute, but there was a Higher Power.. there is a Natural Law that was above the whims & pontifications of man.
2. A common language, Latin, where a knowledge base began to build.  Advances in mathematics, science, & technology began to replace superstition.  Science & reason worked, & provided a stable base for discovery, rather than the whimsical mandates of man.The beginnings of the Equality of Man, & a rejection of elitism & the Divine Right of Kings.  The printing press also began during this time, which made the dispensation of information broader & easier, & within the grasp of the common man.
3. Birth of Defiance.  The reformation saw the legitimizing of defiance, 'We must obey God rather than man', was a common theme.  The compliance & submission that the ruling aristocracy demanded began to crumble, as people held conscience above the edicts of the elite. 

Almost concurrently, the Age of Reason began, which promoted scientific methodology over superstition.  This was also the beginning of the Enlightenment, where Reason & the old values of the dark ages were cast off.  From this ideological basis, the American Experiment was born, where our collective governance was based on these central values:

1. The equality of man.  ALL men are created equal, & are endowed with unalienable Rights.
2. Natural Rights, & a Higher Law was over everyone, & the orders of aristocracy were destroyed. Life, Liberty, & Property, the core values of Natural Law & the Enlightenment, were codified into a system of checks & balances.
3. Citizen Representatives, not a ruling elite.
4. The right of the people to resist & overthrow any collective institution that oppresses or violates the natural rights of man.

These were High Ideals, that have been bought with the blood of thousands of humans who died resisting the dictates of the privileged elite.  Generations of people born in the last hundred years have been the beneficiaries of those who believed in & fought for the rights of the individual over the collective institutions & tyrants who would enslave them.  They were never completely defeated, but have always been there, working to assert their control over others, striving to gain power, & drawn to any system where they could insert themselves into seats of authority & rule.  

From early in the 20th century, the progressive movement was based on several principles that influenced their agenda.
1. Dismantle or render ineffective the constitution of the US. "..government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton." Woodrow Wilson.  Govt was seen as the Solution for all of the problems of humanity, not as the source of them.  Early progressives had nothing but disdain for the American Founders, & the principles of Enlightenment thought.  The 'checks & balances' of the constitution were seen as a hindrance to the progressive agenda.
2. Gain control of the institutions of power.. academia, journalism, the courts, local & state govts. Darwinism was much of the driving force of progressive ideology.  Superior thinkers & leaders were more highly evolved than the common man, & should have an elevated position of power & control in any collective endeavor.  'Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop. All the progressives ask or desire is permissionin an era when development:... evolution, is the scientific wordto interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle' Woodrow Wilson'
3. Rights' are a gift from govt, not something inherently possessed.  "Natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythological social zoology." John Dewey.

At the very core of progressive ideology is the belief in a naturalistic explanations of origins.  There are no moral absolutes.  There is no Higher Law.  There is no God, or He is irrelevant.  Man makes himself, & is the Author & Finisher of his own fate.  The irony of this is the elevation of Man into his own god, but one who is fickle & unstable, unlike the unseen God of the universe whose laws were orderly, which was the basis for the Enlightenment.  This new god was more terrible & fearful than the old one, & he demanded loyalty & submission in this life, or you will suffer the consequences.  Forget the afterlife, they will make this life a hell for you if you defy them.  All of the basic traits of the dark ages are being reborn under the new mantle of progressivism.  But instead of elitists from a distant, unseen God, they are present & visible.  The roots of the dark ages religion have changed, but the actions & principles they operate under are the same.

America's foundational beliefs have transitioned from the enlightenment view of a Creator, Human equality, Natural Law, & individual freedom to the naturalistic, collectivist pop religion that currently permeates all of our culture.  Progressivism is the State Religion, & is promoted & indoctrinated as such.  Even in the court cases, you can see the slow 'evolution' of progressive dominance.  We are returning to the dark ages, with a new crop of elitists to rule over us, mandates based on position rather than science or reason, intolerance for dissenting views, & mandated conformity.  Collectivism from Marx, with the basis of naturalistic origins have blended to form progressive ideology.  It's twin sisters were born at the same time, but have not been as successful.  Communism & Nazism were born from the same mother, with the same philosophical bases.  The success of progressivism lies in its ability to lurk in the shadows, & slow gains of power in the institutions.  It is a chameleon, able to change colors with the surrounding habitat. 

It is not surprising that the elitist views of Islamism are viewed sympathetically by progressives, as they see their central enemy as traditional American values.  The constitution, with roots in absolute morality, freedom, & diversity of thought are at odds with the mandated conformity of Islam & progressivism.  Both are driving us back to the dark ages.  Both are based in elitist rule.  Both require absolute submission & obedience from the subservient masses.  Both destroy the middle class & prosperity.  Both use political power to control the people.

Progressive ideology:  Anti-American, enemy of mankind, driving us back to the dark ages.

----------

Canadianeye (12-02-2016),Conservative Libertarian (12-02-2016),Deno (05-07-2017),DonGlock26 (04-11-2017),Dos Equis (12-03-2016),gregonejeep (12-03-2016),Jen (03-19-2017),Jim Scott (04-10-2017),JustPassinThru (12-03-2016),Knightkore (12-05-2016),Libhater (04-21-2017),LongTermGuy (12-02-2016),memesofine (03-19-2017),Midgardian (04-23-2017),Quark (12-02-2016),RMNIXON (12-02-2016),Stonewall (12-10-2016),Swedgin (04-19-2017),teeceetx (12-03-2016)

----------


## RMNIXON

It often tires me to explain that the ideas being sold as "progressive" are not new at all. They are simply various forms of repackaged collectivism that justifies human sacrifice and slavery. Nothing new about that in human history at all.

The horrors of the last century, as bad as they were, are obviously not enough!  :Geez:

----------

gregonejeep (12-03-2016),Jim Scott (04-10-2017),usfan (12-02-2016)

----------


## Quark

Well what ended the Dark ages really was the Gutenberg press and the fact that the German princes were tired of supporting a greedy and corrupt Rome and were more than willing to support Luther and his reformation to end Rome's greed and corruption. 

I think instead of Darwin, you mean Herbert Spencer. His version of evolution is the evolution you mean and Lamarckism. Other than that, you pretty much have it right.

----------


## RobertLafollet

As one of the leftists on this forum I find the OP's post totally wrong.

1)  The American left wants power to the people not the 1%.  
2)  We differ in our interpretation of the Constitution.  In fact I think the lefts interpretation is closer to the interpretation of the founding fathers then the rights.
3)  We are born equal.  Blacks are equal to whites.  Asian are equal.  Muslims are equal.  A rich man is the equal of a poor man.  
4)

----------


## RobertLafollet

4)  I will not speak for others but I believe in God, Jesus, and the Holly Ghost. 

Before you say what a leftist believes talk to a leftist.  I do not accuse you of lying about what you believe.  Why do you try to assign beliefs to me I do not have?

----------


## Sled Dog

I've heard of Hollywood (a pornstar), Holly Genaro (Die Hard) and Holly Wreaths.

Who's Holly Ghost?

----------

BobJam (12-03-2016)

----------


## BobJam

> I've heard of Hollywood (a pornstar), Holly Genaro (Die Hard) and Holly Wreaths.
> 
> Who's Holly Ghost?


I noticed that too.

I normally don't like to comment on grammar and usage (I am an offender there myself), but in this case I think it is symptomatic of much more than just poor grammar.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> I've heard of Hollywood (a pornstar), Holly Genaro (Die Hard) and Holly Wreaths.
> 
> ]
> Sorry Holy Ghost. Who's Holly Ghost?

----------


## RobertLafollet

> I've heard of Hollywood (a pornstar), Holly Genaro (Die Hard) and Holly Wreaths.
> 
> Who's Holly Ghost?


Would you believe the Holy Ghost's wife?

----------


## nonsqtr

> Would you believe the Holy Ghost's wife?


According to Wiki, she's the real deal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holly_the_Ghost

----------


## nonsqtr

> As one of the leftists on this forum I find the OP's post totally wrong.  1)  The American left wants power to the people not the 1%.


No. The left only wants power to the left. If you happen to agree with the progressive ideology, then you get the power to the people. If you don't happen to agree though, you get clobbered in every conceivable way. They out you on social media. They gang up on you and force you to shut down your business. That kind of thing. Sometimes they even get violent...




> 2)  We differ in our interpretation of the Constitution.  In fact I think the lefts interpretation is closer to the interpretation of the founding fathers then the rights.


There is no "interpretation". That's the Supreme Court's job, not yours. Not the left's, certainly. 

Nor the right's. We don't "interpret" the Constitution. We place our stock in the words that are actually written down. It is, after all, written in English. Even a ten year old could understand it.

And, as a rightie, one of my pet peeves in life is all these goddamn liberals who refuse to adhere to procedure. The Constitution is very clear: if it isn't in scope, it must be put to a vote of the People - and the rules for that vote are extremely stringent. Super-majorities are required, of both Houses of Congress and the State Legislatures. That's why the Democrats never do anything like that, 'cause they know darn well they could never get the votes. So instead they ram bullshit down our throats in the middle of the goddamn night without even reading the damn bill! Fucking ObamaScare has everything but the kitchen sink in it, have you read it? The estate tax just went up from 0 to 55% because of the ACA. 

And I don't know how the Democrats did it, but somehow they got to that asshole Roberts, who magically made a federal insurance mandate constitutional. This is what liberals do, they "interpret" stuff. Suddenly penalties are taxes! Yeah right. And money is speech, and buildings are people. WTF kind of "interpretation" is that? Speak English, goddamit! Not some Orwellian doubledygook that suddenly perverts the entire law even up to the words in the Constitution.

Don't fucking tell me that liberals believe in the Constitution. It just isn't so. It's not so. Most liberals would just as soon burn the fucking thing.  :Mad: 




> 3)  We are born equal.  Blacks are equal to whites.  Asian are equal.  Muslims are equal.  A rich man is the equal of a poor man.


Only when it comes to the vote, and political rights.

We are equal on a political level, and *that is all*.

We are not equal in outlook, capability, biochemistry or anything else - in fact, the only thing that makes us equal is we're all so different.

Liberals want equal outcomes, and that is an error in logic (as are most other things liberal). Equal outcomes mean nothing, and in fact by forcing equal outcomes on the system you're denying all kinds of people the ability to express themselves to their full potential, and achieve the maximum they can achieve. By forcing a black man into a banking position you're taking him away from the operating room, or whatever other thing he wants to do. And white men can't jump, that kind of thing. Let people excel at what they're good at, don't try to force 'em into stuff they're no good at, just 'cause some liberal asshole in an ivory tower wants the numbers to come out a certain way.

But it's a good thing we're talking.  :Smile:

----------

BobJam (12-03-2016),BORDLANGCULT (03-19-2017),Dana (12-04-2016),FirstGenCanadian (12-04-2016),gregonejeep (12-03-2016),Jim Scott (04-10-2017),Midgardian (04-23-2017),usfan (12-03-2016)

----------


## RobertLafollet

Nonsqtr:  Unclear example in the Constitution "Natural Born".  This is no where defined in the Constitution.  You righties have a tendency to say everyone new what it meant back then.  But no once can quite decide if it means 2 citizen parents, one or just born on US soil.  

As a historian I know that the Constitution was a compromise.  The north wanted the 2nd amendment because citizen soldiers were cheap.  The south needed a militia to protect against slave revolt.  The west wanted it to protect against Indians.  The Supreme Court emphasized the organized militia for about a 100 years and now emphasizes the right to bear arms.  It is arguable.  I don't intend to argue it because right now everyone is in favor of allowing people to have guns if they want them.  

The Constitution is a political document.  Political documents always can be interpreted because when you get 10 politicians together you get 20 opinions.  The founding fathers were politicians.

Currently the electoral college is an issue.  Hamilton and Madison wrote that clause.  There idea was that the electors would be wise men who could vote for who they chose.  Those two didn't want direct election.  They also didn't want pledged electors or fractions (political parties) controlling the electors.  In fact Hamilton tried to get the college modified by an amendment.

----------


## Northern Rivers

> As one of the leftists on this forum I find the OP's post totally wrong.
> 
> _1)  The American left wants power to the people not the 1%.  
> _2)  We differ in our interpretation of the Constitution.  In fact I think the lefts interpretation is closer to the interpretation of the founding fathers then the rights.
> 3)  We are born equal.  Blacks are equal to whites.  Asian are equal.  Muslims are equal.  A rich man is the equal of a poor man.  
> 4)


Nope. The Leftist elites want to BE that 1%.....

This tide has gone in and out since Croesus, Robert. There ain't a lick of difference...other than who is at the plate and who is on deck.

----------

Dana (12-04-2016)

----------


## Northern Rivers

> 4)  I will not speak for others but I believe in God, Jesus, and the Holly Ghost. 
> 
> Before you say what a leftist believes talk to a leftist.  I do not accuse you of lying about what you believe.  Why do you try to assign beliefs to me I do not have?


So...the Holly Ghost is a Christmas sort of visitation, huh?  :Sofa:

----------

Dana (12-04-2016)

----------


## nonsqtr

> Nonsqtr:  Unclear example in the Constitution "Natural Born".  This is no where defined in the Constitution.  You righties have a tendency to say everyone new what it meant back then.  But no once can quite decide if it means 2 citizen parents, one or just born on US soil.  
> 
> As a historian I know that the Constitution was a compromise.  The north wanted the 2nd amendment because citizen soldiers were cheap.  The south needed a militia to protect against slave revolt.  The west wanted it to protect against Indians.  The Supreme Court emphasized the organized militia for about a 100 years and now emphasizes the right to bear arms.  It is arguable.  I don't intend to argue it because right now everyone is in favor of allowing people to have guns if they want them.  
> 
> The Constitution is a political document.  Political documents always can be interpreted because when you get 10 politicians together you get 20 opinions.  The founding fathers were politicians.
> 
> Currently the electoral college is an issue.  Hamilton and Madison wrote that clause.  There idea was that the electors would be wise men who could vote for who they chose.  Those two didn't want direct election.  They also didn't want pledged electors or fractions (political parties) controlling the electors.  In fact Hamilton tried to get the college modified by an amendment.


You see?

EXCUSES.

Justifications. Rationales. Arguments.

Liberals just don't get it.

Look, you mentioned the Second Amendment. That's a good example. Now, you make reference to some "looseness in interpretation". You may be pro, you may be con, and how you interpret the Constitution depends on your political opinion.

Well, nuh- uh. 

Not even for a microsecond.

Mister Robert, the Second Amendment is *what is written down*. It has nothing to do with anyone's opinion. It says right there, in plain simple English, "shall not infringe". That's the law, that's exactly what it says, and it's crystal clear. The only way to "interpret" that away is to change the meanings of the words.

Now - if you want to change the law, that's fine with me, *as long as you do it in the Constitutionally prescribed manner and adhere to the procedure*. In this case, a Constitutional Amendment is *required*. No amount of political handwaving is going to change that simple fact. The Congress can write all the dumb ass laws it wants, and the president can even sign them, but if they're unconstitutional to begin with then the entire procedure is illegal.

One of the most important words in the American political system is SCOPE. Conservatives take that word seriously. It offends our sensibilities when it's ignored.

----------

Dana (12-04-2016),Jim Scott (04-10-2017),usfan (12-03-2016)

----------


## RobertLafollet

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Keep in mind that the first half calls for a well regulated militia.  That appears to be the original purpose.  It would also seem to say that gun rights can be regulated.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Nonsqtr:  Unclear example in the Constitution "Natural Born".  This is no where defined in the Constitution.  You righties have a tendency to say everyone new what it meant back then.  But no once can quite decide if it means 2 citizen parents, one or just born on US soil.


No.

We Americans say the Founders KNEW what they meant.

And the concept of natural born isn't complicated.  It means born in the United States, and it was clarified under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean "born to parents and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" the United States.  Which means no fucking Anchor Babies.




> As a historian I know that the Constitution was a compromise.  The north wanted the 2nd amendment because citizen soldiers were cheap.  The south needed a militia to protect against slave revolt.


As a historian you're nothing but a cheap propagandist.

The Second Amendment exists and was supported by all parties to protect the citizen's freedom from the government.

Duh.

You're lying on the wrong forum, again.




> The west wanted it to protect against Indians.


you mean the states that didn't exist when the Thirteen ratified the Bill of Rights?

Jeez!




> The Supreme Court emphasized the organized militia for about a 100 years and now emphasizes the right to bear arms.  It is arguable.


It's NOT arguable.

The Miller decision was based on bullshit from the court, who ruled that sawed off shotguns weren't protected under the Second Amendment because said weapons had no legitimate use in war.   Which was obviously bullshit from a decision in the 1930's when everyone knew said weapons were one of the best means of sweeping trenches clear of Huns in the previous war.

Also, there was a decision over 100 years prior to Miller that re-affirmed that gun ownership is an individual right protected (not granted) by the Second Amendment.   The Heller decision threw out the wrong Rodent decision in Miller, that's all, just like the Brown v Board of Education decision threw out the wrong Rodent decision in Plessy v Ferguson.

You're not one of those idiots that argue for the infallibility of the Pope...er the Supreme Court, are you?




> I don't intend to argue it because right now everyone is in favor of allowing people to have guns if they want them.


You've never hesitated defending the wrong position before.  In fact, that's all you ever do.





> The Constitution is a political document.  Political documents always can be interpreted because when you get 10 politicians together you get 20 opinions.  The founding fathers were politicians.


Wrong.

It's a legal document.




> Currently the electoral college is an issue.


No, it's not.

The Electoral College isn't an issue.

The fantastically amusing whining of you losers is entertaining, though.




> Hamilton and Madison wrote that clause.  There idea was that the electors would be wise men who could vote for who they chose.  Those two didn't want direct election.  They also didn't want pledged electors or fractions (political parties) controlling the electors.  In fact Hamilton tried to get the college modified by an amendment.


He failed.

As usual.

Want to know why he failed?

Because direct democracy doesn't work.

After all, what would happen if 99.9% of the people in the country voted that the sick fag fraction 0.1% who want to pretend their women can't use the ladies room if they're armed with a penis?

----------

FirstGenCanadian (12-04-2016),Jim Scott (04-10-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that the first half calls for a well regulated militia.




No,  it does not.

It states that a well regulated militia is essential to freedom.

Says nothing about MAKING or regulating anything.




> That appears to be the original purpose.  It would also seem to say that gun rights can be regulated.





> 


Then is states, MOST UNEQUIVOCABLY, that the freedom to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Making what you just wrote a complete and tiresome lie.

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017)

----------


## sooda

*8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401*

----------


## teeceetx

> As one of the leftists on this forum I find the OP's post totally wrong.
> 
> 1)  The American left wants power to the people not the 1%.  
> 2)  We differ in our interpretation of the Constitution.  In fact I think the lefts interpretation is closer to the interpretation of the founding fathers then the rights.
> 3)  We are born equal.  Blacks are equal to whites.  Asian are equal.  Muslims are equal.  A rich man is the equal of a poor man.  
> 4)


The American Left FOOLS the people into thinking they want power to the people.  We all know where that ends.  It ends in a ruling elite where the people are brought to the lowest common denominator, and their lives dictated to them from the elite.

The Constitution was NEVER meant to be a living breathing document.  It was absolute.  At it's base was the notion that GOD gave man ALL his rights, thus no other man could take them away.  It was brilliant in it's design.  Progressives cannot succeed under such constraints, for their philosophy is diametrically opposed to the Constitution.

Yes we are born equal as the Constitution says.  Unfortunately, progressives want certain groups of peoples to have extraordinary rights.  Rights that subordinate the rest.  But that does not mean all people are guaranteed the same OUTCOME in life.  Your BASIC rights remain, but you are not entitled to the fruits of others labors, or to their wealth, or to their happiness.  All will have the same basic rights, not outcomes.  A rich man will have opportunities a poor man does not.  This does not give the poor man rights to the rich mans wealth.  But there is nothing in terms of rights that says a poor man cannot become a rich man.  This is where progressives believe RIGHTS reside.  And this is where progressives reveal they are true Communists.

Look at all of histories Communist states.  All ruled by an elite class who are not subject to the same rules, who possess wealth the average man does not, who possess rights the average man does not, who moves relatively unencumbered as compared to the average man.

You sir are a Communist.  And by the way, Communists will NOT allow your belief in a superior being, hence your religion will not be allowed, and you will be forbidden to practice or speak of it.

----------

BobJam (12-03-2016),BORDLANGCULT (03-19-2017),Jim Scott (04-10-2017),usfan (12-03-2016)

----------


## nonsqtr

The Constitution defines the *boundaries* of the law (in other words, the boundaries within which our government must operate). Most of the constitution is restrictive, it states what the government shall NOT do. 

There is no "therefore" in the Second Amendment. At the end of the day, the only way we're going to get a well regulated militia on short notice is by making use of armed citizens. 

And, the freedom to keep and bear arms thus becomes a political right, "not to be infringed".

That's it, that's all there is. FedGov is explicitly forbidden from regulating weapons at the individual level. That job devolves to the States, as per the Tenth Amendment.

The only problem in all of this is we fail to keep our Constitution up to date.

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> *8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401*


Wow.

Some child believes that bigger text makes their answer righterest.

That child is wrongerest.

The Fourteenth Amendment is what it is.

And what it is not is a blanket grant of citizenship to any cockroach that can crawl across the border in violation of our laws and spawn.

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017)

----------


## sooda

> Wow.
> 
> Some child believes that bigger text makes their answer righterest.
> 
> That child is wrongerest.
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment is what it is.
> 
> And what it is not is a blanket grant of citizenship to any cockroach that can crawl across the border in violation of our laws and spawn.


Its very clear that if you are born on US soil, you are a natural born US citizen.. and ANYONE on US soil for any reason is under US jurisdiction.. No other country's laws apply in the US.

----------


## BobJam

> No other country's laws apply in the US.


Ginsburg would disagree with you.  From a NYT article:




> COLUMBUS, Ohio — In wide-ranging remarks here, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended the use of foreign law by American judges





> I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law


While I myself am not particularly fond of Ginsburg, what she said DOES seem to contradict what you said.

----------

Midgardian (03-19-2017)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> It often tires me to explain that the ideas being sold as "progressive" are not new at all. They are simply various forms of repackaged collectivism that justifies human sacrifice and slavery. Nothing new about that in human history at all.
> 
> The horrors of the last century, as bad as they were, are obviously not enough!


What they want is a return to Feudalism.

LOOK at how the mediuh stars and intelligentsia fawn over Eurotrash kings and post-Soviet Communist strongman and czars.  They LUUUV Castro and the Chinese dictator committee...and the North Korea Kin Jungs.  The Leftist female writers fantasized about Osama bin Laden.  

THEY LOVE DICTATORS AND ABSOLUTE KINGS.

FEUDALISM.

Because they don't like the idea of self-reliance and personal responsibility.  This is a woman-thing...no, not all women, but it's more common among women.  Having destroyed the Nuclear Family, the emancipated women want to be cared for by the State.

By a King.  By a powerful Strongman.

A Feudal system.  They think it provides security; which only shows how little they know of history.

----------

usfan (12-04-2016)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> The American Left FOOLS the people into thinking they want power to the people.  We all know where that ends.  It ends in a ruling elite where the people are brought to the lowest common denominator, and their lives dictated to them from the elite.
> 
> The Constitution was NEVER meant to be a living breathing document.  It was absolute.  At it's base was the notion that GOD gave man ALL his rights, thus no other man could take them away.  It was brilliant in it's design.  Progressives cannot succeed under such constraints, for their philosophy is diametrically opposed to the Constitution.
> 
> Yes we are born equal as the Constitution says.  Unfortunately, progressives want certain groups of peoples to have extraordinary rights.  Rights that subordinate the rest.  But that does not mean all people are guaranteed the same OUTCOME in life.  Your BASIC rights remain, but you are not entitled to the fruits of others labors, or to their wealth, or to their happiness.  All will have the same basic rights, not outcomes.  A rich man will have opportunities a poor man does not.  This does not give the poor man rights to the rich mans wealth.  But there is nothing in terms of rights that says a poor man cannot become a rich man.  This is where progressives believe RIGHTS reside.  And this is where progressives reveal they are true Communists.
> 
> Look at all of histories Communist states.  All ruled by an elite class who are not subject to the same rules, who possess wealth the average man does not, who possess rights the average man does not, who moves relatively unencumbered as compared to the average man.
> 
> You sir are a Communist.  And by the way, Communists will NOT allow your belief in a superior being, hence your religion will not be allowed, and you will be forbidden to practice or speak of it.


You say I'm a communist.  (I'm a socialist.)  Then you say communitsts don't allow a belief in a superior being.  So how do you justify that I allow myself to believe in God?

----------


## sooda

> Ginsburg would disagree with you.  From a NYT article:
> While I myself am not particularly fond of Ginsburg, what she said DOES seem to contradict what you said.


Maybe you should read what she said about "reading commentary".. On US soil you are under US jurisdiction.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/po...-law.html?_r=0

----------


## Network

How about the* fact* that I never agreed to any of your contracts?

You should all read Lysander Spooner.  pyang

btw, "dark ages"

http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2...dark-ages.html

----------


## RobertLafollet

Sled Dog:  

A  well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free  State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be  infringed.                    	The first part of the amendment clearly states it's purpose.  A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.  By free state was meant the US.  For instance Washington called up the militia and used it to put down a tax revolt.  People were to be allowed to have arms so they could be a part of that militia which was to be the US military.  The government found that the militia could not replace an army in the war of 1812.		 				 				Posts
3,759

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Sled Dog:  
> 
> A  well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free  State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be  infringed.                        The first part of the amendment clearly states it's purpose.  A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.  By free state was meant the US.  For instance Washington called up the militia and used it to put down a tax revolt.  People were to be allowed to have arms so they could be a part of that militia which was to be the US military.  The government found that the militia could not replace an army in the war of 1812.                                          Posts
> 3,759


If you'd read the Federalist Papers, you'd know the Founders understood and made a distinction between a STANDING ARMY, and a MILITIA of citizen-soldier volunteers.

The former were a risk to liberty.  The latter, the Minutemen, the citizen-patriots, were the bastion of freedom.

The right to Keep and Bear Arms was to empower the MILITIA, the CITIZENS, as a check against STANDING GOVERNMENT ARMIES.

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017),Midgardian (03-19-2017),Sled Dog (12-04-2016),usfan (12-04-2016)

----------


## Network

The south surely should've been allowed to break away, just look what's become of the Swamp in Virgin-ia Mary-land

----------


## Dos Equis

> Nonsqtr:  Unclear example in the Constitution "Natural Born".  This is no where defined in the Constitution.  You righties have a tendency to say everyone new what it meant back then.  But no once can quite decide if it means 2 citizen parents, one or just born on US soil.  
> 
> As a historian I know that the Constitution was a compromise.  The north wanted the 2nd amendment because citizen soldiers were cheap.  The south needed a militia to protect against slave revolt.  The west wanted it to protect against Indians.  The Supreme Court emphasized the organized militia for about a 100 years and now emphasizes the right to bear arms.  It is arguable.  I don't intend to argue it because right now everyone is in favor of allowing people to have guns if they want them.  
> 
> The Constitution is a political document.  Political documents always can be interpreted because when you get 10 politicians together you get 20 opinions.  The founding fathers were politicians.
> 
> Currently the electoral college is an issue.  Hamilton and Madison wrote that clause.  There idea was that the electors would be wise men who could vote for who they chose.  Those two didn't want direct election.  They also didn't want pledged electors or fractions (political parties) controlling the electors.  In fact Hamilton tried to get the college modified by an amendment.


No one knows what the Constitution means?  Does that mean that the Founding Fathers purposefully ignored what the Constitution really meant by letting private citizens own guns when they knew that was not what they really meant? 

No, they knew full well what the Constitution meant.  The thing that allows SCOTUS alone to decide what it means came with Marbury vs. Madison, a case that gave SCOTUS the sole job of telling us what it does and does not mean.  Thomas Jefferson about had a heart attack over the decision and said that SCOTUS should not be the sole arbitrator of the Constitutionality of law.  The end result is a continuous Constitutional convention held by 9 members of SCOTUS, who are essentially stooges placed by Presidents.

With Dims, all laws are living, breathing, ever changing documents, which is why Obama seemed to ignore them, even his own laws he shoved down our throats with the ACA which he later made exemptions for by Presidential edict.

Madison even laid out what the General Welfare clause was about and he was the father of the Constitution.  Madison made it clear that the intent was not to set up a welfare state.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America." 

But you don't care, do you?

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017),usfan (12-04-2016)

----------


## BobJam

> Maybe you should read what she said about "reading commentary".. On US soil you are under US jurisdiction.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/po...-law.html?_r=0


From that piece:




> Justice Scalia lambasted that logic, saying that "like-minded foreigners" should not be given a role in helping interpret the Constitution


I agree with Scalia (GodBless'm.)

----------


## Dana

> Nope. The Leftist elites want to BE that 1%.....
> 
> This tide has gone in and out since Croesus, Robert. There ain't a lick of difference...other than who is at the plate and who is on deck.



And they rale/wail about Trump's billionaire cab picks while ignoring the "planks" in their eye.

----------


## usfan

> As one of the leftists on this forum I find the OP's post totally wrong.
> 1)  The American left wants power to the people not the 1%.  
> 2)  We differ in our interpretation of the Constitution.  In fact I think the lefts interpretation is closer to the interpretation of the founding fathers then the rights.
> 3)  We are born equal.  Blacks are equal to whites.  Asian are equal.  Muslims are equal.  A rich man is the equal of a poor man.  
> 4)





> 4)  I will not speak for others but I believe in God, Jesus, and the Holly Ghost. 
> Before you say what a leftist believes talk to a leftist.  I do not accuse you of lying about what you believe.  Why do you try to assign beliefs to me I do not have?


I think you may have missed the gist of what i have said.  I am not talking about individual beliefs, but the core belief system of progressive ideology, & its roots.

But your view of the constitution is a key difference.  Progressives see it as a fluid document, constantly 'evolving' & adapting to changing conditions.. not by amendments, as the founders set up, but by reinterpreting it to suit their agendas.

But i stand by my observation about elitism in progressive ideology.  It is a commonly seen & practiced belief system by the progressive elite, who fill the ranks of govt power, journalism, academia, & entertainment.  They even joke among themselves about the 'unwashed masses', but it is no joke.  They see themselves at the pinnacle of evolution, & superior to the common working man.

One of the early heroes of progressivism, Woodrow Wilson said this in a campaign speech:

_"..after the Newtonian Theory of the universe had been developed, almost all thinking tended to express itself in the analogies of the Newtonian Theory, and since the Darwinian Theory has reigned amongst us, everybody is likely to express whatever he wishes to expound in terms of development and accommodation to environment_."

I also do not see any desire from progressives to see 'the people' rule.  They are the elite, & they wish to rule, not the stupid, unwashed masses.  They expect to be supported lavishly, for condescending to lord it over the inferior stock, & are shocked if any of the commoners object.  They put their enablers in progressive zoos.. inner city gulags where they can use them to keep power, but not really improve their lot, or treat them with dignity or respect, as equals.  Almost ALL of the base of the left is used this way.. free stuff for votes.  Sweet little lies & daily soma rations to dull the despair.

Individual religious beliefs are not the point.  It is the core difference between believing in inherent, Natural Rights, given by God or nature, or the belief that an energetic state hands them out.  The American System is one of Natural Law.. inherent rights that are yours by birth, not any machinations of man.

Here's another segment from Wilson's speech:
"_..government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live. On the contrary, its life is dependent upon their quick co-operation, their ready response to the commands of instinct or intelligence, their amicable community of purpose. Government is not a body of blind forces; it is a body of men, with highly differentiated functions, no doubt, in our modern day, of specialization, with a common task and purpose. Their co-operation is indispensable, their warfare fatal. There can be no successful government without the intimate, instinctive co-ordination of the organs of life and action. This is not theory, but fact, and displays its force as fact, whatever theories may be thrown across its track. Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop._

Notice the difference?  Law is not immutable & unchangeable, but something for the ruling elite to manipulate for their own purposes.  THAT is DARK AGES philosophy, not Enlightenment.  The King was absolute, & could decree as he wished, & now, the progressives want the liberty to cast off the confines of absolute Law, & dictate as they wish, reinterpreting any old law to fit their view.

_The Declaration of Independence did not mention the questions of our day. It is of no consequence to us unless we can translate its general terms into examples of the present day and substitute them in some vital way for the examples it itself gives, so concrete, so intimately involved in the circumstances of the day in which it was conceived and written. It is an eminently practical document, meant for the use of practical men; not a thesis for philosophers, but a whip for tyrants; not a theory of government, but a program of action. Unless we can translate it into the questions of our own day, we are not worthy of it, we are not the sons of the sires who acted in response to its challenge.
_
This is how progressivism is driving us back to the dark ages.  Advances in human freedom, from the magna carta, the reformation, the enlightenment, have all been dismissed by the New Elite.  They take their darwinian superiority as a mandate to control & manage their inferiors.  It is clear to me, from the study of history, & especially the 'reforms' of the last century, that this is their goal.  They do not fight for liberty, but for power.  That is the progressive way.

----------

BobJam (12-05-2016),FirstGenCanadian (12-04-2016),nonsqtr (12-04-2016)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Its very clear that if you are born on US soil, you are a natural born US citizen.. and ANYONE on US soil for any reason is under US jurisdiction.. No other country's laws apply in the US.



It's very clear....

...that no law supersedes the Constitution of the United States, no matter how large the font it's printed in.

It's also very clear that you can't handle the truth.

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017)

----------


## sooda

> It's very clear....
> 
> ...that no law supersedes the Constitution of the United States, no matter how large the font it's printed in.
> 
> It's also very clear that you can't handle the truth.


*That's correct .. That's why I posted 8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth..

The US has jurisdiction over anyone on US soil.. Tourists, students, businessmen, illegal aliens. That's the law.*

----------


## Sled Dog

> You say I'm a communist.  (I'm a socialist.)


You can't present a rational distinction between the two, so I'll give you one, free of charge.

Communists use guns to enslave.

Socialists threaten to use guns to enslave, and pull them out when it's safe to do so.




> Then you say communitsts don't allow a belief in a superior being.  So how do you justify that I allow myself to believe in God?


And your god's name is Hillary.

Or Karl.

Possibly Adolf.  He was a socialist, too.

----------

Midgardian (03-19-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Sled Dog:  
> 
> A  well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free  State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be  infringed.                        The first part of the amendment clearly states it's purpose.


What an amateur.




> Held: 
> *1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.* 
> (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. *The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. * Pp. 2–22.   
> (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretationof the operative clause.  The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.  The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.  The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.  
> 
> (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.  Pp. 28–30. 
> 
> (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.  
> 
> ...

----------


## Sled Dog

> Maybe you should read what she said about "reading commentary".. On US soil you are under US jurisdiction.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/po...-law.html?_r=0


Not when they're here illegally.

The only jurisdiction they're under then is the Boot jurisdiction, where we kick them in the ass and send them home.

You people simply DO NOT believe that 19th Century Americans would write and ratify an Amendment to the Constitution granting US citizenship to any cockroach whore that stumbles across the border with criminal intent.

You don't believe it, because it's not true.

Since you don't believe it, why do you keep insisting we should believe it?

----------

FirstGenCanadian (12-04-2016),Jim Scott (04-10-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Madison even laid out what the General Welfare clause was about and he was the father of the Constitution.  Madison made it clear that the intent was not to set up a welfare state.
> 
> "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
> and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
> they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
> they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
> and pay them out of their public treasury;
> they may take into their own hands the education of children,
> establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
> ...


Hamilton also stated that it makes no sense to enumerate the specific powers of Congress in the Constitution if the intent had been to grant unlimited power to Congress.

I've schooled @RobertLafollet on this many times, and he always pretends he's never seen it before.

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017)

----------


## sooda

> Not when they're here illegally.
> 
> The only jurisdiction they're under then is the Boot jurisdiction, where we kick them in the ass and send them home.
> 
> You people simply DO NOT believe that 19th Century Americans would write and ratify an Amendment to the Constitution granting US citizenship to any cockroach whore that stumbles across the border with criminal intent.
> 
> You don't believe it, because it's not true.
> 
> Since you don't believe it, why do you keep insisting we should believe it?


ANYONE on US soil is under US jurisdiction.. You may want to look it up or call a lawyer. NO OTHER country's laws apply in the US.
*
31 CFR 515.329 - Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

*https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.329

I don't expect you to know this stuff. I do expect you to be able to LEARN.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I don't expect you to know this stuff. I do expect you to be able to LEARN.


Yeah, you're citing legislation junior to the Constitution.

You lose, we win.

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017)

----------


## sooda

> Yeah, you're citing legislation junior to the Constitution.
> 
> You lose, we win.


Call a lawyer or your local law school.. You are dead wrong and incapable of learning.

----------


## JustPassinThru

And the Left ignores the Framers' written explanation of what is a Militia; why its rights must be protected; and the difference between it and a Standing Army.

Because the Left has a Narrative to sell to the clueless.

But you really have to be STOO-pidd to think that the government needs a Constitutional Amendment to arm its army.

The Left has no explanation for that illogic, so they ignore it.

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017),Knightkore (12-05-2016)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> No one knows what the Constitution means?  Does that mean that the Founding Fathers purposefully ignored what the Constitution really meant by letting private citizens own guns when they knew that was not what they really meant? 
> 
> No, they knew full well what the Constitution meant.  The thing that allows SCOTUS alone to decide what it means came with Marbury vs. Madison, a case that gave SCOTUS the sole job of telling us what it does and does not mean.  Thomas Jefferson about had a heart attack over the decision and said that SCOTUS should not be the sole arbitrator of the Constitutionality of law.  The end result is a continuous Constitutional convention held by 9 members of SCOTUS, who are essentially stooges placed by Presidents.
> 
> With Dims, all laws are living, breathing, ever changing documents, which is why Obama seemed to ignore them, even his own laws he shoved down our throats with the ACA which he later made exemptions for by Presidential edict.
> 
> Madison even laid out what the General Welfare clause was about and he was the father of the Constitution.  Madison made it clear that the intent was not to set up a welfare state.
> 
> "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
> ...


Washington and Hamilton didn't agree.  Washington was chairman of the convention.  All three are long dead.  

There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Supreme court will have 9 members.  There is nothing in the Constitution that says it can rule on constitutionality.  It seems that the founders thought that would be Congress.

----------


## Dos Equis

> Washington and Hamilton didn't agree.  Washington was chairman of the convention.  All three are long dead.  
> 
> There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Supreme court will have 9 members.  There is nothing in the Constitution that says it can rule on constitutionality.  It seems that the founders thought that would be Congress.


All Progs have is Hamilton to try and grasp at some form of historical legitimacy for their subversion of the Constitution.

After all, it as Hamilton who essentially wanted a royal line of rulers with essentially indefinite powers.

----------

Knightkore (12-05-2016)

----------


## usfan

> All Progs have is Hamilton to try and grasp at some form of historical legitimacy for their subversion of the Constitution.
> After all, it as Hamilton who essentially wanted a royal line of rulers with essentially indefinite powers.


It is the same argument from early in the enlightenment.  Do you have 'really smart people' who rule benevolently (hopefully) & from the deep wells of divinely inspired wisdom, or do you craft Law, & make everyone under its jurisdiction?  It was debated as a 'states rights vs federalism'.  On the 'federalism' side, you need several things to make it work:

Federalism, Statism, Big govt nanny state:
1. Really smart, wise, virtuous people.
2. Trust in their benevolence.
3. Control the stupid masses who can't make decisions for themselves.
4. A willing, complacent citizenry who will support the elite ruling classes.

These are basically 'Dark Ages' conditions.  Our new elite just claim Darwinism as the God who gives them the 'right' to rule, instead of an unseen Deity who allegedly inspires the King, Pope, Emperor, etc.  It is the same con with a different god.  They used the first one for hundreds of years, until the reformers & enlightenment philosophers exposed their scam.  The New Aristocracy has only been pitching their scam for little over 100yrs, so it is still pretty new, philosophically speaking.

You also need certain conditions for a system of self rule to work, which is the American experiment:
1. Active, involved citizenry.
2. Checks & balances to keep any one person or interest from dominating.
3. Integrity & accountability from the citizen representatives.
4. Cynicism & a 'trust but verify' attitude from the citizens... no messianic worship of elite rulers.
5. Consequences for violations of the public trust.  Justice for corruption, conflict of interest, etc.
6. No professional politician class.. CITIZEN representatives, with rotation of office, is the American Ideal.

----------

Dos Equis (12-05-2016),Jim Scott (04-10-2017),Knightkore (12-05-2016)

----------


## Mainecoons

On that last list, you are forgetting a biggie:

You have to have a moral, self reliant population.  And that includes a moral and vigilant media that will expose wrong doing regardless of party label.

America still has this but the problem is that both are minorities now.

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017),usfan (12-05-2016)

----------


## teeceetx

> You say I'm a communist.  (I'm a socialist.)  Then you say communitsts don't allow a belief in a superior being.  So how do you justify that I allow myself to believe in God?


You do not yet live under a Communist Government......... duh!

----------


## Midgardian

> There is nothing in the Constitution that says it can rule on constitutionality.


John Marshall found language in Article III that says it does, and used that as support in _Marbury v Madison_.

I believe his reasoning was correct, yet since the founders expected the federal judiciary to be an arbiter of disputes arising under its jurisdiction and not involved so much in legislation, the power of judicial review is one that should be exercised sparingly.

In fact after _Marbury_, no other act of Congress was declared unconstitutional by the high court until 1857 and _Dred Scott v Sandford_.

The judiciary has become too powerful - and that is a byproduct of us allowing Democrats to steer us away from limited constitutional governance.

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017),usfan (12-08-2016)

----------


## usfan

> Well what ended the Dark ages really was the Gutenberg press and the fact that the German princes were tired of supporting a greedy and corrupt Rome and were more than willing to support Luther and his reformation to end Rome's greed and corruption. 
> I think instead of Darwin, you mean Herbert Spencer. His version of evolution is the evolution you mean and Lamarckism. Other than that, you pretty much have it right.


I was surprised at how direct Wilson was, in his famous 1912 campaign speech.  He was running against another progressive, Teddy Roosevelt,  who split the progressive ticket against Taft.. yet Wilson still won.. by a landslide, electorally.  Note the electoral map for that election:


Blue is Wilson
Yellow, Teddy Roosevelt
Red, Taft

It is almost a mirror of the last election, where the dims got almost all the coastal, big city, urban ghettos, & trump got all of middle America.

But i digress.  The issue, for Wilson (and the progressives) was darwinian change.. social evolution.  Wilson contrasted the 'Newtonian Law' world view with the 'new, progressive' one:

_One of the chief benefits I used to derive from being president of a university was that I had the pleasure of entertaining thoughtful men from all over the world. I cannot tell you how much has dropped into my granary by their presence. I had been casting around in my mind for something by which to draw several parts of my political thought together when it was my good fortune to entertain a very interesting Scotsman who had been devoting himself to the philosophical thought of the seventeenth century. His talk was so engaging that it was delightful to hear him speak of anything, and presently there came out of the unexpected region of his thought the thing I had been waiting for. He called my attention to the fact that in every generation all sorts of speculation and thinking tend to fall under the formula of the dominant thought of the age. For example, after the Newtonian Theory of the universe had been developed, almost all thinking tended to express itself in the analogies of the Newtonian Theory, and since the Darwinian Theory has reigned amongst us, everybody is likely to express whatever he wishes to expound in terms of development and accommodation to environment.Now, it came to me, as this interesting man talked, that the Constitution of the United States had been made under the dominion of the Newtonian Theory. You have only to read the papers of The Federalist to see that fact written on every page. They speak of the checks and balances of the Constitution, and use to express their idea the simile of the organization of the universe, and particularly of the solar system,how by the attraction of gravitation the various parts are held in their orbits; and then they proceed to represent Congress, the Judiciary, and the President as a sort of imitation of the solar system._ Woodrow Wilson, 1912 campaign speech

It's a bit long, but i bolded some key points.  Newtonian theory is Law.  Natural Law.  Gravity.  Physics.  Observable, repeatable scientific facts.  The Age of Reason, & the Scientific Method is based on a view of the universe as orderly, consistent, & Law as Absolute.

But even in its infancy, progressive ideology was based on a different world view.. that of fluidity.  Facts were not absolute, but relative.  Truth was not black & white, but shades of grey.  Society, govt, & the constitution were seen as constantly evolving, with NO absolutes to interfere with the progression.

Here is the contrast:

Newtonian Theory:  Observable, repeatable facts, reason, the scientific method, absolutes.  Natural Law is immutable, constant, consistent.

Darwinian Theory: Everything is always changing, nothing is absolute, there is nothing etched in stone, morality, science, facts, & Law are all relative.

This is a clear, rational explanation, & i have noted that the technological explosion of the 20th century happened during a time of a return to newtonian principles.. the WW2 era, the pinnacle of the American Experiment.  Progressivism was expanding & slowly encompassing all of American society, but the worldview of the totalitarian elitists from imperial Japan & Nazi Germany contrasted with the 'equality of man' principles in American ideology, so the takeover was put on hold, until the excitement of war settled down, & the soothing voices of an internal enemy could once again do its work.

It is most clear in the judicial branch.  I have posted this before, but notice the 'progression' of Law, regarding the teaching of Darwinian evolution.. a very ironic example of this principle.

1925- the state of Tennessee passes a law* banning the teaching of evolution in public school*. It went to court, in what has been called the 'Scopes monkey trial'. Many other states followed suit, banning the teaching of evolution. The tennessee law was upheld initially.
1967  Tennessee repeals the Butler Act, the law that banned the teaching of evolution in public schools.
1968  In Epperson v. Arkansas,* the Supreme Court strikes down an Arkansas law banning the teaching of evolution*.
1973  Tennessee passes a law *requiring that public schools give equal emphasis* to "the Genesis account in the Bible" along with other theories about the origins of man.1975  Tennessee's "equal time" law is declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court.
1982  In McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, a U.S. district judge strikes down an Arkansas law that *required public schools to give "balanced treatment" to evolution and creationism* whenever either was taught.
1987  In Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court rules that a Louisiana law requiring public schools to give "balanced treatment" to creationism and evolution is unconstitutional.
1990 - In Webster v. New Lenox School District, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that *a school district may prohibit a teacher from teaching creation* science.
1994, in Peloza v. Capistrano School District, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court finding that a teacher's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a school district's requirement that evolution be taught in biology classes.
2005 - in Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al., U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that a evolution warning label required in Cobb County textbooks violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The disclaimer stickers stated, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Notice the dates.  1925, the pinnacle of the progressive movement, they used the courts to demand an equal voice for teaching origins, & a naturalistic view of the universe.  Then, there is a long period of silence from the courts, as the world war raged, & God was appealed to & acknowledged in every aspect of US culture.  That is when they put 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance.  'In God we trust' was the official motto, put on money, & adopted in 1956, the waning years of this short interruption in progressive domination.

Remember the commie witch hunts?  It was a feeble attempt to rid American culture of anti American, destructive influences, & is now hailed by progressives everywhere (who are more sympathetic to the communists, the target of the hunts) as a 'hate crime', & bigotry.

But by the 70's, darwinian theory had become dominant, & it now was not content to be given equal footing with a supernatural view of origins & the universe, but demanded a monopoly.. they were to become the ONLY view allowed by the courts, in the state run indoctrination centers, aka public schools.

Can you imagine a congressman proposing a bill to put 'in God we trust' on money, now?  They won't even allow the 'theory' of supernatural origins to be considered, much less taught.  Instead, the THEORY of evolution, the naturalistic beliefs about origins, is taught as fact.  Not theory, fact.  But it is a progressive 'fact.'  It is not based on science, but decree.  It is something progressives have smugly asserted as 'settled science' for so long, that everyone believes it.. well, not everyone, but certainly a majority.  They are doing the same thing with global warming.  Ask any school aged child about global warming, & they know it perfectly.. better than the constitution or the declaration of independence, anyway.

This is just another indicator of the decline of the nation, as we slide back into the dark ages, where facts & truth is declared by a privileged elite, & scientific methodology, due process, & the enlightenment principles of Natural Law mean nothing.

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017),JustPassinThru (12-08-2016)

----------


## usfan

I must say, this seems really profound to me.  I like to follow the 'progression', & 'evolution' of thought, & seeing how progressive thought emerged from a blend of darwinism, marxism, & the radical 'do gooders' of the mid 19th century, really shines a light on its origins & current direction.

Most progressives are not very scientifically minded.. they believe very strongly in the basic tenets of the liberal faith.. evolution, global warming, white privilege, etc, but they don't have facts or science behind it.  I'm sure many will bristle at me including evolution in this, but if you go back, & really study the science, AND you follow the ideology, the correlation cannot be missed.

And neither can the direct correlation between the departure from a newtonian view of the universe.. facts, science, observation, natural law.. and the darwinian view.. speculation, belief, control, moral relativity.  These thing did not appear in a vacuum, but had an 'evolution' of their own, to become the mainstream, only, & official state indoctrinated religion.  Only wacko outliers now believe in a Creator, & a supernatural explanation of the universe.  All the rest of the institutions in America (and most of the civilized world.. western civilization, if you want to call them civilized), believe, promote, & insist on a naturalistic view of the universe.. oh they may toss in a tame, benign god, to placate the superstitious, but all of the doctrines are neatly organized, & vigorously indoctrinated from preschool.

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017)

----------


## JustPassinThru

Absolutely they're not.

Liberalism is based on emotions.  "Feelings." Lusts, desires.  Covetousness.   Envy.

Desire for moral anarchy - the better to let the Id run wild.

Conservative principles, are an extension of Natural Law.  They need to be observed and then explained and then internalized.  And then sold to others - in ways that make young people understand that in living this way, they will do better and all society will do better.

The Left agitators are just wreckers.  Emotion driven, they let their envy morph into hatred and let that hatred toxify into a strategic assault on the socialization of the young.

It's nearly complete.  You and I probably won't live to see it, but a second Dark Ages loom.

----------

usfan (12-08-2016)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> John Marshall found language in Article III that says it does, and used that as support in _Marbury v Madison_.
> 
> I believe his reasoning was correct, yet since the founders expected the federal judiciary to be an arbiter of disputes arising under its jurisdiction and not involved so much in legislation, the power of judicial review is one that should be exercised sparingly.
> 
> In fact after _Marbury_, no other act of Congress was declared unconstitutional by the high court until 1857 and _Dred Scott v Sandford_.
> 
> The judiciary has become too powerful - and that is a byproduct of us allowing Democrats to steer us away from limited constitutional governance.


I agree the Supreme Court is to powerful.  However, the President is also to powerful, primarily because of publicity.

----------


## Mainecoons

"too"

Publicity has nothing to do with it.  Ignoring and abrogating the Constitution and allowing the entire central government to exceed its scope and authority has everything to do with it.

Here, learn something for a change:

The Evolution of the Presidency [ushistory.org]

----------


## Midgardian

> I agree the Supreme Court is to powerful.  However, the President is also to powerful, primarily because of publicity.


Shall we ban the media?

----------


## RobertLafollet

No we don't ban the media.  But we need to look at the Presidency as just one office.  We should pay more attention to people like the Speaker of the House, The Senate Leaders, and other law makers.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> "too"
> 
> Publicity has nothing to do with it.  Ignoring and abrogating the Constitution and allowing the entire central government to exceed its scope and authority has everything to do with it.
> 
> Here, learn something for a change:
> 
> The Evolution of the Presidency [ushistory.org]


Maybe publicity isn't the right word.  But the point is the President doesn't make laws.  The President isn't the government.  He or she is just one part of the government.  The President is not free to do what ever he wants.  I continue to believe the most powerful person in government is the Speaker of the House.

----------


## Midgardian

> Maybe publicity isn't the right word.  But the point is the President doesn't make laws.  The President isn't the government.  He or she is just one part of the government.  The President is not free to do what ever he wants.  I continue to believe the most powerful person in government is the Speaker of the House.


 I have only been a member for 9 months, so I will not assume.

Instead I will ask - did you express such sentiments concerning President Obama?

If not, then would your opinion be directed at someone who has been elected president but not yet taken office?

Conservatives have held your position for ages - it is called constitutional governance.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> I have only been a member for 9 months, so I will not assume.
> 
> Instead I will ask - did you express such sentiments concerning President Obama?
> 
> If not, then would your opinion be directed at someone who has been elected president but not yet taken office?
> 
> Conservatives have held your position for ages - it is called constitutional governance.


I've been saying Bohener and Ryan are running things for years.

----------


## Midgardian

> I've been saying Bohener and Ryan are running things for years.


The issue is the presidency.

You claim that it has too much power.

Did you oppose Obama's unconstitutional executive end runs around Congress?

----------


## RobertLafollet

What Obama did was Constitutional.  Unfortunately, it was only a small thing.

----------


## Midgardian

> What Obama did was Constitutional.


Explain, please.

----------


## Jeffrey

> As one of the leftists on this forum I find the OP's post totally wrong.
> 
> 1)  The American left wants power to the people not the 1%.  
> 2)  We differ in our interpretation of the Constitution.  In fact I think the lefts interpretation is closer to the interpretation of the founding fathers then the rights.
> 3)  We are born equal.  Blacks are equal to whites.  Asian are equal.  Muslims are equal.  A rich man is the equal of a poor man.  
> 4)


1. There was an elite ruling class.  They were separate & privileged.  They believed & acted on their superiority over the huddled masses

There still is an elite ruling class. Look what sort of people Trump is naming for his cabinet posts.  Elitists are power hungry control freaks, the sort that inhabit this forum.  How many Joe Plumbers do you see on this forum?

I am glad that Trump is choosing people with a record of accomplishment and not some idiot idealistic socialist like Robert Reich of the Clinton era.  Just so these high bred types don't forget who butters their bread.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> 1. There was an elite ruling class.  They were separate & privileged.  They believed & acted on their superiority over the huddled masses
> 
> There still is an elite ruling class. Look what sort of people Trump is naming for his cabinet posts.  Elitists are power hungry control freaks, the sort that inhabit this forum.  How many Joe Plumbers do you see on this forum?
> 
> I am glad that Trump is choosing people with a record of accomplishment and not some idiot idealistic socialist like Robert Reich of the Clinton era.  Just so these high bred types don't forget who butters their bread.


They never knew, so they still will not know and can't forget.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Explain, please.


Example the dreamers.  Obama just said don't spend the appropriated money on them, spend it on border control.  How appropriated money is spent is in the Presidents control unless Congress specifically directs.  Congress didn't specifically direct.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Example the dreamers.  Obama just said don't spend the appropriated money on them, spend it on border control.  How appropriated money is spent is in the Presidents control unless Congress specifically directs.  Congress didn't specifically direct.


*NO.*

The President's job, ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, is to FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE LAW.

NOT capriciously.  EXECUTE THE LAW AS THE LEGISLATURE DIRECTED.

That does NOT mean, or allow, the President to take money allocated at border ENFORCEMENT and use it to WELCOME INVADERS.

How stupid does someone need to BE to be a liberal?

----------

BobJam (12-10-2016),Jim Scott (04-10-2017)

----------


## BobJam

> I was surprised at how direct Wilson was, in his famous 1912 campaign speech.  He was running against another progressive, Teddy Roosevelt,  who split the progressive ticket against Taft.. yet Wilson still won.. by a landslide, electorally.  Note the electoral map for that election:
> 
> 
> Blue is Wilson
> Yellow, Teddy Roosevelt
> Red, Taft
> 
> It is almost a mirror of the last election, where the dims got almost all the coastal, big city, urban ghettos, & trump got all of middle America.
> 
> ...


Very well written post . . . my compliments.

----------


## BobJam

> I must say, this seems really profound to me.  I like to follow the 'progression', & 'evolution' of thought, & seeing how progressive thought emerged from a blend of darwinism, marxism, & the radical 'do gooders' of the mid 19th century, really shines a light on its origins & current direction.
> 
> Most progressives are not very scientifically minded.. they believe very strongly in the basic tenets of the liberal faith.. evolution, global warming, white privilege, etc, but they don't have facts or science behind it.  I'm sure many will bristle at me including evolution in this, but if you go back, & really study the science, AND you follow the ideology, the correlation cannot be missed.
> 
> And neither can the direct correlation between the departure from a newtonian view of the universe.. facts, science, observation, natural law.. and the darwinian view.. speculation, belief, control, moral relativity.  These thing did not appear in a vacuum, but had an 'evolution' of their own, to become the mainstream, only, & official state indoctrinated religion.  Only wacko outliers now believe in a Creator, & a supernatural explanation of the universe.  All the rest of the institutions in America (and most of the civilized world.. western civilization, if you want to call them civilized), believe, promote, & insist on a naturalistic view of the universe.. oh they may toss in a tame, benign god, to placate the superstitious, but all of the doctrines are neatly organized, & vigorously indoctrinated from preschool.


Well written AGAIN.  My compliments, AGAIN.

----------


## BobJam

> "too"


Yeah, I noticed that TOO.

Isn't this guy supposed to be college educated?  Wouldn't notice it from the writing skills.

Years ago, when I attended you had to write a thesis using proper grammar and syntax.  Now I realize this is a fast and loose message board, and I don't expect the King's English here (I break a rule myself now and then), but Geezzz . . . are the basics no longer taught?

----------


## BobJam

> *NO.*
> 
> The President's job, ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, is to FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE LAW.
> 
> NOT capriciously.  EXECUTE THE LAW AS THE LEGISLATURE DIRECTED.
> 
> That does NOT mean, or allow, the President to take money allocated at border ENFORCEMENT and use it to WELCOME INVADERS.
> 
> How stupid does someone need to BE to be a liberal?


I repeat . . . isn't this guy supposed to be some kind of educated "historian".

Makes a good argument for Trump redoing the entire education system.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I repeat . . . isn't this guy supposed to be some kind of educated "historian".
> 
> Makes a good argument for Trump redoing the entire education system.


The only thing I want from FedGov is to get OUT of our educational system.  A top-down autocratic system removed from control of the parents who have to use it, can only lead to abuse.  Of one sort or another.

Trump is limited here; and we don't know he is even interested.  The BEST thing he could do is try to abolish or hobble the Department of misEducation.  THAT would require Congressional authorization, which - again - may not be coming.

----------

Dos Equis (12-10-2016),usfan (12-10-2016)

----------


## BobJam

> The only thing I want from FedGov is to get OUT of our educational system.


I agree, but I don't think that's gonna' happen with Trump.

The next best thing is for him to, as you say, dismantle the Education Department.

----------

JustPassinThru (12-10-2016)

----------


## Stonewall

A society with progressives means that the society is very successful. In the U.S. that truth creates a 'safe space' for progressives to... do whatever they do... complain, cry, you name it. When a society has 'progressives' it means that you have reached the pinnacle. And, decline is in the near future.

America and the West are successful. But, we let ourselves believe that it was preordained or whatever but we got too comfortable. Our societies are in decline. 

It is not immigration that is the problem, it is a loss of belief in ourselves. Or, a disregard of why we are a success. We pretend that we do not have to teach kids anything that matters. Bring them up in a way where they appreciate what they have and why they have it and most importantly, that they can lose it. It can all come crashing down.

A society must have confidence before it brings in Muslims or anyone else. Societies cannot let themselves believe that they are so right and good and destined. Societies cannot become complacent.

We are now so powerful that we can allow our citizens to hate us and our schools to teach hatred of America. To allow people in who hate us.

The West is in a real bind. And, the Left and their progressives are like a canary in a coal mine.

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017),usfan (12-10-2016)

----------


## usfan

> I repeat . . . isn't this guy supposed to be some kind of educated "historian".
> Makes a good argument for Trump redoing the entire education system.





> The only thing I want from FedGov is to get OUT of our educational system.  A top-down autocratic system removed from control of the parents who have to use it, can only lead to abuse.  Of one sort or another.
> Trump is limited here; and we don't know he is even interested.  The BEST thing he could do is try to abolish or hobble the Department of misEducation.  THAT would require Congressional authorization, which - again - may not be coming.


At one time, the American education system was the envy of the world.  They emphasized the basics.. the 3 'Rs'.. reading, riting, & rithmatic.  Critical thinking, & a broad exposure to different belief systems & worldviews encouraged enlightened thought.  It made sense, since their roots were from enlightenment philosophy.

But during the progressive era, that changed.  Education became a tool for state indoctrination.  The Nazis & the Bolsheviks both saw that, as well as their sister ideology, American Progressivism.  All of these turn of the century ideologies had at their root a basis in Marx & Darwin, & a naturalistic view of the universe.

A great example is the current crop of millennials.  Ask them about anything in history.  Have them spell a word.  Ask them anything about what America was based on.. you will get a 'deer in the headlights' stare.  Now ask them about global warming.  Evolution.  The virtues of socialism.  They can go for hours detailing all the tenets of the progressive faith, without actually knowing anything.  They are indoctrinated dupes, for the most part.  The failures of Nazi & communist propaganda & brainwashing from the last century have been redeemed by the overwhelming success of progressivism.  It took root in europe, after WW2, & has become the mainstream state religion in most of western civilization.
The ironic thing, is that exposing this seems to have little effect on the problem.  I have heard of the battle for leftist domination of the education system for decades.. nearly a century, & they own it.  I don't know if it can be reformed.  The older generation among us were educated in public schools staffed by ww2 era teachers & professors.  They were more 'newtonian' in their worldview, & taught the basics.  They encouraged critical thinking.  But by the 60's, the universities were cranking out progressives again.  This was the new crop of teachers for public education.  The 3 Rs became robbery, rape, & racism.  Political & ideological indoctrination became the goal, not a broad base of knowledge.

----------

Big Dummy (12-11-2016),Dos Equis (12-10-2016),Jim Scott (04-10-2017),JustPassinThru (12-10-2016),Mainecoons (12-10-2016)

----------


## RobertLafollet

As to the American Education system, You get what you pay for.  We want to pay bottom dollar so we get a bottom level education.  We don't give teachers respect so that hurts, too.  Yes, the education system isn't as good as it was in the 50's and 60's.  It's been knocked and under paid for decades.  Privatization, of course, makes it worse.  I used to work in private education.  Sure there are a few very good schools, but there are a lot more that work on the principle that if the student can pay the student passes.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Example the dreamers.  Obama just said don't spend the appropriated money on them, spend it on border control.  How appropriated money is spent is in the Presidents control unless Congress specifically directs.  Congress didn't specifically direct.


Except that's not what your Traitor King did.

He violated the law.

But, hell, there's nothing wrong with Trump unilaterally telling ICE to take the list of all those illegal aliens and commence deportation proceedings against each and every one of them.

We have their signed confessions that they are in the country illegally, and there's no LAW granting them amnesty.

That would be my first EO as president.

And, hell, since YOU just said it's okay for the president to be "selective" about the laws he has to enforce, the second EO should be the following:

"No funds from the federal government for any program whatsoever shall be disbursed to any city in the United States actively engaged in shielding illegal aliens from the ICE for deportation until not only are they in full compliance with federal law but they have paid the government of the United States the full burden of costs their illegal sheltering of illegal aliens has cost the people of the United States."

You just said the president doesn't have to spend the money if he doesn't want to, didn't you, @RobertLafollet?

----------

Big Dummy (12-11-2016)

----------


## Sled Dog

> I agree the Supreme Court is to powerful.  However, the President is also to powerful, primarily because of publicity.


The Supreme Court is unlawfully powerful, since it argues often that the Constitution does not say what the Constitution actually says.

Look at the lies the Court has said about private ownership of guns.

Look at the lies the Court has said in favor of infanticide.

Look at the lies the Court has ruled about MessiahCare.

Time for the States to issue some Constitutional Amendments reining in the unlawful power of the courts, starting first with judicial term limits and then granting the states and the Congress each the authority to override wrong decisions made by the Supreme Court.

----------

Big Dummy (12-11-2016),BobJam (12-10-2016),Jim Scott (04-10-2017),nonsqtr (12-10-2016),usfan (12-10-2016)

----------


## BobJam

> As to the American Education system, You get what you pay for. We want to pay bottom dollar so we get a bottom level education . . . under paid for decades


Where in the heck are you getting this stuff?

A:  Leftist plain vanilla talking points.

The median annual salary for a high school teacher in 2014 (I gotta' believe it went up by now) was $56,310.00.

My neice and her husband are both high school teachers in Victorville, CA (which, BTW, is not too far from you in smog central San Berdu.) Consequently, their combined income is *well over* $100,000.00 dollars.

Add to that their benefits packages, and I hardly believe they are "under paid".

The highest salary, BTW, is $88,910 dollars.

And the outlook for that profession ain't too shabby either:




And the average (not median) for elementary school teachers is $56,830.00 dollars.  That's for the whole U.S.  Some states are higher or lower.  California is on the high end, as is New York.




> Privatization, of course, makes it worse


Please explain and expand.




> I used to work in private education


Where, and for how long?  What subject did you teach?  What grade did you teach?  Why did you leave?

I was a teacher myself (California Credential).  High school Physics, Chemistry, and Math.  So be careful with your answers . . . I know the trade, particularly in California.




> Sure there are a few very good schools


How would you define a "good school"?




> there are a lot more that work on the principle that if the student can pay the student passes.


Again, where are you getting this, specifically?

----------

Big Dummy (12-11-2016),Jim Scott (04-10-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> As to the American Education system, You get what you pay for.


Are you actually arguing that we're NOT PAYING ENOUGH to expose our children to left-wing propaganda?  You're actually saying this about the nation that spends the most per student in the industrialized world while producing the dumbest high school graduates in the industrialized world?

Seriously?  You're pushing that crap?

Know why Trump is going to be President soon?

Because you people push utter bullshit like this and the Americans are fed up with the lies.

What's happened since the Rodents nationalized and ruined the schools?

Spending went up.

Learning went down.

Natural consequence of centralization, of course.

Socialism always doesn't work like that.  Just look at the VA.  More money won't make the vets healthier.   Neither will more bureaucrats.

Socialism ALWAYS sucks.

----------

Big Dummy (12-11-2016),Jim Scott (04-10-2017),usfan (12-11-2016)

----------


## RobertLafollet

We build building, pay coaches to much, and pay administrators too much.  Teachers like many other front line workers are under paid.

----------


## BobJam

> we build building, pay coaches to much, and pay administrators too much.  *Teachers* like many other front line workers are *under paid*


Ignore, restate . . . Ignore, restate . . . Ignore, restate . . .

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017)

----------


## usfan

> As to the American Education system, You get what you pay for.  We want to pay bottom dollar so we get a bottom level education.  We don't give teachers respect so that hurts, too.  Yes, the education system isn't as good as it was in the 50's and 60's.  It's been knocked and under paid for decades.  Privatization, of course, makes it worse.  I used to work in private education.  Sure there are a few very good schools, but there are a lot more that work on the principle that if the student can pay the student passes.


I have to agree with the other posters here about what you're saying.  Underpaid?  We have thrown more money for less results than any nation out there.  We spend more money per capita per student than anyone, & get an inferior product.  Graduating students can tell us all about their entitlement for free stuff, or the wonders of socialism, or global warming or how we are all accidents of nature, but they cannot read, write, or make change at a cash register.

Try it.  Ask some new graduates about global warming.  They know all about it, & know it to be absolutely real.  Then ask them who discovered penicillin, or what year the war of 1812 was in, & you get a blank stare.  They know about dinosaurs, & have the proper response for any non PC comments.

Every other country in the world has passed the US in the math & sciences.  We are approaching 3rd world status, due to the stupid, PC indoctrination priorities of progressives, who rule academia with an iron fist.  There is a DIRECT CORRELATION between the domination of progressive ideology in our education system, & the decline & uselessness of it.  All it does is crank out PC bots.. indoctrinated dupes who cannot think, & are fit tools for despots, which progressivism is driving us to.  Forget about freedom.  Natural Law?  A quaint, old fashioned belief.  Progressivism skates on the illusion of being 'hip', modern, & pertinent to our times, & most of the progressive bots will squirm at the word 'pertinent'.    :Dontknow: 

I know that you & other progressives believe that the leaders of the left are more pure hearted & loving than those on the right.  But when dealing with facts, reason, justice, & administration, Truth & Reality are more important than some undefined sense of 'loving'.  One of your favorite slogans was 'Love trumps hate', which is a cutesy slam at the now president elect.  But the problems of the nation are not love vs hate, but reason vs insanity.  Rationality is not hateful, even if the Truth is sometimes hard to swallow.  Reality just is, & we would be much better off facing it directly, rather than concocting some kind of delusional dream world & pretending that is more 'sensitive & loving' than dealing with the hard realities of life.  Besides, i find the slogan absurd.  None are more hateful & nasty than progressives.  If there is a poster child for hate, those on the left illustrate it better than any on the right.  Most of the racists in the country are progressive.. black, white, hispanic.. pick your race.  The ones who obsess over race are left wing progressives.  Those who bomb, kill cops, riot, & disrupt society are almost all leftist progressives.  The massive problems of crime, broken families, unwed mothers, abortions, & institutional dependency are all in progressive run cities, managed by big govt progressives, & funded by the working people of the nation.

But it is unsustainable.  The fiscal madness of the left cannot continue.  Love cannot produce anything, only hard work.  You cannot eat love, or be protected by the elements.  It is madness & folly to elevate emotional platitudes over reason & common sense, when dealing with real problems in our collective organizational systems.  The problems of the last 50 years or so can be directly attributed to corruption, mismanagement, & fantasy govt from progressive ideology, regardless of which party pitches it.

I've laid out a lot of reasons for the premise in this thread.  I cannot see any valid rebuttal, nor has any been given.  I challenge you & other leftists to think.  Reason it out.  Take off the progressive rose colored glasses, & try to be objective.  Consider what you believe, & ask yourself, 'why do i believe that?'  Is there a possibility you are wrong, or have been deceived?

----------

BobJam (03-19-2017),Dana (12-11-2016),Jim Scott (04-10-2017),Sled Dog (12-11-2016)

----------


## Sled Dog

> We build building, pay coaches to much, and pay administrators too much.  Teachers like many other front line workers are under paid.


You make so many spelling and grammar errors that you can't possibly be a US citizen with English as your native tongue.

----------


## usfan



----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017),JustPassinThru (03-19-2017)

----------


## nonsqtr

> We build building, pay coaches to much, and pay administrators too much.  Teachers like many other front line workers are under paid.


Maybe they're underqualified.

----------


## memesofine

That's why I've always thought progressive is the wrong they should be called: Regressive.

----------


## memesofine

> As one of the leftists on this forum I find the OP's post totally wrong.
> 
>  1)  The American left wants power to the people not the 1%.  
>  2)  We differ in our interpretation of the Constitution.  In fact I think the lefts interpretation is closer to the interpretation of the founding fathers then the rights.
>  3)  We are born equal.  Blacks are equal to whites.  Asian are equal.  Muslims are equal.  A rich man is the equal of a poor man.  
>  4)


So in your mind it's ok to interpret  the Constitution any way you like? and Who doesn't believe we are all equal? Until they come from a cult that calls for the killing of the infidels then they aren't. sheesh   :Thinking:

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017),usfan (03-19-2017)

----------


## usfan

I hope some people can see the similarities between the Elite rulers of the dark ages, & the elite wannabe rulers of Progressivism.  I'll repeat their traits from the OP:

_The Reformation ended the Dark Ages. Here are some of the characteristics of that time:

1. There was an elite ruling class. They were separate & privileged. They believed & acted on their superiority over the huddled masses.
2. Their mandates were absolute. They spoke for God & the Universe, & nobody could question them. Everyone else was expected to submit to their pontifications. Truth & reason were irrelevant, as the mandates from the elite were supreme. There was no appeal to Reason, Science, or a Higher Law.
3. Superstition & submission to the elite were indoctrinated into everyone.. not critical thinking & discovery. The institutions of men required absolute devotion, loyalty, & submission, & were not to be questioned.
4. Wealth was concentrated in the hands of the elite, ruling classes. There was no middle class. The privileged elite did not work, themselves, but were leeches & looters of the production from the working class.The ruling elite were above the laws that they themselves decreed & enforced.
5. Violence & intolerance of diverse views were used to keep the reins of power, & any dissenters were targets of their wrath. Non conformity was punishable by death._

It is too coincidental that the goals & agenda of the left are almost exactly the same as the aristocracy & ruling elite from the dark ages.  It is said that history repeats itself.  We seem to be returning to an earlier era.

----------


## BORDLANGCULT

> Its very clear that if you are born on US soil, you are a natural born US citizen.. and ANYONE on US soil for any reason is under US jurisdiction.. No other country's laws apply in the US.


If the womb is here illegally, the spawn is illegal too.

----------

Sled Dog (03-20-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

> ANYONE on US soil is under US jurisdiction.. You may want to look it up or call a lawyer. NO OTHER country's laws apply in the US.
> *
> 31 CFR 515.329 - Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.329
> 
> I don't expect you to know this stuff. I do expect you to be able to LEARN.


The Constitution says that people under U.S. jurisdiction are entitled to equal protection under the law, and the law says that illegal aliens aren't citizens, no matter what the left wing injustices wrote in _Plyler v Doe._ 

Equal protection under the law in the case of illegal aliens means that they get deported, period.

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

The Obama Administration was a dark age indeed.

----------


## Midgardian

> (I'm a socialist.)


So was Hitler.

----------


## Midgardian

Liberalism is a mental disease.

----------


## BobJam

> I have to agree with the other posters here about what you're saying.  Underpaid?  We have thrown more money for less results than any nation out there.  We spend more money per capita per student than anyone, & get an inferior product.  Graduating students can tell us all about their entitlement for free stuff, or the wonders of socialism, or global warming or how we are all accidents of nature, but they cannot read, write, or make change at a cash register.
> 
> Try it.  Ask some new graduates about global warming.  They know all about it, & know it to be absolutely real.  Then ask them who discovered penicillin, or what year the war of 1812 was in, & you get a blank stare.  They know about dinosaurs, & have the proper response for any non PC comments.
> 
> Every other country in the world has passed the US in the math & sciences.  We are approaching 3rd world status, due to the stupid, PC indoctrination priorities of progressives, who rule academia with an iron fist.  There is a DIRECT CORRELATION between the domination of progressive ideology in our education system, & the decline & uselessness of it.  All it does is crank out PC bots.. indoctrinated dupes who cannot think, & are fit tools for despots, which progressivism is driving us to.  Forget about freedom.  Natural Law?  A quaint, old fashioned belief.  Progressivism skates on the illusion of being 'hip', modern, & pertinent to our times, & most of the progressive bots will squirm at the word 'pertinent'.   
> 
> I know that you & other progressives believe that the leaders of the left are more pure hearted & loving than those on the right.  But when dealing with facts, reason, justice, & administration, Truth & Reality are more important than some undefined sense of 'loving'.  One of your favorite slogans was 'Love trumps hate', which is a cutesy slam at the now president elect.  But the problems of the nation are not love vs hate, but reason vs insanity.  Rationality is not hateful, even if the Truth is sometimes hard to swallow.  Reality just is, & we would be much better off facing it directly, rather than concocting some kind of delusional dream world & pretending that is more 'sensitive & loving' than dealing with the hard realities of life.  Besides, i find the slogan absurd.  None are more hateful & nasty than progressives.  If there is a poster child for hate, those on the left illustrate it better than any on the right.  Most of the racists in the country are progressive.. black, white, hispanic.. pick your race.  The ones who obsess over race are left wing progressives.  Those who bomb, kill cops, riot, & disrupt society are almost all leftist progressives.  The massive problems of crime, broken families, unwed mothers, abortions, & institutional dependency are all in progressive run cities, managed by big govt progressives, & funded by the working people of the nation.
> 
> But it is unsustainable.  The fiscal madness of the left cannot continue.  Love cannot produce anything, only hard work.  You cannot eat love, or be protected by the elements.  It is madness & folly to elevate emotional platitudes over reason & common sense, when dealing with real problems in our collective organizational systems.  The problems of the last 50 years or so can be directly attributed to corruption, mismanagement, & fantasy govt from progressive ideology, regardless of which party pitches it.
> ...


Very very well written.  My compliments.

----------

usfan (03-20-2017)

----------


## Mainecoons

And just to prove the point:

Study: No Link Between School Spending, Student Achievement  CBS DC

And from a liberal source:

Decades of Increased State Spending on Public Education Yield Scant Results | The Huffington Post

----------


## Midgardian

> All Progs have is Hamilton to try and grasp at some form of historical legitimacy for their subversion of the Constitution.
> 
> After all, it as Hamilton who essentially wanted a royal line of rulers with essentially indefinite powers.


Todays snowflakes think that Hamilton was black.

----------


## Midgardian

> Call a lawyer or your local law school.. You are dead wrong and incapable of learning.


Most lawyers are and law schools are full of liberals.

----------


## Jen

And we are allowing ourselves to be driven back into the dark ages.  Most of our knowledge now is in the cloud.  When our ability to access the cloud is taken away...................  it's dark ages for us.  Nowhere else to be.

----------

Midgardian (03-19-2017)

----------


## nonsqtr

> I hope some people can see the similarities between the Elite rulers of the dark ages, & the elite wannabe rulers of Progressivism.  I'll repeat their traits from the OP:
> 
> _The Reformation ended the Dark Ages. Here are some of the characteristics of that time:
> 
> 1. There was an elite ruling class. They were separate & privileged. They believed & acted on their superiority over the huddled masses.
> 2. Their mandates were absolute. They spoke for God & the Universe, & nobody could question them. Everyone else was expected to submit to their pontifications. Truth & reason were irrelevant, as the mandates from the elite were supreme. There was no appeal to Reason, Science, or a Higher Law.
> 3. Superstition & submission to the elite were indoctrinated into everyone.. not critical thinking & discovery. The institutions of men required absolute devotion, loyalty, & submission, & were not to be questioned.
> 4. Wealth was concentrated in the hands of the elite, ruling classes. There was no middle class. The privileged elite did not work, themselves, but were leeches & looters of the production from the working class.The ruling elite were above the laws that they themselves decreed & enforced.
> 5. Violence & intolerance of diverse views were used to keep the reins of power, & any dissenters were targets of their wrath. Non conformity was punishable by death._
> ...


That's an interesting list. The same could be said for parents relative to children. Should the children rebel?

----------


## Jen

> As one of the leftists on this forum I find the OP's post totally wrong.
> 
> 1)  The American left wants power to the people not the 1%.


  No. Power to those who agree with the Left..... Death or silence to all others.  



> 2)  We differ in our interpretation of the Constitution.  In fact I think the lefts interpretation is closer to the interpretation of the founding fathers then the rights.
> 3)  We are born equal.  Blacks are equal to whites.  Asian are equal.  Muslims are equal.  A rich man is the equal of a poor man.  
> 4)


All people are born equal.  But equality is not always the outcome.  The end result depends on each person's environment, education, perseverance, attitude, and other qualities.  What I have seen from Leftists is that they expect equality in the outcome whether the person was lazy, energetic, very smart, or not so smart...........  That forced equal outcome is contrived. Not real. Those things you listed should not affect the outcome, but there are other things (that I listed) that do affect it.

----------

BobJam (04-07-2017),Jim Scott (04-10-2017),memesofine (03-20-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

> No we don't ban the media.  But we need to look at the Presidency as just one office.  We should pay more attention to people like the Speaker of the House, The Senate Leaders, and other law makers.


Pay attention to Ryan and McConnell and other establishment cronies? You got to be kidding.

----------


## Midgardian

> And we are allowing ourselves to be driven back into the dark ages.  Most of our knowledge now is in the cloud.  When our ability to access the cloud is taken away...................  it's dark ages for us.  Nowhere else to be.


The world needs to change. It won't do so on its own.

----------


## Midgardian

> Very very well written.  My compliments.


Just don't say that to a black man. Its "racist".

----------


## Midgardian

> 1)  The American left wants power to the people not the 1%.


Who are the "1%" and why are they not people? Are there any Democrats in this "1%"?

----------


## Midgardian

> In fact I think the lefts interpretation is closer to the interpretation of the founding fathers then the rights.


Of course you do - leftists are the masters of destroying the Constitution through faulty interpretation, and they never believe that the Constitution means what it says and says what it means.

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

> Blacks are equal to whites.


Wonderful! Then there is no need for affirmative action, is there?

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

> Asian are equal.


A single Asian certainly is equal to him/herself.

----------


## Midgardian

> Muslims are equal.


Equal to what? Are Christians "equal" too?

----------


## Midgardian

> A rich man is the equal of a poor man.


In that case why do Democrats promote wealth redistribution programs instead of encouraging people to get off of welfare and earn an honest living?

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

> We are born equal.


Tell that to the BLM crowd that calls All Lives Matter racist and the SJW's pushing "white privilege" nonsense.

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> As one of the leftists on this forum I find the OP's post totally wrong.
> 
> 1)  The American left wants power to the people not the 1%.


Oh.

I didn't realize that.

I thought the fucking Rodents nominated that hag Clinton in 2016.




> 2)  We differ in our interpretation of the Constitution.


Yes.

Your opinion is wrong.




> 3)  We are born equal.  Blacks are equal to whites.  Asian are equal.  Muslims are equal.  A rich man is the equal of a poor man.


Then the liberals come along and install Affirmative Action Racism to  keep white males out of college and all that other KKK crap you people support.

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017),memesofine (03-20-2017),Midgardian (03-20-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Its very clear that if you are born on US soil, you are a natural born US citizen.. and ANYONE on US soil for any reason is under US jurisdiction.. No other country's laws apply in the US.


It is very clear that you are not telling the truth.

There's a reason the authors of that Amendment added "under the jurisdiction of the United States" to that clause.

The reason is that you're not being truthful here.




> FOX NEWS ANCHORED IN STUPIDITY ON 14TH AMENDMENT
> 
> Napolitano at least got the century right. He mentioned the Civil War -- and then went on to inform Bream that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to -- I quote -- "make certain that the former slaves and the native Americans would be recognized as American citizens no matter what kind of prejudice there might be against them." 
> 
> Huh. In 1884, 16 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, John Elk, who -- as you may have surmised by his name -- was an Indian, had to go to the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States. 
> 
> He lost. In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not grant Indians citizenship. 
> 
> The "main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment," the court explained -- and not for the first or last time -- "was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black ... should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside." 
> ...


Sucks to be taqiyya.

----------

BobJam (04-07-2017)

----------


## Jen

> The world needs to change. It won't do so on its own.


I know. And I'm not sure it will change.  Seems like it's being allowed to run out the clock.

----------


## LongTermGuy

No mortal controls Destiny...it natural...Time is its fuel

----------

usfan (03-20-2017)

----------


## usfan

> That's an interesting list. The same could be said for parents relative to children. Should the children rebel?


Good correlation.  That is exactly how progressives see themselves & their Infallible Leaders.  Obama repeatedly appeared as a scolding parent, chastising his immature 'children'.  It is no different than the dark ages, when the aristocracy viewed themselves as the patriarchs of society, some even going so far as to claim marital bed 'rights' for newlyweds. 

They are above the laws/rules they dictate to the unruly children, as they are the omnipotent, all wise parents of society.

----------


## Don29palms

It's obviously apparent that liberals, given the benfit of the doubt, only comprehend 50% of what they read.

----------


## nonsqtr

> As one of the leftists on this forum I find the OP's post totally wrong.
> 
> 1)  The American left wants power to the people not the 1%.


The People may want that, but I assure you the leadership does not.




> 2)  We differ in our interpretation of the Constitution.  In fact I think the lefts interpretation is closer to the interpretation of the founding fathers then the rights.


The only people supposed to be "interpreting" the Constitution are the Justices of the Supreme Court. And their main purpose is to resolve conflicts of rights.

For the rest of us, the Constitution is written in plain simple English, and it means exactly what it says, and it says exactly what it means.




> 3)  We are born equal.  Blacks are equal to whites.  Asian are equal.  Muslims are equal.  A rich man is the equal of a poor man.


POLITICAL equality. Sure, all votes are equal.but votes are only 10% of the game. Money counts more than votes, in many cases. Your representatives will sell you out in a heartbeat.

Everyone is "created" equal, but what happens after that is distinctly unequal.

----------


## usfan

I thought of another correlation between the dark ages and progressive ideology.

*Persecution of Christians.*

During the dark ages, and especially when the Reformation began in earnest, the central state religious powers used the force of the state to punish & persecute Christians, mostly, but any outliers to the official state ideology.

Progressives do the same, attacking Christians at every opportunity. They fall all over themselves justifying islamists, who align with progressives in their hatred of Christians.

The repetition of history is a fascinating study of the human animal.

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017)

----------


## Jeffrey

Items 1 thru 5 describe the wing nut elitist conservatives to a tee.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Items 1 thru 5 describe the wing nut elitist conservatives to a tee.


odd isnt it?

i see them as clearly left wing as per their collective global history...

----------


## Ginger

> Items 1 thru 5 describe the wing nut elitist conservatives to a tee.





> The Reformation ended the Dark Ages.  Here are some of the characteristics of that time:
> 1. There was an elite ruling class.  They were separate & privileged.  They believed & acted on their superiority over the huddled masses.
> 2. Their mandates were absolute.  They spoke for God & the Universe, & nobody could question them.  Everyone else was expected to submit to their pontifications.  Truth & reason were irrelevant, as the mandates from the elite were supreme.  There was no appeal to Reason, Science, or a Higher Law.
> 3. Superstition & submission to the elite were indoctrinated into everyone.. not critical thinking & discovery.  The institutions of men required absolute devotion, loyalty, & submission, & were not to be questioned.
> 4. Wealth was concentrated in the hands of the elite, ruling classes.  There was no middle class.  The privileged elite did not work, themselves, but were leeches & looters of the production from the working class.The ruling elite were above the laws that they themselves decreed & enforced.
> 5. Violence & intolerance of diverse views were used to keep the reins of power, & any dissenters were targets of their wrath.  Non conformity was punishable by death.


1. The richest people are democrats.
2. This is  tyranny of political correctness and dictators. Islam fits here too.
3. Control for the sake of power, pure leftist.
4. The democrats are trying to eradicate the middle class so everyone depends on government. 
5. Black Lives Matter, Social Justice Warriors, community activists. All leftist.
 @Jeffrey, save yourself before it's too late. Take the scales from your eyes.

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017),Rutabaga (04-06-2017),usfan (04-07-2017)

----------


## Jeffrey

> odd isnt it?
> 
> i see them as clearly left wing as per their collective global history...


Is the pot calling the kettle black as usual? 

Leftist governments tend to be idealistic in very philosophy but in practice can be very oppressive to  the masses.  
Wingnuts tend to favor the rich and powerful and tend to ignore the masses.  How about some middle of  the road common sense leaders for a change?

Has any noticed the press beating the drums for an upgrade to our missile defense systems since N. Korea is testing its missiles?  What a way for Trump to build support for his new defense spending and to hell with domestic spending.  Wow, people are a bunch of cattle going to slaughter when it comes to being manipulated.

Maybe we need to fry the little fat fart and get on with other challenges?

----------


## Rutabaga

> Is the pot calling the kettle black as usual? 
> 
> Leftist governments tend to be idealistic in very philosophy but in practice can be very oppressive to  the masses.  
> Wingnuts tend to favor the rich and powerful and tend to ignore the masses.  How about some middle of  the road common sense leaders for a change?
> 
> Has any noticed the press beating the drums for an upgrade to our missile defense systems since N. Korea is testing its missiles?  What a way for Trump to build support for his new defense spending and to hell with domestic spending.  Wow, people are a bunch of cattle going to slaughter when it comes to being manipulated.
> 
> Maybe we need to fry the little fat fart and get on with other challenges?


yes, i agree, progs can be such idiots and blind to their own actions..

if only they would turn that critical eye inward and see what everyone else sees...

----------


## BobJam

> they cannot read, write, or make change at a cash register


They can't even do it WITH electronic registers that do the arithmetic for them.

My wife, who has advanced Alzheimer's, God Bless'r, recently purchased a fast food meal for me and the charge was $4.26. So she gave the guy behind the counter $5.01, so that she would have a neat 3 quarters to put back in her change purse, plus she wanted to get rid of bothersome pennies anyway (she always wants to get rid of those things, since she feels they clutter up her purse.)

Anyway, giving the guy the $5.01 just confused the heck out of him. I saw that he was befuddled, had no idea how to enter this in the machine, and after a minute or so of waiting, I said to my wife, "Do you have a quarter and 4 ones?". She said yes, and I said, "Well, then give the person that, plus the penny you want to get rid of, that will be the exact amount, and while you might not get your three quarters, we can get out of here right now."

She did, I shook my head, and we got out of there.

Another fine example of arithmetic skills "taught" in public schools. (BTW, there are NO private schools around here, so it was a pretty safe assumption the kid was a public school product.)

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017),Rutabaga (04-07-2017),usfan (04-11-2017)

----------


## usfan

> Items 1 thru 5 describe the wing nut elitist conservatives to a tee.


Like Bush? McCain?  Who are these 'wing nut elitist conservatives' you speak of, & HOW do they fit the tee? No, this is just typical Progresso speak, deflecting reason with distortions, lies, & propaganda.

Show me how any of the ideals from American ideology fit ANYTHING in that list. That is just your leftist slip showing.

----------

Jim Scott (04-10-2017),Rutabaga (04-07-2017)

----------


## iceberg

> Is the pot calling the kettle black as usual? 
> 
> Leftist governments tend to be idealistic in very philosophy but in practice can be very oppressive to  the masses.  
> Wingnuts tend to favor the rich and powerful and tend to ignore the masses.  How about some middle of  the road common sense leaders for a change?
> 
> Has any noticed the press beating the drums for an upgrade to our missile defense systems since N. Korea is testing its missiles?  What a way for Trump to build support for his new defense spending and to hell with domestic spending.  Wow, people are a bunch of cattle going to slaughter when it comes to being manipulated.
> 
> Maybe we need to fry the little fat fart and get on with other challenges?


biggest challenge we have to date is getting common sense from you. let's get that going and we'll get to the fat fart fry later.

----------

Rutabaga (04-07-2017)

----------


## usfan

Progressive roots in Marxist, collectivist ideology.

You are not here merely to make a living. You are here in order to enable the world to live more amply, with greater vision, with a finer spirit of hope and achievement. You are here to enrich the world, and you impoverish yourself if you forget the errand. ~Woodrow Wilson

The day of individual happiness has passed. Adolf Hitler

The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses  Vladimir Lenin

We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forego the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks. -Woodrow Wilson

----------

Classical_Teacher (04-18-2017),Jim Scott (04-10-2017),Rutabaga (04-07-2017)

----------


## Jeffrey

> They can't even do it WITH electronic registers that do the arithmetic for them.
> 
> My wife, who has advanced Alzheimer's, God Bless'r, recently purchased a fast food meal for me and the charge was $4.26. So she gave the guy behind the counter $5.01, so that she would have a neat 3 quarters to put back in her change purse, plus she wanted to get rid of bothersome pennies anyway (she always wants to get rid of those things, since she feels they clutter up her purse.)
> 
> Anyway, giving the guy the $5.01 just confused the heck out of him. I saw that he was befuddled, had no idea how to enter this in the machine, and after a minute or so of waiting, I said to my wife, "Do you have a quarter and 4 ones?". She said yes, and I said, "Well, then give the person that, plus the penny you want to get rid of, that will be the exact amount, and while you might not get your three quarters, we can get out of here right now."
> 
> She did, I shook my head, and we got out of there.
> 
> Another fine example of arithmetic skills "taught" in public schools. (BTW, there are NO private schools around here, so it was a pretty safe assumption the kid was a public school product.)


I had a similar experience when I tried to help a clerk by giving some extra change to make his task easier.  A checker at the store and I was talking about this as she seemed to be sharp enough to readily calculate the amount of change on  the table.  I sometimes ask the clerks to buy my extra change, particularly the quarters, as they build up and cause hole in my pants pockets.

Granted, I am older and have a lot of experience at working with loose change, as a customer that is.  However, I don't remember being taught in any special way to quickly count change so is it really fair to knock the schools systems for this short coming? To me that is simply an elitist thing that makes the poster feel superior, strokes his or her fragile self image.

I am relatively highly educated, mainly in the technical sense, but I have worked some rather menial jobs as well as rather sophisticated jobs such as my 27 years as a mainframe programmer. But could I shingle a roof, could I do needed repairs around the house, I think not. I know the fundamentals of electricity after repairing radar sets in the AF for over 8 years but house current is a bit different.  One has to know the wire color conventions, which are different than  that used in the earlier electronic sets. 

My point is this. It takes a large variety of skills to make our economy hum, and the lower skilled labor is the backbone of it, even in this age of plastic trash that is clogging the landfills. My wife cannot program and do some of the things I do but she is a talented and bright person in her own right and reads a lot.  When I need an answer to a crossword clue she usually can give me an answer or at least get real close.  Do I look down on her because her skills are different than mine? 

People take delight in dissing public schools and it leaves me to wonder at times about their experiences as a student.  Granted, the public schools tend to be PC, perhaps too much so, and some in the larger towns are union shops, but how does that equate to a lack of fundamentals being taught in the public schools?

----------


## BobJam

> . . .she seemed to be *sharp enough* to readily calculate the amount of change on the table . . . Granted, I am older and have a lot of *experience at working with loose change* . . . However, *I don't remember being taught in any special way to quickly count change*


 @Jeffrey

Whoa . . . whoa . . . whoa . . . back up there a minute, Sparky.

Coupla' things on this.

First of all, since when does one have to be _" . . . sharp . . ."_ to add, subtract, multiply, and divide WHOLE NUMBERS?  (Which, BTW, is what "calculating" change happens to be.)

Does it take being "older" and "experience" to master simple arithmetic?  Most of us (apparently not you, though) learned arithmetic in grade school.  My seven year old grandson has "mastered" simple arithmetic.  Does that make him a child prodigy?  By your twisted reasoning, I guess so.

And as far as "quickly" goes, how long does it take one with these simple arithmetic skills to perform this simple manipulation?:

5.01 - 4.26 = 0.75  (Or three quarters.)  Is this rocket science?

And, an electronic register will do the arithmetic for you.  All you have to do is enter (press a pad of buttons that are clearly marked) what the customer gave you, what the charge was, and the machine does the rest.  Does one need a Masters degree in computer science to do that?

If it were any simpler, you could give a monkey a banana every few seconds and the monkey could do it.

Apparently it IS rocket science for you and the minimum wage kings and queens at Micky D's.  Thank God they are being replaced by robots (a development, BTW, of the minimum wage increases you lefties are promoting . . . when the cost of labor goes up, companies buy less of it . . . duhhhhh.)




> . . .so is it really *fair* to knock the schools systems for this short coming? To me that is simply an elitist thing that makes the poster feel superior, strokes his or her fragile self image


It doesn't surprise me that a leftist would distort a straightforward illustration of "stoopidity" (CT's spelling version:  Our President is a PATHOLOGICAL liar. - Page 67) into class warfare ("elitist", "superior".)

Lemme' get this straight.  You think it is "unfair" (more on the leftist concept of being "fair" in a bit) to expect schools to ensure that students know simple arithmetic?  Ever hear of the three R's?

On the one hand, you seem to acknowledge that this is a _"short coming"_, but then don't hold schools responsible for teaching it.  (Oh wait . . . I forgot that _"counting loose change"_ is advanced math, only a skill that comes with age.)

Now let's take this little gem:  _". . . knock the school systems . . ."_.  And your experience *working within the school system* that makes you informed about this system would be?




> I am relatively highly educated . . . mainframe programmer


Clearly, you skipped the "critical thinking" course (though all libs lack that skill.)  Plus, you obviously were absent when they taught arithmetic in grade school.

Undoubtedly then arithmetic is not needed for mainframe programming.

And since you saw cause to mention your CV, I'll do the same.

After securing my Masters in Chemical Engineering, I taught Chemistry, Biology, Physics, and Math, IN PUBLIC SCHOOL SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL.!

I had the cream of the crop, the "gifted" students, AND they were STILL little barbarians. Whether they were bright or not was something they didn't focus on . . . they were too busy passing notes and disrupting. I spent most of my time trying to maintain order and very little on the subject itself.

Discipline was foreign to them. Condescending snickers and remarks when I turned to the black board were common. My most frequent question: "Who said that?"

AND THESE WERE THE PUBLIC SCHOOL CREAM OF THE CROP!!!!

Part of the public school curriculum, for high school, back in the 1980's was a compulsory course called "Consumer Math" (required for ALL students for graduation . . .this was in the "Independent Republic of California" BTW).  At first I thought it was just a new name for the same typical algebra, trig, and geometry course I myself had back in the 1950's. I soon found out that this was NOT the case.  AND IT REPLACED TRADITIONAL MATH . . . you know, the part where you learn how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide whole numbers.

This new "Consumer Math" required course was directed toward teaching these little barbarians things like how to write checks, and how to fill out a loan application. Basically, we were teaching these future minimum wage kings and queens of McDonalds how to become perpetually indebted consumers.

Now before I forget, let's address your "fair" nonsense.

_If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck._ - John Steinbeck

While the quote refers to fighting, fighting is not the only thing involved with this "fair" B.S.

 One of the specific elements of public school education that just stupefies me, and I have no idea if this is part of the "Common Core Standards", but it WAS part of the public school culture when I taught in public schools in the 1980's . . . was this notion of SELF-ESTEEM, no matter what (and our GRADE INFLATION problem stems from this.)  And everything stems from this notion that "fairness" is the way real life behaves.  NO, it's not, and when children think this, they will blame others (those being "unfair", which is real life) for their own failures.

Now self-esteem is indeed a valuable character element, BUT it is ONLY valuable if earned.

However, today self-esteem is looked on as just another "giveaway", that if not "given", NO MATTER WHAT, will damage a child forever.

My own opinion, and I have seen how this works in the classroom, is that if self-esteem is so easy to come by, the child comes to expect it all the time, and THAT is what's harmful. The ultimate outcome of this is when a young adult's employer, playing by real world rules of responsibility, gives that young employee a bad performance report. Then that young employee BLAMES the employer for HIS/HER poor performance, and NOT him/her self and hence does not see the need to improve, because that's in fact what they've been taught to believe by the education system . . . and that's what your "fairness" encourages. THAT damages a child much more than withholding stroking unless it's earned.

Lee Iaccoca wrote about the value of failure.

He said that the word "fail" is no longer in the lexicon of American teaching, and hasn't been since the "wise" ones decided that a failing grade would "damage" the little darling's self esteem.

So what we have now are graduates that cannot read their own diplomas, and when they can't perform in a job get fired. Thus, instead of failing 5th grade, they still fail . . . except it's later in life when it will REALLY damage things.

General George S. Patton put it well:  _"I don't measure a man's success by how high he can climb, but rather by how high he bounces when he hits bottom."_

The left's emphasis on "self-esteem" as a means to "feel good about yourself" has produced things such as grade-inflation, a decline in excellence and drive, and worship of the average and mundane . . . and also a focus on minimum wage, no matter what effort is given, even if there is NO effort.

OK . . . two anecdotes from my teaching days that are pertinent here, and then moving on.

First one . . . one time I had failed a student for the semester. He had been disruptive, flunked all the tests (if he even bothered to show up for them), and failed to turn in homework assignments. It was the last period and I wasn't looking forward to what I assumed would be a devastating final event for the young man, but I was firm in my grading.

I thought when I awarded the "F", this would at least be a sobering event. But the guy was ecstatic and cheered loudly. Turns out that I apparently completed a line of "F's" in every subject and the guy bragged and was a "hero" to the class because he had a "perfect" string of "F's" in all subjects. Had I known that, I would have given the young SOB a passing grade just to break up that "perfect string".

Second . . . one time I was teaching a Chemistry class and as I was standing at the board with my back to the class, a pen came flying up and hit the board right next to me. I turned around quickly, but all I saw was sarcastically smiling "innocent" faces. So I turned around to the board again, and soon a book came flying up and hit the board right next to me. Quick turnaround . . . same response.

So I finally turned quickly around one time, and beheld a FEMALE student hoisting a desk over her head preparing to throw it. I grabbed her and took her down to the principal's office and explained that since she was disrupting my class I would not take her back, and further I wanted her expelled from school for her behavior.

The principle gave me a song and dance about her living in a trailer and having "low self esteem" and moreover about losing some "funding" if the school lost headcount. Bottom line, he didn't throw her out of school, nor even out of my class. Shortly after that incident I got out of the teaching profession and sought more productive employment elsewhere. My teaching "career" lasted only for a few years.




> plastic trash that is clogging the landfills


Can you expand on this?




> Do I look down on


Ah . . . the class warfare tactic again.




> People take delight in dissing public schools and it leaves me to wonder at times about their experiences as a *student*


What makes you think _" . . . dissing public schools . . ."_ has anything to do with having been a student in one?  My own criticism of public schools IS BASED ON HAVING WORKED IN THEM.  I attended private schools in the 1950's and 60's (I attended Roman Catholic schools.  I was educated by the nuns, and later in high school by the Dominican Brothers and Priests.)




> Granted, the public schools tend to be PC, perhaps too much so, and some in the larger towns are union shops, but how does that equate to a lack of fundamentals being taught in the public schools?


Where in the heck did I ever mention "PC" or "unions", and what in the heck do either of those two things have to do with the three R's?  (Perhaps we agree on something here.)

I can tell you from personal experience teaching in public schools, fundamentals are NOT part of the curriculum (but "Consumer Math" is.)

Finally, and this needs repeating, your entire argument is based on . . . CLASS WARFARE, which you and your brethren encourage to the exclusion of common sense.

----------

Classical_Teacher (04-18-2017),Jim Scott (04-10-2017),memesofine (04-11-2017),Sled Dog (04-10-2017),usfan (04-08-2017)

----------


## usfan

Thanks for the personal experiences, Bob.. the real world is often very different than the fantasies of utopian dreamers.

Another correlation to the dark ages and progressive ideology is in the view of history. The Enlightenment brought us the concept of Absolutes, especially regarding science, facts, history, and due process in our judicial system.

But both progressives and the dark ages systems rely on relativism, mandates from the ruling elite, & PR. Propaganda and indoctrination, with illusion, lies, and revisionist history are the tools used by these enemies of human liberty.

History, science, and facts are just relative concepts to manipulate into whatever narrative that promotes their agenda.

Facts and Truth, for Truth's sake, are meaningless concepts for those who merely manipulate words to control others.

----------

BobJam (04-09-2017),Classical_Teacher (04-18-2017),JustPassinThru (04-19-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Progressive roots in Marxist, collectivist ideology.
> 
> You are not here merely to make a living. You are here in order to enable the world to live more amply, with greater vision, with a finer spirit of hope and achievement. You are here to enrich the world, and you impoverish yourself if you forget the errand. ~Woodrow Wilson
> 
> The day of individual happiness has passed. Adolf Hitler
> 
> The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses  Vladimir Lenin
> 
> We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forego the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks. -Woodrow Wilson


I disagree.

I AM here to make a living.

For MYSELF and MY family.

I am not here to provide ANYTHING for ANYONE else.

Period.

----------

memesofine (04-11-2017),Rita Marley (04-11-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> @Jeffrey
> 
> Whoa . . . whoa . . . whoa . . . back up there a minute, Sparky.
> 
> Coupla' things on this.
> 
> First of all, since when does one have to be _" . . . sharp . . ."_ to add, subtract, multiply, and divide WHOLE NUMBERS?  (Which, BTW, is what "calculating" change happens to be.)
> 
> Does it take being "older" and "experience" to master simple arithmetic?  Most of us (apparently not you, though) learned arithmetic in grade school.  My seven year old grandson has "mastered" simple arithmetic.  Does that make him a child prodigy?  By your twisted reasoning, I guess so.
> ...


Thank you, @BobJam, for taking the time to post that ignorant twit's comments.   Your patience with the little dweeb is amazing and apparently a skill you learned well when you weren't being assaulted with books and desks.

And anyone who doesn't "did" today's unconstitutionally federalized Hillary Youth indoctrination camps doesn't know anything about history.

----------

BobJam (04-11-2017),Classical_Teacher (04-18-2017),memesofine (04-11-2017)

----------


## usfan

> I disagree.
> 
> I AM here to make a living.
> 
> For MYSELF and MY family.
> 
> I am not here to provide ANYTHING for ANYONE else.
> 
> Period.


You dare to challenge the great Progressive Woodrow Wilson?

Blasphemy!! No one who speaks evil of the Great Prophet will go unpunished!

Only in community with others has each individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible.  -Karl Marx

----------


## usfan

> Thank you, @BobJam, for taking the time to post that ignorant twit's comments.   Your patience with the little dweeb is amazing and apparently a skill you learned well when you weren't being assaulted with books and desks.
> 
> And anyone who doesn't "did" today's unconstitutionally federalized Hillary Youth indoctrination camps doesn't know anything about history.


+1.. Bob writes with a lot of empathy, but pulls no punches.

..And you touch on another striking similarity between the dark ages and progressive ideology..  the view of history. Progressives see history as a tool for manipulation.. something to revise for expediency. Their roots are in Marx.

If you can cut the people off from their history, then they can be easily persuaded.  -Karl Marx

----------

BobJam (04-11-2017),Classical_Teacher (04-18-2017),memesofine (04-11-2017)

----------


## memesofine

> +1.. Bob writes with a lot of empathy, but pulls no punches.
> 
>  ..And you touch on another striking similarity between the dark ages and progressive ideology..  the view of history. Progressives see history as a tool for manipulation.. something to revise for expediency. Their roots are in Marx.
> 
>  If you can cut the people off from their history, then they can be easily persuaded.  -Karl Marx


And they are doing a hell of job with {the teachings from what they call Teachers} going on in our Universities, schools, (which I now I call little commie camps). We HAVE to take our schools back from these commies, Marxist, Socialist, radicals like the BLM, Muslims, etc and the list is Long.

----------

Classical_Teacher (04-18-2017),usfan (04-11-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> You dare to challenge the great Progressive Woodrow Wilson?
> 
> Blasphemy!! No one who speaks evil of the Great Prophet will go unpunished!
> 
> Only in community with others has each individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible.  -Karl Marx


Only in the community can you get mugged.

Never happens when you're all alone.

----------


## BobJam

Let me atone for my misdeed in contributing to thread drift (I couldn't let the "dweeb's" . . . as @Sled Dog put it so accurately . . . post #130 go unchallenged), by summarizing the well put thesis by @usfan.

Indeed, the progressive ideology is akin to feudal lordships.  usfan put it skillfully in several different ways, but the distillation of the whole thing is that these leftist morons are EXACTLY like the medieval bosses and the aristocrstic society they tried to maintain (BHO having started the most recent iteration.)

For example, Clinton, AND the liberal MSM, thought that she was the . . . ANOINTED QUEEN.

In any case, well put usfan, and I think your thesis is actually a "law" of the universe.

----------

Classical_Teacher (04-18-2017),usfan (04-11-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

There was a dweebish post that I did not make?

I _am_ getting old.

----------


## Rita Marley

> There was a dweebish post that I did not make?
> 
> I _am_ getting old.


I must have missed it.    :Smile:

----------


## usfan

> There was a dweebish post that I did not make?
> I _am_ getting old.


I'm sure your post was still the top dweeb.  The Dog was referring to another poster, addressed as 'Twit'.  And while there are many similarities between dweebs & twits, it depends on the context & the intent of the poster.. You'll have to take that up with sled dog..    :Big Grin:

----------

Midgardian (04-11-2017)

----------


## Classical_Teacher

> @Jeffrey
> 
> Whoa . . . whoa . . . whoa . . . back up there a minute, Sparky.
> 
> Coupla' things on this.
> 
> First of all, since when does one have to be _" . . . sharp . . ."_ to add, subtract, multiply, and divide WHOLE NUMBERS?  (Which, BTW, is what "calculating" change happens to be.)
> 
> Does it take being "older" and "experience" to master simple arithmetic?  Most of us (apparently not you, though) learned arithmetic in grade school.  My seven year old grandson has "mastered" simple arithmetic.  Does that make him a child prodigy?  By your twisted reasoning, I guess so.
> ...


Excellent post, Bobjam.  Absolutely to the point.  You know my stand on public schools.  *Commie Core* wasn't implemented until 2009.  "Experts" were working on it since the early 1990's.  Basically, it is a manual for training little commies and socialists.  And, it's working beautifully.  It was heavily pushed by the Hildabeest ("It takes a village to raise a child.") and BO.  My sister who lives in Virginia and who has taught first grade for the past 15 years is fortunate to live in a state that refused to adopt Commie Core and have their own standards that have nothing to do with Commie Core.  States which have embraced this troubling initiative are experiencing parents who cannot help their children with their homework!  Why?  Because lessons are taught in such confounding manners.  Ex:  In 1st or 2nd grade (can't remember which now), children are taught the reasons BEHIND why mathematics works certain ways.  That is like putting the cart before the horse.  It always was the case where the BASICS were taught--memorized--before ever trying to explain why 2 + 2 = 4!!  A brain has to be further developed in order to grasp those complex mathematical  abstractions!  I wasn't ready for them until after high school!  And now, we're expecting young children to be able to understand and function with concepts and ideas that they naturally would not comprehend until they are much older!  Trump said he is going to abolish it.  I certainly hope he does.  It is a terrible mess.

----------

BobJam (04-19-2017),usfan (04-19-2017)

----------


## Classical_Teacher

> And they are doing a hell of job with {the teachings from what they call Teachers} going on in our Universities, schools, (which I now I call little commie camps). We HAVE to take our schools back from these commies, Marxist, Socialist, radicals like the BLM, Muslims, etc and the list is Long.


I totally agree, but taking back our schools is going to be a monumental task--war, actually.  Try wrestling the $$$ out of the hands of the school boards, Dept. of Education, teacher unions and federations, colleges and universities....it goes on and on.  WE have created a monster, and they have dug their feet in firmly and aren't going to give up their golden goose easily.  I've written about what should be done, but I'm too tired tonight to go into it again.

----------

BobJam (04-19-2017),Sled Dog (04-19-2017),usfan (04-19-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Only in the community can you get mugged.
> 
> Never happens when you're all alone.


Gotta up date this.

Hairy Reid got mugged by his own exercise equipment...

----------

Classical_Teacher (06-10-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> I'm sure your post was still the top dweeb.  The Dog was referring to another poster, addressed as 'Twit'.  And while there are many similarities between dweebs & twits, it depends on the context & the intent of the poster.. You'll have to take that up with sled dog..


"Twits" are those annoying flies that get between you and the TV who just fly back and forth, an annoying black dot of random distracting motion.

A "dweeb" is the neighbors annoying retarded child that never shuts up and never makes any sense and never STOPS.

----------


## Midgardian

> "Twits" are those annoying flies that get between you and the TV who just fly back and forth, an annoying black dot of random distracting motion.
> 
> A "dweeb" is the neighbors annoying retarded child that never shuts up and never makes any sense and never STOPS.


Which one am I?

----------


## BobJam

> Gotta up date this.
> 
> Hairy Reid got mugged by his own exercise equipment...





Limbaugh On Reid: I Don’t Believe For A Minute He Was Injured On Exercise Machine.

Perhaps Dingy Harry Had A Few Too Many Drinks And Took A Header Down A Flight Of Stairs?

Play the Rush video here:

Limbaugh On Reid: I Donâ€™t Believe For A Minute He Was Injured On Exercise Machine



The transcript:




> does anybody believe that Harry Reid really had an accident with his exercise machine? Does anybody really believe that’s why Harry Reid is still bruised and is still wearing dark glasses, what, months after this accident with his exercise machine?
> 
> I don’t believe for a minute that whatever happened to Harry Reid has anything to do with an exercise machine unless somebody repeatedly threw him into it. Harry Reid looks like and is acting like — and now with this announcement, behaving like — somebody who may have been beaten up. Nobody… I’ve never seen anybody have an accident with an exercise machine that ends up suffering symptoms much like Harry Reid’s for as long as Harry Reid has


See also:

Dingy Harry Says  | The Rush Limbaugh Show

----------


## Swedgin

FINALLY!

We can now see the reasoning, as to why the American Left loves Islam, so much:  They have the exact same goals to take the species back to the 4th century......(Which was the "Golden" Age of the Islamic Caliphates.....)

----------

JustPassinThru (04-19-2017)

----------


## usfan

> I totally agree, but taking back our schools is going to be a monumental task--war, actually.  Try wrestling the $$$ out of the hands of the school boards, Dept. of Education, teacher unions and federations, colleges and universities....it goes on and on.  WE have created a monster, and they have dug their feet in firmly and aren't going to give up their golden goose easily.  I've written about what should be done, but I'm too tired tonight to go into it again.


Unfortunately, i agree.   :Frown:   I don't see any 'reform' in our education systems.  They are too corrupt & infested with progressive ideology.  they will not turn away from their cause, but will double down on stupid at every opportunity.

The only solution is to starve them out, & stop the gravy train, but i can't see that happening, either.  The indoctrination is too strong, & goes all the way to kindergarten.. they crank out useful tools in each new graduating class, & the transformation of America is nearly complete.  They went the same way as other collectivist systems born at the same time:  Communism & National Socialism.

Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.  ~Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Why nationalize industry when you can nationalize the people?  ~Adolf Hitler

But they were more patient than either the bolsheviks or the nazis, who wanted to see the results faster, & tried to force it with deeds, instead of luring with lies.  That is the major difference between the collectivists from russia or germany, at the beginning of the last century, & American progressives.  The progressives could lurk in the shadows, & become chameleons, changing with their environment, as they slowly gained power in all the institutions.

----------

Classical_Teacher (06-10-2017)

----------


## usfan

> FINALLY!
> 
> We can now see the reasoning, as to why the American Left loves Islam, so much:  They have the exact same goals to take the species back to the 4th century......(Which was the "Golden" Age of the Islamic Caliphates.....)


Both islam & progressivism are systems of power & control, not freedom.  they rely on elitists to control the masses, who must support the elite, of course.  It is just another aristocratic system that attracts controlling, manipulating scoundrels, not altruistic servants of mankind.

_Liberty and power are in eternal enmity. Liberty is defensive and power is offensive. Power is an armed aggressor. Liberty stands empty-handed, in need of unselfish champions at all times. Power is alluring and inspires both fear and worldly reverence... Those who rise to power, and in power ride rough-shod over the rights of men, seem always to stand in marble on our public squares while those who carry the torch of liberty rest in unmarked graves._ ~R. Carter Pittman

----------

Swedgin (04-19-2017)

----------


## hardwork

> The history of man is a record of a journey of enlightenment, with occasional setbacks and long periods of superstition & oppression.  The reformation, the age of reason, the scientific method, & the enlightenment were all interrelated, & built upon each other to free man from the dark ages of superstition, elitism, & a ruling aristocracy. 
> 
> The Reformation ended the Dark Ages.  Here are some of the characteristics of that time:
> 1. There was an elite ruling class.  They were separate & privileged.  They believed & acted on their superiority over the huddled masses.
> 2. Their mandates were absolute.  They spoke for God & the Universe, & nobody could question them.  Everyone else was expected to submit to their pontifications.  Truth & reason were irrelevant, as the mandates from the elite were supreme.  There was no appeal to Reason, Science, or a Higher Law.
> 3. Superstition & submission to the elite were indoctrinated into everyone.. not critical thinking & discovery.  The institutions of men required absolute devotion, loyalty, & submission, & were not to be questioned.
> 4. Wealth was concentrated in the hands of the elite, ruling classes.  There was no middle class.  The privileged elite did not work, themselves, but were leeches & looters of the production from the working class.The ruling elite were above the laws that they themselves decreed & enforced.
> 5. Violence & intolerance of diverse views were used to keep the reins of power, & any dissenters were targets of their wrath.  Non conformity was punishable by death.
> 
> ...


You're confused, but I wouldn't expect any less from the majority of conservatives.

----------


## JustPassinThru

Yeah, only Allah Snackbars know _TRUTH_.

----------

Classical_Teacher (06-10-2017)

----------


## usfan

> You're confused, but I wouldn't expect any less from the majority of conservatives.


Fantastic 'rebuttal'.    :Rolleyes20: 

 very typical of the left... no reason.  No facts.  No rebuttal.  No history.. just dismissal.  How does ignoring facts & reason help in the advancement of humanity?  You merely illustrate the OP, of the left wanting to return humanity to the dark ages.

----------

BobJam (04-19-2017),Classical_Teacher (06-10-2017)

----------


## hardwork

> Fantastic 'rebuttal'.   
> 
>  very typical of the left... no reason.  No facts.  No rebuttal.  No history.. just dismissal.  How does ignoring facts & reason help in the advancement of humanity?  You merely illustrate the OP, of the left wanting to return humanity to the dark ages.


Why would anyone bother debating someone as confused as you are? How would that advance humanity?

----------


## usfan

> Why would anyone bother debating someone as confused as you are? How would that advance humanity?


 :Yawn: 

So, insult & dismissal is all you have.

Got it.

Get back to me if you want to discuss ideas, facts, or history.  I will not have a battle of wits with someone that is unarmed.

----------

JustPassinThru (04-20-2017)

----------


## hardwork

> So, insult & dismissal is all you have.
> 
> Got it.
> 
> Get back to me if you want to discuss ideas, facts, or history.  I will not have a battle of wits with someone that is unarmed.


Ok. 

Do you believe in God?

----------


## usfan

How about we parse the OP a bit, & take it one point at a time?




> From early in the 20th century, the progressive movement was based on several principles that influenced their agenda.
> 
>       1. Dismantle or render ineffective the constitution of the US.
> 
>  "..*government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton."* ~Woodrow Wilson.
> 
>  Govt was seen as the Solution for all of the problems of humanity, not as the source of them. Early progressives had nothing but disdain for the American Founders, & the principles of Enlightenment thought. The 'checks & balances' of the constitution were seen as a hindrance to the progressive agenda.


Most people with any knowledge of American history recognize Woodrow Wilson as the 'father of progressivism'.  So what he said, in the early hours of the birth of progressive ideology, has a bearing on the ideals of the progressive left.  I can find numerous quotes saying the same thing, from modern progressives, & all along the line.

They do NOT like the constitution as a document of Law.. they do not like literal, legalistic interpretations of it, but prefer a 'fluid', 'interpretive' view, that allows them to change the meaning as they see fit.

This is the same 'dark ages' view that the papists had, pre reformation.  They took many liberties, 'interpreting' the bible, which they claimed to respect, to twist it for their own agenda.. or to use it as a tool of oppression.  But the longing for freedom cannot stay chained forever.  'We must obey God rather than man!', & 'Sola Scriptura!' became the rallying cries of the reformation, & that spawned the enlightenment, the age of reason, scientific methodology, & culminated  in the American Experiment of self rule.

No Elites.
No aristocracy or ruling class.
Human equality.
Natural rights.. life, liberty, property.
Law, due process, constitutional rule, instead of the whims of totalitarian rulers.

THOSE are the foundational ideals for America, not the progressive, anti-human, anti-liberty ideals from the marxist/darwinist basis.

----------


## usfan

> Ok. 
> 
> Do you believe in God?


Deflection.  That is irrelevant, in a debate about ideals.  That is a subject for another thread, which i have also engaged in many times.

----------


## hardwork

> Deflection.  That is irrelevant, in a debate about ideals.  That is a subject for another thread, which i have also engaged in many times.


Do you believe in a creator?

----------


## Midgardian

> Do you believe in a creator?


Do you believe in staying on topic?

----------


## jet57

> The history of man is a record of a journey of enlightenment, with occasional setbacks and long periods of superstition & oppression.  The reformation, the age of reason, the scientific method, & the enlightenment were all interrelated, & built upon each other to free man from the dark ages of superstition, elitism, & a ruling aristocracy. 
> 
> The Reformation ended the Dark Ages.  Here are some of the characteristics of that time:
> 1. There was an elite ruling class.  They were separate & privileged.  They believed & acted on their superiority over the huddled masses.
> 2. Their mandates were absolute.  They spoke for God & the Universe, & nobody could question them.  Everyone else was expected to submit to their pontifications.  Truth & reason were irrelevant, as the mandates from the elite were supreme.  There was no appeal to Reason, Science, or a Higher Law.
> 3. Superstition & submission to the elite were indoctrinated into everyone.. not critical thinking & discovery.  The institutions of men required absolute devotion, loyalty, & submission, & were not to be questioned.
> 4. Wealth was concentrated in the hands of the elite, ruling classes.  There was no middle class.  The privileged elite did not work, themselves, but were leeches & looters of the production from the working class.The ruling elite were above the laws that they themselves decreed & enforced.
> 5. Violence & intolerance of diverse views were used to keep the reins of power, & any dissenters were targets of their wrath.  Non conformity was punishable by death.
> 
> ...


Nonsense; all of it.

----------


## Midgardian

> Nonsense; all of it.


In that case, you ought to be able to refute it - with evidence.

----------


## jet57

> In that case, you ought to be able to refute it - with evidence.



The Dark Ages ended with Guillaume le Bâtard, read a book.  Protestants had nothing to do with it.

----------

Classical_Teacher (06-11-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

> The Dark Ages ended with Guillaume le Bâtard, read a book.  Protestants had nothing to do with it.


We are discussing a return to the "Dark Ages".

----------

Rutabaga (04-20-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> You're confused, but I wouldn't expect any less from the majority of conservatives.


brilliant!!!!

 :Smiley20:

----------


## Rutabaga

> Nonsense; all of it.


how articulate!!!!

 :Smiley20:

----------

Midgardian (04-20-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> The Dark Ages ended with Guillaume le Bâtard, read a book.  Protestants had nothing to do with it.


 :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Rutabaga

> We are discussing a return to the "Dark Ages".


to/from,,,what difference does it make?


 :Headbang:

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> The Dark Ages ended with Guillaume le Bâtard, read a book.  Protestants had nothing to do with it.



You think the "Dark Ages" ended with William the Conqueror??????

Seriously?

----------

Rutabaga (04-20-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> You think the "Dark Ages" ended with William the Conqueror??????
> 
> Seriously?


im not sure he thinks much at all...

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (04-20-2017)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

In the history of Europe, the *Middle Ages or Medieval Period lasted from the 5th to the 15th century. It began with the fall of the Western Roman Empire and merged into the Renaissance and the Age of Discovery. The Middle Ages is the middle period of the three traditional divisions of Western history: classical antiquity, the medieval period, and the modern period. The medieval period is itself subdivided into theEarly, High, and Late Middle Ages.

*Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Old William around 1066 or 500 years before the end of the Dark Ages

----------

Rutabaga (04-20-2017)

----------


## jet57

> You think the "Dark Ages" ended with William the Conqueror??????
> 
> Seriously?


(chuckle)

He's a time reference...


Face Palm.jpg

----------


## jet57

> We are discussing a return to the "Dark Ages".


Yeah, nice try.  The OP was an assertion by a protestant evangelical making a silly assertion that the dark ages ended with "Jesus" from the point of view of the baptists, 'er some other such group.

I said it's nonsense and it is.

----------


## hardwork

> THOSE are the foundational ideals for America, not the progressive, anti-human, anti-liberty ideals from the marxist/darwinist basis.


Do you believe in a God/creator?

----------


## BobJam

> Yeah, nice try. The OP was an assertion by a protestant evangelical making a silly assertion that the dark ages ended with "Jesus" from the point of view of the baptists, 'er some other such group.
> 
> I said it's nonsense and it is.


Perhaps you can tell us just exactly where you're getting all of this out of the OP.

What in the world is in the OP that indicates the post was made by an "evangelical"?

Protestant?  Maybe, since there is reference to the Reformation and "papist".  But beyond that?  Where do you see it?

And the thing about the dark ages ending with "Jesus"?  Where's that?

And _" . . . point of view of the baptists, 'er some other such group."_?  Where in the heck are you getting that out of the OP?

----------

Midgardian (04-21-2017)

----------


## jet57

> perhaps you can tell us just exactly where you're getting all of this out of the op.
> 
> What in the world is in the op that indicates the post was made by an "evangelical"?
> 
> Protestant?  Maybe, since there is reference to the reformation and "papist".  But beyond that?  Where do you see it?
> 
> And the thing about the dark ages ending with "jesus"?  Where's that?
> 
> And _" . . . Point of view of the baptists, 'er some other such group."_?  Where in the heck are you getting that out of the op?





> the reformation ended the dark ages

----------


## BobJam

> Originally Posted by BobJam
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can tell us just exactly where you're getting all of this out of the OP.
> 
> What in the world is in the OP that indicates the post was made by an "evangelical"?
> 
> Protestant? Maybe, since there is reference to the Reformation and "papist". But beyond that? Where do you see it?
> 
> ...


Huh?

How does that answer the questions?

For example, how does that answer the question:  _"What in the world is in the OP that indicates the post was made by an "evangelical"?_

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> (chuckle)
> 
> He's a time reference...
> 
> 
> Face Palm.jpg


What?????

Well then, lets just say the Dark Ages ended with Edison's invention of the light bulb.  That's a nonsensical time reference as well.

----------


## usfan

I know the left prefers their own revisionist history, but I would like to point out a few things that happened, in history, that point to the end of the dark ages.  I don't include exact dates, but they can easily be looked up, if someone wants them.
Copernicus.. father of modern science.Gutenberg.. printing press, wider dissemination of information.Latin.  Common language for science & building on the knowledge base.Martin Luther.  The '95 theses' is considered by many  historians as the spark for the reformation.
I see the reformation as 'the beginning of the end' of the dark ages.  The death grip of the aristocracy.. divine right of kings, the combined church & state, & the totalitarian rule over the common man were losing their power as the principles of the reformation took hold.  Many secular historians do themselves a great disservice by not recognizing the importance of the religious beliefs of the day, & the influence they had at the time.  They prefer to see everything through a secular lens, but that ignores the reality of history.

As the reformation continued, & in spite of the backlash from the Powers that Be, as they persecuted & killed the outliers, the seeds of the Enlightenment were sown.  Freedom of thought flourished under reformation ideals.  They had at their root the basic belief of the Authority of Scripture, not of man.  'Sola Scriptura' was the cry, & it changed western civilization.  Law was something constant & immutable, not subject to the fickle whims of man.'We must obey God, rather than man!' was the other central issue of the reformation.   Justification was by faith, not submission to self appointed spokesmen.  Conscience, not conformity, became the higher standard, & that spread like wildfire to other arenas of human inquiry.
Science, the arts, philosophy.. all of the human knowledge base exploded under this new concept of Natural Law.  As it spread to the political arena, many philosophers made their marks outlining their ideal societies.. Locke, Rousseau, Bacon, Kant, Montesquieu, & many others paved the way for a new era.. one of human equality, instead of elitism.  Individual rights, instead of oppression.  Liberty & freedom, instead of state run slavery.  The aristocracy began to crumble, & revolutions throughout europe brought down the old aristocracy that needed the ideals of the dark ages to survive.

Progressive ideology hates the enlightenment, history, & any examination of the roots of philosophy & thought.  It exposes them as elitist collectivists, who only want to rule over the common man, & exploit him, not free him to be an equal.  Theirs are the same roots & philosophical basis as the old aristocracies of the dark ages, & they demand the same power & control.

No due process.  The accusation is enough.  Guilt is by decree or propaganda, not forensic science or due process.Elitism.  The divine right of kings is replaced by the darwinian right of the superiors, their heightened education, awareness, & intelligence.Rule by decree.  No concept of absolute Law, or morality, but everything is relative, & can be tweaked for expediency.  The elite are also exempt from their own mandates.Destruction of the middle class.  Just like in the dark ages, you  have the elite rich, who live in lavish luxury on the backs of the poor, working man.  The elites do not labor in anything productive, but merely loot & mooch off the working man.Persecution of Christians.  The ruling elite, from either the dark ages, or the modern progressives, have an irrational hatred toward Christianity.  The basic ideology of christianity is based on freedom of choice, individual sovereignty, & free will.  This contrasts with the mandates & forced conformity of the elitists, who demand that everyone believes as they do.  Tolerance & diversity are true hallmarks of Christianity, but are merely empty words to the PC leftists & dark aged aristocracy.
I have seen no rebuttal to any of these points... just leftist dismissal & ridicule.  My reasoning here is based on actual history, reason, & facts, not distortions, propaganda, & made up history to promote some narrative.  Leftists pretend to be rational, but they are not.  They pretend to know history, but they are indoctrinated into cherry picked or revisionist history, that only promotes their phony narratives.  Actual history is an enemy of progressive thought, as it exposes them as enemies of humanity, as their philosophical comrades were centuries or millennia before them.  But instead of learning from history, we seemed doomed to repeat it, driven there by dupes & scoundrels who only want to manipulate & control others.

----------

BobJam (04-21-2017),Dr. Felix Birdbiter (04-21-2017),JustPassinThru (04-21-2017),Midgardian (04-21-2017)

----------


## usfan

> Yeah, nice try.  The OP was an assertion by a protestant evangelical making a silly assertion that the dark ages ended with "Jesus" from the point of view of the baptists, 'er some other such group.
> I said it's nonsense and it is.


Absurd.  If you want to say something of your own beliefs, or support your opinion about times or history, please do so.  All you have here are irrelevant deflections, shrouded in some kind of implied ad hominem.

WHAT was 'the dark ages', to you?
WHEN did it occur?
WHY did it end, if it did?

You have provided no facts, or even commentary about history, or a timeline to support any theory, which you do not even present.  You do not rebut my presentation, just dismiss it with diversion & ridicule.  If that is all you have, you are in way over your head.  This is a discussion based on facts & history, with a warning of repetition.  Refute it, if you can, but you will need something with more power than ridicule & dismissal.

----------

BobJam (04-21-2017),DeadEye (04-21-2017),Rutabaga (04-21-2017)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

Absolutely brilliant @usfan.   Bravo

----------

usfan (04-21-2017)

----------


## usfan

> The Dark Ages ended with Guillaume le Bâtard, read a book.  Protestants had nothing to do with it.


So, if i can refute this assertion, that you give without evidence, you would acknowledge that the reformation was a critical factor in the ending of the dark ages?

----------


## usfan

Open Questions:

What is the primary characteristics of the 'dark', or middle ages?

How did the reformation, the enlightenment, & the age of reason refute this characteristic?

Is the progressive left driving us back to this perspective in human society?  How?

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

The primary characteristics was the Divine Right of Kings and the near enslavement of anyone not of the nobility.  It was also the suppression of any individual thought or knowledge.  It wasn't "dark" because of a lack of light but of a lack of knowledge.

To answer your last question as well, progressive "thought" is a mirror image of the ideology of the Dark Ages in that only those who agree with the elite are deemed worthy of respect.  Any other ideas or beliefs are derided and the thinkers "banished".  Note what is happening with the "Global Warming Deniers" on campuses.  Either agree with those who believe as does Al Gore or you will never get a grant or have any of your work published.

----------

DeadEye (04-21-2017),Rutabaga (04-21-2017),Sled Dog (04-22-2017),usfan (04-21-2017)

----------


## JustPassinThru

The answer to those is so obvious to me, I don't want to spoil it for our SJW snowflakes.

But I will.  Obviously, the Medieval period was a period of ignorance, caused initially by the poverty that came with the collapse of the Roman civilization.  From an earlier world of plenty, they were reduced to subsistance - and literacy, and education, were lost.

With no government in power, the Catholic clergy stepped into the vacuum.  Evil people, seek to burrow into positions where they can engage their evil - and obviously this is what happened with the growing church bureaucracy.  The ignorance of the peasantry helped to enable the clergy to enjoy riches, yes and plenty of corporal, and carnal pleasures.  Look up how many popes were venerally diseased.

The Enlightenment came about as, at first, a slowly-increasing diffusion of knowledge.  A warming trend in climate, also no doubt contributed to new food surpluses.  Education again became something that many could afford; and as technology and science advanced, it became something REQUIRED.  Again.

The Reformation was part of that but not the cause of that.  It was bound to happen; it just fell to Martin Luther to play a visible, perhaps key, part in that.

Prior to the Enlightenment, it was rule by princes, potentates, nobility...Feudalism; rule by edict of the Sovereign.  With Britain leading the way, the trend was to codified law; application of the law to all, including the Sovereign; and slowly, the understanding of Natural Law and of Inviolate Rights of Man.

----------

sooda (04-21-2017),usfan (04-21-2017)

----------


## jet57

> Huh?
> 
> How does that answer the questions?
> 
> For example, how does that answer the question:  _"What in the world is in the OP that indicates the post was made by an "evangelical"?_


You don't read so well or what?  The thesis is the New Testament, through the protestant reformation, was the end of the dark ages.  On it's face alone it's a stupid statement created by an evangelical.  The two had absolutely nothing to do with one another.

----------


## jet57

> What?????
> 
> Well then, lets just say the Dark Ages ended with Edison's invention of the light bulb.  That's a nonsensical time reference as well.


god; just thick as a brick



Dude; the protestant reformation and the end of the dark ages have zero to do with one another.  The period of the dark ages ran from around 476 A.D. to 1000 A.D.  The conqueror invaded England in 1066.

So you figure it out.

The guy also implies that Catholicism was some how in the dark ages and that the reformation was some sort end to the religious dark ages which is an equally stupid thing to say. It's a WASP manifesto.

----------


## jet57

> Absurd.  If you want to say something of your own beliefs, or support your opinion about times or history, please do so.  All you have here are irrelevant deflections, shrouded in some kind of implied ad hominem.
> 
> WHAT was 'the dark ages', to you?
> WHEN did it occur?
> WHY did it end, if it did?
> 
> You have provided no facts, or even commentary about history, or a timeline to support any theory, which you do not even present.  You do not rebut my presentation, just dismiss it with diversion & ridicule.  If that is all you have, you are in way over your head.  This is a discussion based on facts & history, with a warning of repetition.  Refute it, if you can, but you will need something with more power than ridicule & dismissal.


jeezus christ...


The protestant reformation began in 1517, 500 years after the end of the Dark Ages.  The age of reason is an 18th century period which the OP states ran concurrently with "the end of the dark ages" i.e. the reformation.

It's not a matter of any sort of belief, it's a matter of citing an OP that is clearly all over the place, has nothing factual whatsoever in it and is an evangelical manifesto.

If you want to believe what the guy says, go ahead, but you'll be classed in the same box of ignorance that the OP certainly is.

----------

sooda (04-21-2017)

----------


## jet57

> So, if i can refute this assertion, that you give without evidence, you would acknowledge that the reformation was a critical factor in the ending of the dark ages?


Refute away.

But first, you have to define "Dark Ages"...

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

*Oh well, we should just all acquiesce to Jet57's superior name calling abilities and tell him to fuck off.  


Oh Oh look at me
I am just so much smarter than the rest of you


*

----------

BobJam (04-21-2017)

----------


## jet57

> *Oh well, we should just all acquiesce to Jet57's superior name calling abilities and tell him to fuck off.  
> 
> 
> Oh Oh look at me
> I am just so much smarter than the rest of you
> 
> 
> *


The cowardly "hide the post" reply...

If you want me to actually believe that you are stupid enough to give credibility to that OP then I can do that.  Howz about you actually engage in constructive discussion and debate instead of back handing.  The idea here is supposed to be "debate among those who disagree on issues".  If this is really just the _pool of ignorance, c'mon and be stupid like the rest of us_, then that's your problem.

The OP is an idiotic set of paragraphs that the OP poster cannot defend.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> The cowardly "hide the post" reply...
> 
> If you want me to actually believe that you are stupid enough to give credibility to that OP then I can do that.  Howz about you actually engage in constructive discussion and debate instead of back handing.  The idea here is supposed to be "debate among those who disagree on issues".  If this is really just the _pool of ignorance, c'mon and be stupid like the rest of us_, then that's your problem.
> 
> The OP is an idiotic set of paragraphs that the OP poster cannot defend.


Oh, you are so right it made me pee myself.

----------


## jet57

> Oh, you are so right it made me pee myself.


Good; glad I help embarrass you.  You deserve it.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> god; just thick as a brick
> 
> 
> 
> Dude; the protestant reformation and the end of the dark ages have zero to do with one another.  The period of the dark ages ran from around 476 A.D. to 1000 A.D.  The conqueror invaded England in 1066.
> 
> So you figure it out.
> 
> The guy also implies that Catholicism was some how in the dark ages and that the reformation was some sort end to the religious dark ages which is an equally stupid thing to say. It's a WASP manifesto.


Assertion is not proof.

Start proving.

----------


## jet57

> Assertion is not proof.
> 
> Start proving.


I don't know what you mean by that.  Be specific.  Are talking about the idiotic assertions in the OP, or are you talking about the Dark Ages time period?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I don't know what you mean by that.  Be specific.  Are talking about the idiotic assertions in the OP, or are you talking about the Dark Ages time period?


You're asserting a lot, and calling names a lot.

I have yet to see you produce ANY proof that ANY one else's recitation of history is incorrect.

----------


## jet57

> You're asserting a lot, and calling names a lot.
> 
> I have yet to see you produce ANY proof that ANY one else's recitation of history is incorrect.


Saying that people are stupid or ignorant is not name calling, so that's a start.  And if you are as uneducated as you want me to believe, then give me specific questions that you want answered; I'm not going on a wild goose chase.

Or - you can try and defend that OP and every assertion it makes, since I seem to be so wrong about it.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Saying that people are stupid or ignorant is not name calling, so that's a start.


It most assuredly is.




> And if you are as uneducated as you want me to believe, then give me specific questions that you want answered; I'm not going on a wild goose chase.


Nope.  You're not discussing anything.  And judged by your assertions, any answers you have will be worth nothing.

For openers, you're confusing the Enlightenment with the Reformation Movement.




> Or - you can try and defend that OP and every assertion it makes, since I seem to be so wrong about it.


The regressive "Progressive" ideology is, indeed, a repudiation of the Enlightenment - and a desire to move society to a neo-Feudal structure, with all the primitive fallacies it contained and contains.

Starting with, a rejection of Rule of Law.  Followed by a rejection of the Natural Rights of Man.

I base that on their very ACTIONS - they reject the right of neonatal infants to live, over and above the whims of the mother.  And soon to come, the fathers; grandparents; State Commissars.

Remember Terri Schiavo?  Probably not. 

Now you go ahead.  Tell us how the regressive Progressivism is NOT a step backwards, into tyranny and ignorance.

----------

Rutabaga (04-21-2017)

----------


## jet57

> It most assuredly is.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  You're not discussing anything.  And judged by your assertions, any answers you have will be worth nothing.
> 
> For openers, you're confusing the Enlightenment with the Reformation Movement.
> 
> 
> ...





> For openers, you're confusing the Enlightenment with the Reformation Movement.




How so?



The " Enlightenment" period and the Reformation are two hundred years apart, so I have no idea what sort of point you're trying to make with that, and Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive so your point is completely lost on that as well.


Both the Rule of Law and the Rights of Man are only applicable visa-vi a social contract.  They do not exist in a true state of nature.

Abortion is a non issue here, and yes I remember Schiavo; again, a non issue here.  From your perspective, both are religious issues and as such they do not matter to THIS discussion.

And before we get into this; tell me please: what is Feudalism?  and what is _neo-Feudalism? And do progressives_ support it and how are they trying to bring it in?

As for my facts, I guess that you have no questions or corrections so they will remain facts.

And referring to groups and the individuals who espouse a "group think" as _stupid_, is not name calling.  It's a proper framing of a mind set that has the ability to educate itself out of such ignorance, but chooses not to.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> How so?
> 
> 
> 
> The "[/COLOR] Enlightenment" period and the Reformation are two hundred years apart, so I have no idea what sort of point you're trying to make with that, and Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive so your point is completely lost on that as well.
> 
> 
> Both the Rule of Law and the Rights of Man are only applicable visa-vi a social contract.  They do not exist in a true state of nature.
> 
> ...


You show in this that you have no concept, NONE, of what "Natural Law" or "Natural Rights of Man"...are.

Those are not codified legal recognitions of rights, enforced in government structures.  These are observations by philosophers - that societies that recognize the universal rights of humans, to Life, Liberty, property rights...those societies prosper; where feudal societies that place a nobility class above others, and make a peasantry class, chattel...those societies remain stagnant, stunted, empoverished.

You further show your ignorance in not understanding why abortion is a violation of the Natural Rights of Man...first of which is to LIFE.  No man, by Natural Law, has the right to take the life of another by whim.  The only exception to this is in punishment to those who HAVE taken innocent life.

To destroy the most innocent of human life, for pure whim or even malice...is a basic violation of the basis of Western jurisprudence and Enlightenment philosophies.  It places the right of the mother, or the State, above the right of the neonatal infant.

Creating a situation where SOME life is worth more than OTHER life; and SOME life can choose at whim to end other life.

So it's a small step to leading to euthanasia of the terminally ill...then to forced euthanasia of the elderly...then the retarded and other undesirables...and then those who have unattractive features or hair-color that is not desired...or just at whim of whatever local Commissar there is.

A return to the feudal tyranny of a nobility class.

And you, full of whatever neo-Marxist claptrap you are full of...you cannot see it.

----------

Sled Dog (04-22-2017)

----------


## ChemEngineer

> 4)  I will not speak for others but I believe in God, Jesus, and the Holly Ghost. 
> Before you say what a leftist believes talk to a leftist.  I do not accuse you of lying about what you believe.  Why do you try to assign beliefs to me I do not have?


Golly, Folly believes in the Holly.

How "intellectual" of Folly.

iamdisappointmentheather_fullpic.png

----------


## ChemEngineer

> To destroy the most innocent of human life, for pure whim or even malice...is a basic violation of the basis of Western jurisprudence and Enlightenment philosophies.


Draw a straight line on a piece of paper, at least 9 inches long.  Put a start and a finish at each end like so:

|_________________________________________________  ________|

The left end is the formation of a new child, a fertilized egg attaching to a woman's uterus.
The right end is the first breath taken by that child, nine months after the left end.

Now please, "feminists," draw the line where you believe this human can be destroyed, and justify your
decision.  Keep in mind the baby's father should have "rights" to have and hold HIS child.
The grandparents may be financially and psychologically capable of raising their grandchild.
Moreover, the child's father has no voice as to whether he will be required to pay child support for 18 years, or
never see his own flesh and blood.  This is not a "choice," it is an excuse for murder.

----------

BobJam (04-21-2017),JustPassinThru (04-21-2017),Rutabaga (04-21-2017),usfan (04-21-2017)

----------


## jet57

> You show in this that you have no concept, NONE, of what "Natural Law" or "Natural Rights of Man"...are.
> 
> Those are not codified legal recognitions of rights, enforced in government structures.  These are observations by philosophers - that societies that recognize the universal rights of humans, to Life, Liberty, property rights...those societies prosper; where feudal societies that place a nobility class above others, and make a peasantry class, chattel...those societies remain stagnant, stunted, empoverished.
> 
> You further show your ignorance in not understanding why abortion is a violation of the Natural Rights of Man...first of which is to LIFE.  No man, by Natural Law, has the right to take the life of another by whim.  The only exception to this is in punishment to those who HAVE taken innocent life.
> 
> To destroy the most innocent of human life, for pure whim or even malice...is a basic violation of the basis of Western jurisprudence and Enlightenment philosophies.  It places the right of the mother, or the State, above the right of the neonatal infant.
> 
> Creating a situation where SOME life is worth more than OTHER life; and SOME life can choose at whim to end other life.
> ...


So, it is _"Master PO"_...

(chuckle)

More later.

----------


## JustPassinThru

No refutation.

Not that I expected any.

----------


## jet57

> You show in this that you have no concept, NONE, of what "Natural Law" or "Natural Rights of Man"...are.
> 
> Those are not codified legal recognitions of rights, enforced in government structures.  These are observations by philosophers - that societies that recognize the universal rights of humans, to Life, Liberty, property rights...those societies prosper; where feudal societies that place a nobility class above others, and make a peasantry class, chattel...those societies remain stagnant, stunted, empoverished.
> 
> You further show your ignorance in not understanding why abortion is a violation of the Natural Rights of Man...first of which is to LIFE.  No man, by Natural Law, has the right to take the life of another by whim.  The only exception to this is in punishment to those who HAVE taken innocent life.
> 
> To destroy the most innocent of human life, for pure whim or even malice...is a basic violation of the basis of Western jurisprudence and Enlightenment philosophies.  It places the right of the mother, or the State, above the right of the neonatal infant.
> 
> Creating a situation where SOME life is worth more than OTHER life; and SOME life can choose at whim to end other life.
> ...


(chuckle)


You act as though you and I have never discussed this before…


“Natural Rights” is nothing but a philosophy and _legal theory_ that has no basis in fact. Locke derived his argument on them from a Biblical perspective and therein lies the problem with them having any legal clout except as argued to those who mistakenly believe in them.  That is to say, “Natural Rights’ will never be _facts in evidence_.  They were argued / rationalized in Greek times as well as _a natural state of man_.  The problem with that entire philosophy  is that if your enemy, or the person intent on doing you harm, then you’re going to harmed up to and including being killed.  So to such persons, with said intent, “natural Rights” mean nothing; THAT is the natural state of man in the world without a social contract that recognizes rights.
Your abortion argument is Biblically evangelical right down to its core and will be ignored; take to the abortion forum, I’m not going to entertain it.

You obviously have no idea what feudalism is, where it came from, how it works or anything about it.  You have an astounding sense of ignorance on the matter.  Nobility exists all over Europe and has nothing to do with feudalism; so read a book.

The funny part of your whole screed there is that you were challenged to _prove me wrong_ or _prove the OP right_ and as usual, you done nothing of the sort except to try and divert the entire discussion to your Biblical ideology.  My analysis of the OP is apparently way over your head, so if you can’t discuss the OP and exactly what I said about it, or what IT actually says, then we’re done here.


You don't know shit and you’re boring.

----------


## Dos Equis

> (chuckle)
> 
> 
> You act as though you and I have never discussed this before…
> 
> 
> “Natural Rights” is nothing but a philosophy and _legal theory_ that has no basis in fact. Locke derived his argument on them from a Biblical perspective and therein lies the problem with them having any legal clout except as argued to those who mistakenly believe in them.  That is to say, “Natural Rights’ will never be _facts in evidence_.  They were argued / rationalized in Greek times as well as _a natural state of man_.  The problem with that entire philosophy  is that if your enemy, or the person intent on doing you harm, then you’re going to harmed up to and including being killed.  So to such persons, with said intent, “natural Rights” mean nothing; THAT is the natural state of man in the world without a social contract that recognizes rights.
> Your abortion argument is Biblically evangelical right down to its core and will be ignored; take to the abortion forum, I’m not going to entertain it.
> 
> ...


You are correct in that secular humanists view human beings as nothing more than glorified animals.

And what do we do to animals?  We put them in zoos, use them as beasts of burden, and kill and eat them.

That means if we want to be treated better than animals, we must demand that human beings be treated differently because we were created differently and have more worth.

The choice is ours.

----------

usfan (04-21-2017)

----------


## jet57

> You are correct in that secular humanists view human beings as nothing more than glorified animals.
> 
> And what do we do to animals?  We put them in zoos, use them as beasts of burden, and kill and eat them.
> 
> That means if we want to be treated better than animals, we must demand that human beings be treated differently because we were created differently and have more worth.
> 
> The choice is ours.


Yeah, that's why we have _social contracts_; our is called the United States Constitution.

----------


## hardwork

This is a riot. If anyone represents the notion of an elite class, it's Trump. His boy is named BARON for crying out loud.

Baron: Lord, Nobel, Aristocrat

----------


## hardwork

> Draw a straight line on a piece of paper, at least 9 inches long.  Put a start and a finish at each end like so:
> 
> |_________________________________________________  ________|
> 
> The left end is the formation of a new child, a fertilized egg attaching to a woman's uterus.
> The right end is the first breath taken by that child, nine months after the left end.
> 
> Now please, "feminists," draw the line where you believe this human can be destroyed, and justify your
> decision.  Keep in mind the baby's father should have "rights" to have and hold HIS child.
> ...


Abortion is a fact of life. Try as anyone may, it has all but always been, and will certainly always be, in some form or another. Because of that it should be regulated for the good of all concerned.

----------


## Dos Equis

> Yeah, that's why we have _social contracts_; our is called the United States Constitution.


Based upon what?  Why should human beings be treated as individuals who are made in the image of God when they are just really glorified animals?

Why not just succumb to the secular human socialist vision of herding us all around like cattle?

----------


## hardwork

> You are correct in that secular humanists view human beings as nothing more than glorified animals.
> 
> And what do we do to animals?  We put them in zoos, use them as beasts of burden, and kill and eat them.
> 
> That means if we want to be treated better than animals, we must demand that human beings be treated differently because we were created differently and have more worth.
> 
> The choice is ours.


How were human beings "created" differently? Natural selection/evolution, is natural selection/evolution, the species is irrelevant.

----------


## ChemEngineer

> Abortion is a fact of life. Try as anyone may, it has all but always been, and will certainly always be, in some form or another. Because of that it should be regulated for the good of all concerned.


So have murder and other evils always been "a fact of life."  The pretense that this heinous crime, murdering a baby, "will be done anyway so we might as well keep it safe and legal" should be applied to rape, robbery, and mayhem.   People are gonna do all these things so why try and stop them, hmmm?
That's Leftist wordplay at its worst.

By the way, on my 9 month timeline, split the second of precisely when the baby in a womb may be murdered, and justify why the next second makes a difference.  Let's see some Leftist take that thought on.

----------

Rutabaga (04-21-2017)

----------


## hardwork

> So have murder and other evils always been "a fact of life."  The pretense that this heinous crime, murdering a baby, "will be done anyway so we might as well keep it safe and legal" should be applied to rape, robbery, and mayhem.   People are gonna do all these things so why try and stop them, hmmm?
> That's Leftist wordplay at its worst.


Abortion is legal for a reason. Murder, rape, robbery, etc., are illegal for a reason. If you don't have enough common sense to know the difference, that's your problem. We don't live our lives based on your lack of ability to think.

----------


## jet57

> Based upon what?  Why should human beings be treated as individuals who are made in the image of God when they are just really glorified animals?
> 
> Why not just succumb to the secular human socialist vision of herding us all around like cattle?


(chuckle)

yeah, funny

Dude: _because we decided as a society that we wanted protections form each other; that's why_.

You're being juvenile btw.

----------


## Dos Equis

> How were human beings "created" differently? Natural selection/evolution, is natural selection/evolution, the species is irrelevant.


So there is no difference shooting a dear and eating it and shooting you and eating you?

----------


## Dos Equis

> (chuckle)
> 
> yeah, funny
> 
> Dude: _because we decided as a society that we wanted protections form each other; that's why_.
> 
> You're being juvenile btw.


I'm as juvenile and funny as Locke was and the Founding Fathers were who heeded his writings and formed a government based upon his principles. 

We are just here to amuse you.

----------

JustPassinThru (04-22-2017)

----------


## jet57

> I'm as juvenile and funny as Locke was and the Founding Fathers were who heeded his writings and formed a government based upon his principles. 
> 
> We are just here to amuse you.


Well since you don't have any idea what you're talkin about, you are kinds funny.

I hope you don't vote.

----------


## Dos Equis

> Abortion is legal for a reason. Murder, rape, robbery, etc., are illegal for a reason. If you don't have enough common sense to know the difference, that's your problem. We don't live our lives based on your lack of ability to think.


Don't mind them, they just deny that the Birth Fairy, that waves her magic wand over the unborn child as it exists the womb to make it human, actually exists.

----------


## hardwork

> So there is no difference shooting a dear and eating it and shooting you and eating you?


There's no difference between you killing, and eating, a deer, and a bear killing, and eating, you.

----------


## Dos Equis

> There's no difference between you killing, and eating, a deer, and a bear killing, and eating, you.


So that means you either advocate making murder legal or making killing animals illegal. 

Which is it?

----------


## Midgardian

> There's no difference between you killing, and eating, a deer, and a bear killing, and eating, you.

----------


## Rutabaga

> You don't read so well or what?  T*he thesis is the New Testament, through the protestant reformation, was the end of the dark ages.*  On it's face alone it's a stupid statement created by an evangelical.  The two had absolutely nothing to do with one another.


patently false..learn how to follow the thread subject..

----------

BobJam (04-22-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> You show in this that you have no concept, NONE, of what "Natural Law" or "Natural Rights of Man"...are.
> 
> Those are not codified legal recognitions of rights, enforced in government structures.  These are observations by philosophers - that societies that recognize the universal rights of humans, to Life, Liberty, property rights...those societies prosper; where feudal societies that place a nobility class above others, and make a peasantry class, chattel...those societies remain stagnant, stunted, empoverished.
> 
> You further show your ignorance in not understanding why abortion is a violation of the Natural Rights of Man...first of which is to LIFE.  No man, by Natural Law, has the right to take the life of another by whim.  The only exception to this is in punishment to those who HAVE taken innocent life.
> 
> To destroy the most innocent of human life, for pure whim or even malice...is a basic violation of the basis of Western jurisprudence and Enlightenment philosophies.  It places the right of the mother, or the State, above the right of the neonatal infant.
> 
> Creating a situation where SOME life is worth more than OTHER life; and SOME life can choose at whim to end other life.
> ...


exactly..thats why he refuses to give an example of which rights are bestowed upon our citizens via the bill of rights..

he wont answer because he knows hes full of fecal matter..

----------


## Rutabaga

> How were human beings "created" differently? Natural selection/evolution, is natural selection/evolution, the species is irrelevant.


i agree...to the victor goes the spoils..

you got your shit, i got mine,, i kill you and take your shit, i got mine and yours...

natural selection via technology..

----------


## hardwork

> So that means you either advocate making murder legal or making killing animals illegal. 
> 
> Which is it?


What it means is that to the universe the deers life is of no greater, or lesser, value then yours. The deer provides you with protein, and you provide the bear with protein. We allow killing for the purpose of providing us with the necessities to keep on living. 

Common sense, try it.

----------

jet57 (04-21-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> What it means is that to the universe the deers life is of no greater, or lesser, value then yours. The deer provides you with protein, and you provide the bear with protein. We allow killing for the purpose of providing us with the necessities to keep on living. 
> 
> Common sense, try it.


hey, i agree with you..if you have a can of chili i want, and im not hungry enough to eat you, i'll kill you for that can of chili..

thats reality minus feeling..

----------

Midgardian (04-21-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

> hey, i agree with you..if you have a can of chili i want, and im not hungry enough to eat you, i'll kill you for that can of chili..
> 
> thats reality minus feeling..


As a cover, you could just ask him to say "Joy Lane".

----------

Rutabaga (04-21-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> As a cover, you could just ask him to say "Joy Lane".


in a pinch, i'd eat her too..thats reality...

----------


## ChemEngineer

> Abortion is legal for a reason. Murder, rape, robbery, etc., are illegal for a reason. If you don't have enough common sense to know the difference, that's your problem. We don't live our lives based on your lack of ability to think.


The "LAW" once permitted slavery in the United States.   Your lack of ability to think overlooks the glaringly obvious.

Have you EVER thought of why Roe v. Wade was determined?  It was on the basis of the claim by Norma McCorvey that she had "been raped."  It was a lie. She was not raped.  Moreover, she changed her mind based on personal guilt, and worked tirelessly to save babies from abortion until the day she died.    Your lack of compassion for sentient babies, who are tortured with poisonous saline solutions, burning every inch of their skin, or torn to pieces by forceps before extraction, shows how cruel and barbaric you truly are.

Adults who were victims of botched abortions are very happy to be alive today.  If they were not, they could quite easily kill themselves.
Andrea Bocelli's mother was advised by her doctor to abort him, but she refused.  Remember that whenever you hear him sing.
May it burn your ears, and shame you.

----------

usfan (04-22-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> (chuckle)
> 
> 
> You act as though you and I have never discussed this before
> 
> 
> Natural Rights is nothing but a philosophy and _legal theory_ that has no basis in fact. Locke derived his argument on them from a Biblical perspective and therein lies the problem with them having any legal clout except as argued to those who mistakenly believe in them.  That is to say, Natural Rights will never be _facts in evidence_.  They were argued / rationalized in Greek times as well as _a natural state of man_.  The problem with that entire philosophy  is that if your enemy, or the person intent on doing you harm, then youre going to harmed up to and including being killed.  So to such persons, with said intent, natural Rights mean nothing; THAT is the natural state of man in the world without a social contract that recognizes rights.
> Your abortion argument is Biblically evangelical right down to its core and will be ignored; take to the abortion forum, Im not going to entertain it.
> 
> ...


you assign fact to opinion..they are not the same...thats a fact, not an opinion..

try again..use facts,, not others opinions..i wont wait,,because all you have are others opinions,,not facts,,because they cannot be established...other than opinions..

i know,, its a tough place to be, faith,,faith in others thoughts/opinions..but thats the reality of it...

----------

ChemEngineer (04-21-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

> Refute away.
> 
> But first, you have to define "Dark Ages"...


You mean that you don't know?

----------


## Midgardian

> Obviously, the Medieval period was a period of ignorance.


In that case it should be renamed the Midgardian Period.

----------


## Midgardian

"Dark" ages is racist.

----------


## jet57

> You mean that you don't know?


right

HE doesn't know, so I want to hear his definition before we go on.  That way if wanders, like you do, I can jerk on the line and bring back to be reeled in...

----------


## Midgardian

> The protestant reformation began in 1517, 500 years after the end of the Dark Ages.


You just have a myopic view of what constitutes the Dark Ages, as you wish to limit it to the Early Middle Ages.

This is a subject of historical debate, and if nothing else, historians love to argue.

----------


## Midgardian

I get the impression that one of the reasons the individual who is mainly promoting the view that the Dark Ages are contiguous with the Early Middle Ages is because the end of that era marks (give or take a few centuries) the beginning of a major Islamic civilization.

----------


## Midgardian

In other words, the major conflict in this thread over the last several days likely fractures along the fault line of what either side thinks about the Crusades.

----------


## Midgardian

> Abortion is a non issue here, and yes I remember Schiavo; again, a non issue here.  From your perspective, both are religious issues and as such they do not matter to THIS discussion.


Both are LIFE issues.

----------


## jet57

> Both are LIFE issues.


They have nothing to do with the reformation OR The Dark Ages.  That is a religious issue with you on the right.

----------


## jet57

> I get the impression that one of the reasons the individual who is mainly promoting the view that the Dark Ages are contiguous with the Early Middle Ages is because the end of that era marks (give or take a few centuries) the beginning of a major Islamic civilization.



You're blathering again.

Aren't you the guy who said that Facebook was run by a Jew?

----------

Northern Rivers (04-22-2017)

----------


## jet57

> In other words, the major conflict in this thread over the last several days likely fractures along the fault line of what either side thinks about the Crusades.



No, the major fault line in the thread over the last few days has been between rational and reasonable proven historic fact from my side and idiotic unreasonable and inaccurate Biblical proselytizing from your side; visa-vi the OP and your defense of it.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> (chuckle)
> 
> 
> * You act as though you and I have never discussed this before*


So why don't you tell me who this account is a SOCK...FOR.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Well since you don't have any idea what you're talkin about, you are kinds funny.


And you call us ignorant.

How old are you?  Fourteen?

----------

ChemEngineer (04-22-2017)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> The "LAW" once permitted slavery in the United States.   Your lack of ability to think overlooks the glaringly obvious.


...which must be A-OK with him and his ilk...since we're all animals anyway; and the only rights there are, come from government. 

So...slavery is just fine as long as the government imposes it.

Now...why is it, again, that people like him constantly abuse and denigrate white people?  The Original Sin, of Slavery?

When there IS no sin, and only government-given rights, and we're all animals anyway?

SLAVERY, has a MUCH longer history than neonatal slaughter, so-called "abortion."  Unlike the latter, slavery existed at some point in every known civilization, and still exists in many cultures today.  Why, again, are we, white people, the first civilization to choose to end bondage as an advanced society...why are we abused for this, when we were first to repudiate it and it was part of the Social Contract, anyway?

----------

usfan (04-22-2017)

----------


## jet57

> So why don't you tell me who this account is a SOCK...FOR.






> And you call us ignorant.
> 
> How old are you?  Fourteen?


So you've ceded the argument.  That's good.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> So you've ceded the argument.  That's good.


Where do you come up with this shit, troll?

----------


## Sled Dog

> Is the progressive left driving us back to this perspective in human society?  How?


Socialism relies entirely on the method of Infallible Edict.   He who questions The Plan or Big Brother, dies.

Takes us immediately back to before the Protestant Reformation and the infallibility of the Pope.

----------

JustPassinThru (04-22-2017),usfan (04-22-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Abortion is a fact of life. Try as anyone may, it has all but always been, and will certainly always be, in some form or another. Because of that it should be regulated for the good of all concerned.


The good of the baby?

Then it must be regulated out of existence.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Abortion is legal for a reason. Murder, rape, robbery, etc., are illegal for a reason. If you don't have enough common sense to know the difference, that's your problem. We don't live our lives based on your lack of ability to think.


Abortion is allowed (not "legal") because one man in a dress violated the Constitution and decided that it's okay to murder babies.

Murder is illegal because it's murder.

I'd waste more time explaining things to you, but, it would be a waste of time, so I see no point in bothering with some high school sophomore presenting arguments that failed when they were first heard in the 1970s.

----------


## Sled Dog

> So there is no difference shooting a dear and eating it and shooting you and eating you?


If it was dear to you, why did you shoot it?

Deer are vegetarians and don't have trigger fingers, anyway.

----------


## Sled Dog

> There's no difference between you killing, and eating, a deer, and a bear killing, and eating, you.


You sure he didn't mean shooting a beer?     And bare killing, that's pretty much what abortion is.

----------


## Northern Rivers

> You're blathering again.
> 
> Aren't you the guy who said that Facebook was run by a Jew?


Midi doesn't have much to say about Jews..... :Sad20:

----------


## hardwork

> The "LAW" once permitted slavery in the United States.   Your lack of ability to think overlooks the glaringly obvious.
> 
> Have you EVER thought of why Roe v. Wade was determined?  It was on the basis of the claim by Norma McCorvey that she had "been raped."  It was a lie. She was not raped.  Moreover, she changed her mind based on personal guilt, and worked tirelessly to save babies from abortion until the day she died.    Your lack of compassion for sentient babies, who are tortured with poisonous saline solutions, burning every inch of their skin, or torn to pieces by forceps before extraction, shows how cruel and barbaric you truly are.
> 
> Adults who were victims of botched abortions are very happy to be alive today.  If they were not, they could quite easily kill themselves.
> Andrea Bocelli's mother was advised by her doctor to abort him, but she refused.  Remember that whenever you hear him sing.
> May it burn your ears, and shame you.


If you don't want to be involved with anyone who might have an abortion, don't get involved them. But all over the portion of the globe that climbed out of the dark ages via the enlightenment, abortion is a legal option, and those of us who are enlightened intend to keep it that way. The church doesn't dictate my wife's, my daughter's, my lover's, options in life, nor do you.

"Most countries in the European Union allow abortion on demand during the first trimester."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law

Of course you can always move to Africa or Vatican City. 

"As of 2015, an estimated 90% of women of childbearing age in Africa live in countries with restrictive abortion laws. Even where the law allows abortion under limited circumstances, it is likely that few women in these countries are able to navigate the processes required to obtain a safe, legal procedure."

----------


## usfan

> Open Questions:
> What is the primary characteristics of the 'dark', or middle ages?
> How did the reformation, the enlightenment, & the age of reason refute this characteristic?
> Is the progressive left driving us back to this perspective in human society?  How?


IMO, the primary characteristic of the dark or middle ages was elitism.  It was the belief that the aristocracy, nobility, & monarchy were endowed with special dispensations of Divine Ability, & were appointed by God to rule over the common man.  It was this basic belief that spawned all the other conditions.
Science by decree?  Elites can do that.  They are smarter & superior to common folk.Concentrated wealth, no middle class.  Commoners were meant for working & supporting the ruling elite.Oppression & religious mandates.  They speak for God, & are endowed with special insight, how can you argue with that?No due process, brutality toward any outliers, absolute power.  If you are a super special, superior human being, you can do whatever you want, & who can question you?
*But it is the root belief of elitism.. a special, privileged condition that makes their decrees, opinions, & mandates infallible.*
..sounds kind of like modern progressives, doesn't it?   :Thinking: 



> jeezus christ...


Appealing to Deities will not help you.  If you have no reason or facts, your fallacies will only expose your own ignorance & bias.



> The protestant reformation began in 1517, 500 years after the end of the Dark Ages.  The age of reason is an 18th century period which the OP states ran concurrently with "the end of the dark ages" i.e. the reformation.
> It's not a matter of any sort of belief, it's a matter of citing an OP that is clearly all over the place, has nothing factual whatsoever in it and is an evangelical manifesto.
> If you want to believe what the guy says, go ahead, but you'll be classed in the same box of ignorance that the OP certainly is.


You declare your opinion as if it is common knowledge, or as if your opinion carries some kind of special power over anyone else's.  ..sounds kind of elitist, to me.  And, since you claim the mantle of progressivism, you illustrate the very thing the OP is saying.

You have the grandiose pontificating thing down, & toss in some ad hominem for flavor, but facts & reason are still lacking.  Those are the characteristics of the Enlightenment, not the dark ages.  Science, Reason, Natural Law.. the kinds of things that the aristocracy recoiled from in horror.



> Refute away.
> But first, you have to define "Dark Ages"...


I was clear about my definition.  You just tried to nit pick to deflect from the points in the OP.

From Wiki:




> Dark Ages (historiography), the period in Europe following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire
> European Middle Ages (*5th to 15th centuries AD*), particularly:
> European Early Middle Ages
> Migration Period of c. 400 to 800 AD
> Saeculum obscurum or "dark age" in the history of the papacy, running from 904 to 964 AD.


I did not use the term 'dark ages' as the central point of discussion for the thread.  I defined the characteristics of the 'dark ages', & used the times in a common, historical manner.  Your objections & indignant claims of 'Heresy!' on my part are just deflections, as far as i can see.  You have nothing to refute the points, or any alternate interpretation of history.  Your replies have been deflections & dismissal, and have ignored the points of reason.

I do appreciate the illustration of the OP, though.  It is my contention that the progressive left is driving us back to the dark ages, with anti-human ideology, bent on establishing a new aristocracy.. one based on the religious elite of Naturalism & secular humanism, as they cast off the old notions of God, moral absolutes, human equality, & individual liberty.  The combined influence of marxism & darwinism has morphed into the 'New, Improved!' religion of the day, & is driving us back to the old order of religious aristocracy & a ruling elite.  This is an anti-American, & anti-human ideology, but that is nothing new.  What is absurd is that thinking, educated human beings would allow themselves to be duped by these charlatans & scoundrels, & willingly submit to their oppression.

----------

BobJam (04-22-2017)

----------


## Dos Equis

> What it means is that to the universe the deers life is of no greater, or lesser, value then yours. The deer provides you with protein, and you provide the bear with protein. We allow killing for the purpose of providing us with the necessities to keep on living. 
> 
> Common sense, try it.


So tell me, how do you like yourself, medium or well done?

----------


## usfan

> The answer to those is so obvious to me, I don't want to spoil it for our SJW snowflakes.
> 
> But I will.  Obviously, the Medieval period was a period of ignorance, caused initially by the poverty that came with the collapse of the Roman civilization.  From an earlier world of plenty, they were reduced to subsistance - and literacy, and education, were lost.
> 
> With no government in power, the Catholic clergy stepped into the vacuum.  Evil people, seek to burrow into positions where they can engage their evil - and obviously this is what happened with the growing church bureaucracy.  The ignorance of the peasantry helped to enable the clergy to enjoy riches, yes and plenty of corporal, and carnal pleasures.  Look up how many popes were venerally diseased.
> 
> The Enlightenment came about as, at first, a slowly-increasing diffusion of knowledge.  A warming trend in climate, also no doubt contributed to new food surpluses.  Education again became something that many could afford; and as technology and science advanced, it became something REQUIRED.  Again.
> 
> The Reformation was part of that but not the cause of that.  It was bound to happen; it just fell to Martin Luther to play a visible, perhaps key, part in that.
> ...


+1
I would note, though, that the 'ignorance' of the dark ages is only from retrospect.  They did not consider themselves to be 'ignorant', but they believed themselves to be at the pinnacle of knowledge, & the elite speakers for God.

See how the progressives do the same today?  They do not use facts, reason, or science, but mandates & forced conformity.  You MUST comply to their decrees.  ALL leftist dominated institutions are notoriously INTOLERANT of diversity.  They demand conformity to their set of beliefs & opinions.  Whether it be global warming, identity politics, white privilege, open borders, or any of the pet beliefs from the left, they demand conformity, & drive away any who do not comply.

I see no difference between the elite religious rulers from the papacy, or the monarchy, or any of the aristocratic, elitist elevation of man in the dark ages, & the progressives.  They do not follow Law, or Science, or Reason.  They decree, from a position of Superior Knowledge, which they just seize.  It is a bluff, as they take the Intellectual High Ground.  But it is false knowledge, based on deceit & propaganda.  Only a broad base of REAL knowledge can expose the bluff, & deliver us from elitist domination.

*Without education, we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously.* ― G.K. Chesterton

----------

BobJam (04-22-2017)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> If you don't want to be involved with anyone who might have an abortion, don't get involved them. But all over the portion of the globe that climbed out of the dark ages via the enlightenment, abortion is a legal option, and those of us who are enlightened intend to keep it that way. The church doesn't dictate my wife's, my daughter's, my lover's, options in life, nor do you.
> 
> "Most countries in the European Union allow abortion on demand during the first trimester."
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law
> 
> Of course you can always move to Africa or Vatican City. 
> 
> "As of 2015, an estimated 90% of women of childbearing age in Africa live in countries with restrictive abortion laws. Even where the law allows abortion under limited circumstances, it is likely that few women in these countries are able to navigate the processes required to obtain a safe, legal procedure."


What other nations do...is not only irrelevant in terms of validation; it also serves as a warning.  Of how NOT to run a society.

Europe, that is, Western culture, had served as the epicenter of the Enlightenment; but it also has resisted abandonment of feudalism; of a Nobility Class; and it has several times descended into antidemocratic imperial dictatorship.  The seat of the Enlightenment was also the home of the French Left, which was the father of both Anarchism and Communism.

America is a nation that has to put up checkpoints - not to keep people from leaving, but to control the swarms who want to come IN.

That Eurotrash nations denigrate human life, is not, to reasonable people, endorsement of that denigration of life.

----------

usfan (04-22-2017)

----------


## usfan

> Based upon what?  Why should human beings be treated as individuals who are made in the image of God when they are just really glorified animals?
> 
> Why not just succumb to the secular human socialist vision of herding us all around like cattle?


'Social contracts' are not worth the paper they are printed on.  You can give a stupid, superstitious people a constitution, & they will wipe their butts with it.  Enlightened intelligence, ruled by facts, science, & reason are necessary qualities for a people under constitutional Law.  If a people are not civilized enough to willingly follow the Natural Law that they sense from within, but they must be forced to comply to arbitrary, relative decrees from a despot, they are not fit for self rule, & the principles of the enlightenment.

_I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such: because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well-administred; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administred for a Course of Years and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other._ ~Benjamin Franklin

_At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child  miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats._ ~P.J. O'Rourke

----------

BobJam (04-22-2017)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> So tell me, how do you like yourself, medium or well done?


I, for one...would like him flyblown.  Hanging from a rope.

----------


## usfan

> I get the impression that one of the reasons the individual who is mainly promoting the view that the Dark Ages are contiguous with the Early Middle Ages is because the end of that era marks (give or take a few centuries) the beginning of a major Islamic civilization.





> In other words, the major conflict in this thread over the last several days likely fractures along the fault line of what either side thinks about the Crusades.


I don't see the crusades as being a critical point in defining the 'dark ages'.  They were more of a defensive strategy, to take the battle to the source of the aggressors, & attempt to lessen future conflicts with them at the home front.  Europe was very nearly taken by the islamic hordes, were it not for Charles Martel.  His grandson, Charlemagne, built upon his conquests, & furthered the dark ages notion of Divine Ability.  Most wars, even now, are seen as 'proofs' of divine favor.  If you win, your god was better than theirs.  If you defended your tribe from an aggressive, murderous enemy, you 'proved' you were in favor with your god.

So from a philosophical POV, i see the crusades as dragging out the dark ages, by feeding the concept of Divine Elitism.  The reformation, the age of reason, & the enlightenment were movements AWAY from that mindset, but now we have the progressive left dragging us backward, to a New Aristocracy, based on superior evolution, intelligence, & Cosmic Position.  It is easily seen in the adoration & worship the left has for their heroes.  Obama is 'the one'.  They see their leaders as messiahs, here to provide superior insight & wisdom for our confused, godless world.

----------

JustPassinThru (04-22-2017)

----------


## JustPassinThru

The Crusades happened in the Medieval era.

And they were responsive.  The Catholic Church instigated them; but in that case, the Church was entirely justified.

Then, as now, the Holy Land was overrun with Mohammedans - and their slaughter and vices.

----------


## usfan

> No, the major fault line in the thread over the last few days has been between rational and reasonable proven historic fact from my side and idiotic unreasonable and inaccurate Biblical proselytizing from your side; visa-vi the OP and your defense of it.


You have presented NO facts, NO arguments, & NO history.  You have only made sweeping, dogmatic statements, which are unsubstantiated, & have been refuted.
You make the mistake of trying to 'debate' with traditionally educated people, who know history & have a sound knowledge base.  Your bluffs & deflections have no power, here.  They may fool the uninformed, or amuse your groupthink loyalists, but they do not work in a rational debate.

You need facts for that.  History.  Science.  Empirical Reality.  Your leftist propaganda & mandated truths mean nothing to critical thinkers.

----------

BobJam (04-22-2017),JustPassinThru (04-22-2017)

----------


## jet57

> Where do you come up with this shit, troll?


You failed the challenge; you've ceded the argument.

bye

----------


## jet57

> Midi doesn't have much to say about Jews.....



Yeah, he's not a very smart person about anything really.  Stormfronter I supposes; I think that there are a number of those folks here.

----------


## hardwork

> So tell me, how do you like yourself, medium or well done?


What an idiot.

----------


## hardwork

> What other nations do...is not only irrelevant in terms of validation; it also serves as a warning.  Of how NOT to run a society.
> 
> Europe, that is, Western culture, had served as the epicenter of the Enlightenment; but it also has resisted abandonment of feudalism; of a Nobility Class; and it has several times descended into antidemocratic imperial dictatorship.  The seat of the Enlightenment was also the home of the French Left, which was the father of both Anarchism and Communism.
> 
> America is a nation that has to put up checkpoints - not to keep people from leaving, but to control the swarms who want to come IN.
> 
> That Eurotrash nations denigrate human life, is not, to reasonable people, endorsement of that denigration of life.


I'm sure there are many Mullah's in SA who agree with you.

----------


## sooda

> I'm sure there are many Mullah's in SA who agree with you.


There are very few Mullahs in KSA.. Mullahs are Shia NOT Sunni.

----------


## hardwork

> +1
> I would note, though, that the 'ignorance' of the dark ages is only from retrospect.  They did not consider themselves to be 'ignorant', but they believed themselves to be at the pinnacle of knowledge, & the elite speakers for God.
> 
> See how the progressives do the same today?  They do not use facts, reason, or science, but mandates & forced conformity.  You MUST comply to their decrees.  ALL leftist dominated institutions are notoriously INTOLERANT of diversity.  They demand conformity to their set of beliefs & opinions.  Whether it be global warming, identity politics, white privilege, open borders, or any of the pet beliefs from the left, they demand conformity, & drive away any who do not comply.
> 
> I see no difference between the elite religious rulers from the papacy, or the monarchy, or any of the aristocratic, elitist elevation of man in the dark ages, & the progressives.  They do not follow Law, or Science, or Reason.  They decree, from a position of Superior Knowledge, which they just seize.  It is a bluff, as they take the Intellectual High Ground.  But it is false knowledge, based on deceit & propaganda.  Only a broad base of REAL knowledge can expose the bluff, & deliver us from elitist domination.
> 
> *Without education, we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously.* ― G.K. Chesterton


You're giving yourself away.

----------


## hardwork

> There are very few Mullahs in KSA.. Mullahs are Shia NOT Sunni.


I think you get the point.

>>*Mullah (/ˈmʌlə, ˈmʊlə, ˈmuːlə/; Arabic: ملا‎‎, Kurdish: Melle‎, Persian: ملا‎‎ / Mollâ, Turkish: Molla, Albanian: Mulla) is derived from the Quranic term Mawla. However, used ambiguously in the Quran, some publishers have described its usage as a religious title as inappropriate.[1] The term is sometimes applied to a Muslim man or woman, educated in Islamic theology and sacred law. The title is derived from the Arabic word مَوْلَى[verification needed] mawlā, meaning "vicar," "master" and "guardian." In large parts of the Muslim world, particularly Iran, Kurdistan, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Eastern Arabia, Turkey and the Balkans, Central Asia, the Horn of Africa and South Asia, it is the name commonly given to local Islamic clerics or mosque leaders.[2]<<

*Mullah - Wikipedia

----------


## sooda

> I think you get the point.
> 
> >>*Mullah (/ˈmʌlə, ˈmʊlə, ˈmuːlə/; Arabic: ملا‎‎, Kurdish: Melle‎, Persian: ملا‎‎ / Mollâ, Turkish: Molla, Albanian: Mulla) is derived from the Quranic term Mawla. However, used ambiguously in the Quran, some publishers have described its usage as a religious title as inappropriate.[1] The term is sometimes applied to a Muslim man or woman, educated in Islamic theology and sacred law. The title is derived from the Arabic word مَوْلَى[verification needed] mawlā, meaning "vicar," "master" and "guardian." In large parts of the Muslim world, particularly Iran, Kurdistan, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Eastern Arabia, Turkey and the Balkans, Central Asia, the Horn of Africa and South Asia, it is the name commonly given to local Islamic clerics or mosque leaders.[2]<<
> 
> *Mullah - Wikipedia


In Arabia Muslim clerics are called Imam.. and unlike Mullah they are not part of any  hierarchy or considered infallible.

----------


## hardwork

> In Arabia Muslim clerics are called Imam.. and unlike Mullah they are not part of any  hierarchy or considered infallible.


>>they are not ......... considered infallible.<<

Neither are you. 

*Mullah profiles in Saudi Arabia*

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/+/M...0-Saudi-Arabia

----------


## Sled Dog

> In Arabia Muslim clerics are called Imam.. and unlike Mullah they are not part of any  hierarchy or considered infallible.


In American moose limb clerics are called terrorists.

----------


## sooda

> >>they are not ......... considered infallible.<<
> 
> Neither are you. 
> 
> *Mullah profiles in Saudi Arabia*
> 
> https://www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/+/M...0-Saudi-Arabia


LOLOL.. that is Mullah as a sirname not the title for a cleric.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I don't see the crusades as being a critical point in defining the 'dark ages'.  They were more of a defensive strategy, to take the battle to the source of the aggressors, & attempt to lessen future conflicts with them at the home front.  Europe was very nearly taken by the islamic hordes, were it not for Charles Martel.  His grandson, Charlemagne, built upon his conquests, & furthered the dark ages notion of Divine Ability.  Most wars, even now, are seen as 'proofs' of divine favor.  If you win, your god was better than theirs.  If you defended your tribe from an aggressive, murderous enemy, you 'proved' you were in favor with your god.
> 
> So from a philosophical POV, i see the crusades as dragging out the dark ages, by feeding the concept of Divine Elitism.  The reformation, the age of reason, & the enlightenment were movements AWAY from that mindset, but now we have the progressive left dragging us backward, to a New Aristocracy, based on superior evolution, intelligence, & Cosmic Position.  It is easily seen in the adoration & worship the left has for their heroes.  Obama is 'the one'.  They see their leaders as messiahs, here to provide superior insight & wisdom for our confused, godless world.


The Crusades were wars of defense from an alien invader bent on conquest, rape, murder, rape, theft, rape, looting and burning, and, or course, rape.  It's what islam is all about.

The Crusades also led to the end of the Dark Ages because it re-introduced to Europe trade with Asia, and it introduced the Black Death, which had positive social impact once all the bodies were buried.

----------


## jet57

> You have presented NO facts, NO arguments, & NO history.  You have only made sweeping, dogmatic statements, which are unsubstantiated, & have been refuted.
> You make the mistake of trying to 'debate' with traditionally educated people, who know history & have a sound knowledge base.  Your bluffs & deflections have no power, here.  They may fool the uninformed, or amuse your groupthink loyalists, but they do not work in a rational debate.
> 
> You need facts for that.  History.  Science.  Empirical Reality.  Your leftist propaganda & mandated truths mean nothing to critical thinkers.


The the Dark Ages din't take place from 476 A.D. to 1000 A.D?  And the Protestant Reformation didn't take place from around 1517 A.D to about 1650 A.D.?  That's what you're saying.  So even though I've given those time periods several times in this discussion, I'm wrong and those time periods are false?

And, what is _traditionally educated_?  You're better educated than I or you've read more books on these subjects; what?  So what I have presented in this argument that is not factual?

----------


## usfan

> The the Dark Ages din't take place from 476 A.D. to 1000 A.D?  And the Protestant Reformation didn't take place from around 1517 A.D to about 1650 A.D.?  That's what you're saying.  So even though I've given those time periods several times in this discussion, I'm wrong and those time periods are false?
> 
> And, what is _traditionally educated_?  You're better educated than I or you've read more books on these subjects; what?  So what I have presented in this argument that is not factual?


Deflect, distort, ignore..  fairly typical for a leftist 'debater'.  YOU claimed that the dark ages ended by ~ ad1000.  That is not a majority view, even with fuzzy definitions of 'dark ages'.  I defined my time period, which you disputed with no evidence, just assertions that YOUR opinion was Absolute Truth.  The reformation DID end the dark ages, & spawned the age of reason, the scientific method, the enlightenment, & many other positives for humanity that have changed the world.

I refuted your assertion with a simple quote from wiki.  You ignored that post, so i'll repeat it here.

_Dark Ages (historiography), the period in Europe following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire
European Middle Ages (5th to 15th centuries AD), particularly:
European Early Middle Ages
Migration Period of c. 400 to 800 AD
Saeculum obscurum or "dark age" in the history of the papacy, running from 904 to 964 AD.
_
It is a broad range of time, that can depend on the context of the one addressing it.  But, it is NOT the topic here, other than a comparison to progressive ideology, & the similarities to the dark ages.  You have not addressed that point, which was the central one of the OP.

I did not intend this thread as a kum-ba-ya, feel good, warm & fuzzy feeling oriented thread.  I offer it as a warning for the deadly poison of progressive ideology, which i see as an enemy of America, & freedom loving people everywhere.  I do not expect it to be warmly received by leftists, & i do not address it to any particular individual.  I see the IDEOLOGY as the danger, more so than the dupes who follow  it.  I would hope that in time, more people will wake up to the dangers of progressive leftism, & value the ideals of America.  I don't expect that to happen, but it remains the aspiration of my heart.

----------

Midgardian (04-22-2017),Rutabaga (04-22-2017),Sled Dog (04-22-2017)

----------


## jet57

> Deflect, distort, ignore..  fairly typical for a leftist 'debater'.  YOU claimed that the dark ages ended by ~ ad1000.  That is not a majority view, even with fuzzy definitions of 'dark ages'.  I defined my time period, which you disputed with no evidence, just assertions that YOUR opinion was Absolute Truth.  The reformation DID end the dark ages, & spawned the age of reason, the scientific method, the enlightenment, & many other positives for humanity that have changed the world.
> 
> I refuted your assertion with a simple quote from wiki.  You ignored that post, so i'll repeat it here.
> 
> _Dark Ages (historiography), the period in Europe following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire
> European Middle Ages (5th to 15th centuries AD), particularly:
> European Early Middle Ages
> Migration Period of c. 400 to 800 AD
> Saeculum obscurum or "dark age" in the history of the papacy, running from 904 to 964 AD.
> ...


Sorry, but the Dark Ages as a time of human development is very well defined.  So the protestant reformation.  They are hundreds of yeas apart.  Your thread is an evangelical attempt that wholly misrepresents both time periods and does not state factual evidence.  I called you on your misrepresentation of historical fact.

This-


> Deflect, distort, ignore.. fairly typical for a leftist 'debater'.


 - is just pure unadulterated bullshit and only shows how weak your argument really is.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Sorry, but the Dark Ages as a time of human development is very well defined.  So the protestant reformation.  They are hundreds of yeas apart.  Your thread is an evangelical attempt that wholly misrepresents both time periods and does not state factual evidence.  I called you on your misrepresentation of historical fact.
> 
> This- - is just pure unadulterated bullshit and only shows how weak your argument really is.


you use the opinion of others...but then, ive noticed that pattern in all your rants...

----------


## hardwork

> LOLOL.. that is Mullah as a sirname not the title for a cleric.



Oh no, you got me. What will I do? 

It doesn't take much for you people to get off point and lost in the weeds does it?

----------


## Rutabaga

> Oh no, you got me. What will I do? 
> 
> It doesn't take much for you people to get off point and lost in the weeds does it?


it takes nothing at all to get you people lost anywhere...

----------

BobJam (04-22-2017)

----------


## tiny1

> Sorry, but the Dark Ages as a time of human development is very well defined.  So the protestant reformation.  They are hundreds of yeas apart.  Your thread is an evangelical attempt that wholly misrepresents both time periods and does not state factual evidence.  I called you on your misrepresentation of historical fact.
> 
> This- - is just pure unadulterated bullshit and only shows how weak your argument really is.


Nope.  I'd say that was right on point.

----------


## hardwork

> it takes nothing at all to get you people lost anywhere...


Deeper into the weeds you go.

----------


## Midgardian

> That is a religious issue with you on the right.


Do you really think that every pro-life person is religious or on the right?

My stance on abortion has nothing to do with religion, and if we really dissected my political ideology, you would find that I am on the left.

However, the political terms have been so twisted by liberals that I have to call myself a conservative to be understood.

Besides, my political ideals that would in a sane world be called left-wing could never be implemented in the United States in its current state.

The republic would have to be first fundamentally changed, and I have little hope that the U.S. will survive such a cataclysm relatively intact.

Wanting to protect life has no political or religious connotations, unless you are a liberal trying to justify your immorality.

----------

BobJam (04-22-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

> Aren't you the guy who said that Facebook was run by a Jew?


Yes.

It is.

----------


## Midgardian

> You're blathering again.


Or perhaps I struck a nerve?

----------


## Midgardian

> No, the major fault line in the thread over the last few days has been between rational and reasonable proven historic fact from my side and idiotic unreasonable and inaccurate Biblical proselytizing from your side; visa-vi the OP and your defense of it.


My defense of the OP? 

Where have I done that?

I have merely commented.

As to you being "rational", name calling and arrogance are not hallmarks of reasonable historical argument and inquiry.

Historians will often disagree on something like what constitutes the "Dark Ages" but they will do it politely and provide evidence for their position and not summarily dismiss their opponents position.

History is never as cut and dried as you seem to view it.

I tend to distrust simple explanations and templates.

Now, if you really think that the Dark Ages ended when you claim, support it.

Perhaps you could begin by explaining why I am "wrong" (if such is your opinion) that it might have something to do with your view of Muslim civilization during the Late Middle Ages.

----------


## ChemEngineer

> And you call us ignorant.
> How old are you?  Fourteen?


It is nearly impossible to tell a child like that from an adult liberal or a college professor.  They never grow up socially.  They never acquire common sense or decency.  Hence the widespread riots and violent attacks by leftists in black clothing and hats and masks.

----------

JustPassinThru (04-22-2017),Rutabaga (04-22-2017),usfan (04-22-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

> Yeah, he's not a very smart person about anything really.  Stormfronter I supposes; I think that there are a number of those folks here.


You seem to know a lot about this Stormfront.

Are they a forum?

Are you a member?

Whoever they are, they probably wouldn't have me.

----------


## Midgardian

> The the Dark Ages din't take place from 476 A.D. to 1000 A.D?


476 I get (even thought that is debatable - Rome was going dark a long time before then) but what is so magical about 1000?

Can you name a particular event that brought the "light" in that year, because otherwise it sounds awfully arbitrary.

----------

usfan (04-22-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Deeper into the weeds you go.


lay off the weed,,its crippled your brain...not that there was much to hurt to begin with, but you should try to salvage as much as you have...

----------


## jet57

> Nope.  I'd say that was right on point.



And - what point would that be?

----------


## Rutabaga

> It is nearly impossible to tell a child like that from an adult liberal or a college professor.  They never grow up socially.  They never acquire common sense or decency.  Hence the widespread riots and violent attacks by leftists in black clothing and hats and masks.


very true..they seen to remain in a perpetual state of adolescence...

----------

ChemEngineer (04-22-2017)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> very true..they seen to remain in a perpetual state of adolescence...


Yup.

They say, "triggered."  I say, "temper tantrum."

----------

Rutabaga (04-22-2017)

----------


## jet57

> Do you really think that every pro-life person is religious or on the right?
> 
> My stance on abortion has nothing to do with religion, and if we really dissected my political ideology, you would find that I am on the left.
> 
> However, the political terms have been so twisted by liberals that I have to call myself a conservative to be understood.
> 
> Besides, my political ideals that would in a sane world be called left-wing could never be implemented in the United States in its current state.
> 
> The republic would have to be first fundamentally changed, and I have little hope that the U.S. will survive such a cataclysm relatively intact.
> ...


Well first, I have nothing from you that indicate a microscopic level of lerftward thinking.  This is a sane world btw for those who take the time to study issues from all sides and consider history and motive.

As for abortion, I don't like the idea myself and find it a repugnant thing, but the law has spoken on the constitutionality of it, just like the Bible spoke on killing people in war.  Secondly, I'm not a woman and this has clearly been placed into society as a women's issue.  So I am, at the very least smart enough to stay away from something that does not concern me.  The right-wing evangelical position sees it differently, a view to which you obviously subscribe.  When yourself and the far right evangelicals can take a more mature position on the issue, by actually putting your money where your mouth, by creating a country wherein being a single mother is not like climbing Everrest, then my tendency will be more supportive of your position.  But as long as poor women and children are marginalized and hated by you people, I will continue to stand by my position.

----------


## jet57

> Yes.
> 
> It is.


Yeah; I don't play Stormfront.

Funny story  (chuckle)..  I logged on to that website many years ago now, out of curiosity, as I had an issue I thought very important to their world view, and I suggested in a thread, that Stormfront people and other far right fascist groups that held some silly beliefs on _racial purity_ and this idiotic fantasy about "themselves as Aryans"; a pitifully stupid thing to believe, should prove themselves "worthy" by taking DNA tests and discovering _who they really were_... and that that technique would be an excellent way for _racial purists_ to _thin the herd_ and then they could really brag about being - _"white"_.  Of course my timely and brilliant suggestion was utterly ignored by these people, as they knew right then and there that a whole had been blown right through their creed that was big enough to run a freight train through: I think I was banned as well.

So, are you absolutely sure that you don't have a little l'chaim _in you?_

 :Icon Albino:

----------


## Midgardian

> Well first, I have nothing from you that indicate a microscopic level of lerftward thinking.


I told you that because of the popular connotations of what lies where on the political spectrum, I am most accurately described as a conservative.

That is _de facto_, due to liberal propaganda and social engineering. 

In reality, or _de jure_, my ideology is left-wing.

I am not a liberal.

My political ideals will never work in the U.S. as it is currently aligned.

I am astute enough to understand this, thus I align with what are generally known as "conservatives".

What is required is a revolution, and revolution is by definition a left-wing concept.

Conservatives resist change - I know that it is necessary.

----------


## jet57

> Or perhaps I struck a nerve?


Uh, noooo; you're blathering hysterically again and trying to bring your hate for Muslims into a thread that has nothing to do with them.  YOU couldn't hit a nerve with me if you used a jackhammer.

----------


## Midgardian

> Yeah; I don't play Stormfront.
> 
> Funny story  (chuckle) that Stormfront people and other...fascist groups


So Stormfront is where the anti-Trump terrorists at Berkeley hang out?

----------


## jet57

> My defense of the OP? 
> 
> Where have I done that?
> 
> I have merely commented.
> 
> As to you being "rational", name calling and arrogance are not hallmarks of reasonable historical argument and inquiry.
> 
> Historians will often disagree on something like what constitutes the "Dark Ages" but they will do it politely and provide evidence for their position and not summarily dismiss their opponents position.
> ...


From the outset here, you have taken a position that my comments are wrong and that the OP is somehow credible and superior to my knowledge of the matters referred to.

History belongs in it's places and when one tries to conflate it, as you are doing right now, one does a disservice to historical fact and any argument one is trying to mount on such misrepresentation.

----------


## Midgardian

> Uh, noooo; you're blathering hysterically again and trying to bring your hate for Muslims into a thread that has nothing to do with them.  YOU couldn't hit a nerve with me if you used a jackhammer.


I hate no one, it is against my religion. 

I asked if your definition of the end of the Dark Ages was related to the rise of Muslim civilization.

Either it is or isn't.

Would you care to answer?

----------


## Midgardian

> From the outset here, you have taken a position that my comments are wrong and that the OP is somehow credible and superior to my knowledge of the matters referred to.
> 
> History belongs in it's places and when one tries to conflate it, as you are doing right now, one does a disservice to historical fact and any argument one is trying to mount on such misrepresentation.


I only have asked you to defend your assertion that the Dark Ages ended in 1000 A.D., which you have so far failed to do.

I am "conflating" nothing.

I am asking you to provide support for your position.

Got any?

----------


## jet57

> It is nearly impossible to tell a child like that from an adult liberal or a college professor.  They never grow up socially.  They never acquire common sense or decency.  Hence the widespread riots and violent attacks by leftists in black clothing and hats and masks.




My fans.jpg

----------


## Midgardian

@jet57, since you are scurrying around in an attempt to avoid explaining why you think the Dark Ages ended in 1000 A.D., I believe that I am correct that I struck a nerve and your apparent discomfort has something to do with your appraisal of the rise of Muslim civilization in the greater historical context.

----------

Rutabaga (04-22-2017)

----------


## JustPassinThru

What is WITH these junior-high trolls?

----------


## Katzndogz

There has been no rise of the muslim civilization since the fall of the ottoman empire.  It's been all downhill from there.

----------

Rutabaga (04-22-2017)

----------


## ChemEngineer

> Secondly, I'm not a woman and this has clearly been placed into society as a women's issue.  So I am, at the very least smart enough to stay away from something that does not concern me.


Where to begin when something as nonsensical as this is said. Where to begin.
Rape is a woman's issue.  But of course women's issues "do not concern" you.  How cavalier you are with your nonsensical remarks.
A woman is dragged into bushes 100 yards in front of you and you will simply walk by, "unconcerned"?

1.  The FATHER of a child MUST be concerned about his own flesh and blood.  The courts certainly hold him to personal responsibility.
It is called "child support."  Eighteen years of it.
2.  I know of a man who served as security guard at an abortion mill.  Men would come to the front door begging entry to plead with their girlfriend or wife, not to kill their child.  Begging.  It is a man's child as well, in case you didn't realize that.
3.  If you are SO p-whipped that you accept the "feminist" argument that men have nothing to say, most real men would not have anything to do with you.
4.  Scott Peterson is doing life in prison for murdering his wife, Staci, and his unborn son, Connor.   Other men have likewise been convicted of murdering unborn babies.  How is it that women have not been so convicted?




> The right-wing evangelical position sees it differently, a view to which you obviously subscribe.


Leftists pigeonhole everyone who disagrees with then in your regurgitated manner.  When we respond in kind, calling all of YOU "godless Leftists," you cry and whine and complain about "generalizations" which are patently untrue.  Our generalizations are unfair, yours are pure genius, right?  What was the prevailing opinion of slavery before the Civil War?  Not a problem.  Legal. Like abortion today from your point of view.  Both evils were supported by Democrats.  How telling is that.





> But as long as poor women and children are marginalized and hated by you people, I will continue to stand by my position.


Again, where to begin when the nonsense and dishonesty is pervasive.
My mother raised our poor family. My mother was poor. Many in my family are still poor. Nobody hates them.   You're the one who hates unborn infants enough to write them off as so much garbage.

PassinThru, these children have been emboldened and brainwashed by their teachers with Leftist Talking Points that give them the feeling of wisdom and rectitude, neither of which they nor their brainwashing teachers remotely possess.

----------

BobJam (04-22-2017),usfan (04-22-2017)

----------


## hardwork

> lay off the weed,,its crippled your brain...not that there was much to hurt to begin with, but you should try to salvage as much as you have...


What a dick.

----------


## Midgardian

> There has been no rise of the muslim civilization since the fall of the ottoman empire.  It's been all downhill from there.


True.

I am referring to its rise from the time of the Rashidan Caliphate through the beginning of Ottoman preeminence in the Near East, which roughly corresponds with the Late Middle Ages (with an overlap in the Early Middle Ages during the Abbasid and Ummayad periods).

----------

usfan (04-22-2017)

----------


## ChemEngineer

Must Watch Video for all Leftists/Liberals/"Progressives" (sic)/College Kiddies/Hillary Fans

https://www.youtube.com/embed/ytSZ851hLRc

----------


## jet57

> @jet57, since you are scurrying around in an attempt to avoid explaining why you think the Dark Ages ended in 1000 A.D., I believe that I am correct that I struck a nerve and your apparent discomfort has something to do with your appraisal of the rise of Muslim civilization in the greater historical context.


Nooo, I had some ice cream and took a nap.  I'll get to you.

----------

Midgardian (04-22-2017)

----------


## jet57

> Where to begin when something as nonsensical as this is said. Where to begin.
> Rape is a woman's issue.  But of course women's issues "do not concern" you.  How cavalier you are with your nonsensical remarks.
> A woman is dragged into bushes 100 yards in front of you and you will simply walk by, "unconcerned"?
> 
> 1.  The FATHER of a child MUST be concerned about his own flesh and blood.  The courts certainly hold him to personal responsibility.
> It is called "child support."  Eighteen years of it.
> 2.  I know of a man who served as security guard at an abortion mill.  Men would come to the front door begging entry to plead with their girlfriend or wife, not to kill their child.  Begging.  It is a man's child as well, in case you didn't realize that.
> 3.  If you are SO p-whipped that you accept the "feminist" argument that men have nothing to say, most real men would not have anything to do with you.
> 4.  Scott Peterson is doing life in prison for murdering his wife, Staci, and his unborn son, Connor.   Other men have likewise been convicted of murdering unborn babies.  How is it that women have not been so convicted?
> ...


"Rape" is an assault and battery and is against the law.  Its a criminal matter and therefore concerns me if I am on a jury or a witness to one.

Abortion; neither of the two and is constitutionally legal.

Next point?

----------


## jet57

> @jet57, since you are scurrying around in an attempt to avoid explaining why you think the Dark Ages ended in 1000 A.D., I believe that I am correct that I struck a nerve and your apparent discomfort has something to do with your appraisal of the rise of Muslim civilization in the greater historical context.


*Dark Ages*

Noun

1.the period in European history from about a.d. 476 to about 1000.

2.the whole of the Middle Ages, from about a.d. 476 to theRenaissance.


3.(_often lowercase_) a period or stage marked by repressiveness, a lackof enlightenment or advanced knowledge, etc.

http://www.allabouthistory.org/the-dark-ages.htm




> The Italian Scholar, Francesco Petrarca called Petrarch, was the first to coin the phrase. He used it to denounce Latin literature of that time; others expanded on this idea to express frustration with the lack of Latin literature during this time or other cultural achievements. While the term dark ages is no longer widely used, it may best be described as Early Middle Ages -- the period following the decline of Rome in the Western World. The Middle Ages is loosely considered to extend from 400 to 1000 AD.



http://faculty.gvc.edu/ssnyder/Hum101/darkeages.htm




> The so-called Dark Ages are often dated from 500 AD to 1000 AD.    But if these years were "dark," they were also dotted by small pinpoints of light.  The Catholic Church survived where Rome did not.  Fortunately, too, as the empire foundered, monasticism became an important part of the Western church.  In the year 500, Saint Benedict of Nursia, a noble Roman by birth, created a system for monastic life (known as a _rule_) that was used throughout the Middle Ages.  Under Benedict's system, a group of monks formed a community in which to worship, pray, and work.   These monastic communities spread across the Europe and did much to preserve the historical link to the ancient world's intellectual treasures.


Some historians have advanced the idea what the Dark Ages ended with William the Conqueror's invasion of England in 1066 wherein he brought the entirety of England under his won control and the record keeping before during and after with his Domes Day book is the most recorded event in the history of Middle Ages.  William sought approval from Pope Alexander II by promising to advance the monastic system in the Isle, which he did.

http://www.historyofengland.net/king...6-introduction

There is no substitute for reading and if you had bothered to do any of it, you'd have some modicum of knowledge of the subject.  But, _you_ of course, must advance the cause of the far right and the idiotic assumption that the Dark Ages and Protestant Reformation are somehow linked during the same period and that the reformation somehow ended the age.

----------


## jet57

> IMO, the primary characteristic of the dark or middle ages was elitism.  It was the belief that the aristocracy, nobility, & monarchy were endowed with special dispensations of Divine Ability, & were appointed by God to rule over the common man.  It was this basic belief that spawned all the other conditions.
> Science by decree?  Elites can do that.  They are smarter & superior to common folk.Concentrated wealth, no middle class.  Commoners were meant for working & supporting the ruling elite.Oppression & religious mandates.  They speak for God, & are endowed with special insight, how can you argue with that?No due process, brutality toward any outliers, absolute power.  If you are a super special, superior human being, you can do whatever you want, & who can question you?
> *But it is the root belief of elitism.. a special, privileged condition that makes their decrees, opinions, & mandates infallible.*
> ..sounds kind of like modern progressives, doesn't it?  
> 
> Appealing to Deities will not help you.  If you have no reason or facts, your fallacies will only expose your own ignorance & bias.
> 
> You declare your opinion as if it is common knowledge, or as if your opinion carries some kind of special power over anyone else's.  ..sounds kind of elitist, to me.  And, since you claim the mantle of progressivism, you illustrate the very thing the OP is saying.
> 
> ...



Well, on the “elite class” note and “conditions” you’re about 2000 years too late:

http://www.crystalinks.com/sumersocialsystem.html

Sumer; Mesopotamia, located in what is now called the Fertile Crescent



> Social Classes:
> - Upper class contained nobles, priests, government officials and warriors.
> - Merchants, traders and artisans made up a Middle or "Freeman" Class.
> - Slavery


http://www.ancient.eu/Mesopotamia/




> Mesopotamia is known as the “cradle of civilization” primarily because of two developments that occurred there, in the region of *Sumer*, in the 4th millenium BCE:


The Egyptians were on during that period too under King Menes.  YOUR version of God actually goes back to the Mesopotamians who lived in an attitude of insecurity and the gods became vengeful.

So, right off the bat your “interpretations” are behind the eight ball.



_The Protestant Reformation_…

http://www.history.com/topics/reformation




> Historians usually date the start of the Protestant Reformation to the 1517 publication of Martin Luther’s “95 Theses.” Its ending can be placed anywhere from the 1555 Peace of Augsburg, which allowed for the coexistence of Catholicism and Lutheranism in Germany, to the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years’ War.


Again; your sail has no wind.  What I’m stating to you now, and have been for this entire thread IS common knowledge for anybody who makes the choice to read a book about it.  So no, you have NOT refuted my facts as I have explained and proven them  I have shown however that you no idea at all what you’re talking about, which is why I challenged you in the first place.  And Wikipedia is not a smart choice for any references.  But, tell me what the tumultuous difference is between wikis Dark Age time frame of 400 A.D to 800 A.D., and my proven time table of 467 A.D. to 1000 A.D.?  You’re STILL wrong!  The Protestant Reformation did NOT end the Dark Ages.





> I did not use the term 'dark ages' as the central point of discussion for the thread


Yes you did:




> The Reformation ended the Dark Ages. Here are some of the characteristics of that time


You made what you consider to be a declaration of fact.  THAT is your thesis.  And then – you did it again:


> The Reformation was the beginning of the end of the dark ages


What you did was try to show how smart you are and how your political and religious ideology is somehow, more American and better for society, when in reality is all you’ve really done is embarrass yourself throughout the OP and this thread by showing that you simply have no grasp the subjects that you try to speak on.  Your OP is a laughable and horribly ignorant attempt to sell your religion.

----------


## Rutabaga

> What a dick.


yes,,you are...but you amuse me..like a wind-up monkey clapping its tiny cymbals,,i wind you up, and you amuse me...

its a hobby...

----------

ChemEngineer (04-25-2017)

----------


## hardwork

> My mother raised our poor family. My mother was poor. Many in my family are still poor.


Are you another democrat turned conservative, who is really still a Democrat?

----------



----------


## hardwork

All this angry white male, anti establishment/elite, anti choice, BS, is pure old time Democratic Party non-sense turned into phony conservative non-sense.

----------


## hardwork

*Q&A: Abortion rules in Zika-affected countries*


14 April 2016From the section Latin America & Caribbean

"*Some governments in Latin America have advised women not to get pregnant for a matter of months or years, because of the risk of birth defects from the Zika virus.*It is suspected that there is a link between expectant mothers getting Zika, and their babies being born with microcephaly (an abnormally small head). This can be deadly, and some children who survive face intellectual disability, vision problems and development delays.
A group of Brazilian lawyers, activists and scientists have decided to ask the country's supreme courtto allow abortions for women who have contracted the virus.
Some people have argued that women have little choice over their pregnancies, as abortion and contraception are not widely available in the region.
*What are the rules on abortion in countries affected by Zika and microcephaly?*

Abortions are illegal in Brazil, except in health emergencies or cases of rape or the fatal foetal abnormality called anencephaly, where a large part of the brain and skull is missing.
Finding out about microcephaly "was the worst day of my life"
The mum of two teenagers with microcephaly who's helping worried new mums
Zika outbreak: What you need to know
Of the countries where women have been advised to postpone pregnancy:

In Colombia, abortion is allowed only in cases of fatal foetal abnormality, severe damage to the health of the mother, and when the pregnancy was the result of rapeAbortion is completely illegal in El Salvador and women face a jail term for having their pregnancies terminated in any circumstancesIn Ecuador, abortions are only permitted to preserve the life or health of a pregnant woman, or when a woman with mental health problems has been rapedAbortion is illegal in Jamaica, except when the woman has been the victim of a sexual crime or when the abortion will save a woman's life. There are exceptions in case law to protect the woman's healthPuerto Rico is covered by the US Constitution which allows a woman to choose an abortion for any reason, but it has a law on the books that prohibits abortion unless it is to protect the woman's life or health
Where Zika cases have been confirmed in the region, only Guyana and French Guiana permit abortion without restriction as to the reason."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-35438404

----------

jet57 (04-23-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> All this angry white male, anti establishment/elite, anti choice, BS, is pure old time Democratic Party non-sense turned into phony conservative non-sense.


Another taqiyya Rodent with no clue.

----------


## Sled Dog

> What is WITH these junior-high trolls?


The Rodents are getting desperate and are sending tentacles into all the free nooks and crannies of the Internet like someone peeing on a Thomas' English Muffin.

----------


## Sled Dog

> There has been no rise of the muslim civilization since the fall of the ottoman empire.  It's been all downhill from there.


It was down hill long before that.

Islam is anti-civilization and pure stagnation.

----------


## hardwork

> Another taqiyya Rodent with no clue.


Ha, the ignorance from the phony conservatives in this forum gallops.

----------

jet57 (04-23-2017)

----------


## teeceetx

We are rushing headlong into a new and deep Dark Ages, all courtesy of the prog left!

----------

ChemEngineer (04-23-2017),usfan (04-23-2017)

----------


## jet57

> We are rushing headlong into a new and deep Dark Ages, all courtesy of the prog left!


You have no idea what you're talking about.  I defy you to prove that you do.

----------


## jet57

> What is WITH these junior-high trolls?



Ass Kicked.jpg

----------


## JustPassinThru

> *jet57* 
>  		Senior Member
> 
> * 					This message is hidden because jet57 is on your ignore list. 				* View Post
>  Remove user from ignore list


Another one, off my radar.

----------

ChemEngineer (04-23-2017)

----------


## MisterVeritis

> Ha, the ignorance from the phony conservatives in this forum gallops.


Ignorance gallops?

----------


## ChemEngineer

*Hate speech versus free speech

*Exactly how does one differentiate "hate speech" from "free speech"?

It's quite simple, really.

"Free speech" is the expression of intolerance, hatred, contempt, condescension, and wretched dishonesty by the left.
That's all well and good, to hear them proselytize about the First  Amendment.

"Hate speech" is the expression of facts and opinions, whether biased or not, by the right.
Bad, always bad.  And who makes this determination between the two?  Why the left does, of course, through its
proxies of newspapers such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, etc, and media such as ABC,  CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, and academics everywhere, all of whom proclaim their intellectual superiority, which of course makes them morally superior as well. Just ask them.

----------

BobJam (04-23-2017),Rutabaga (04-23-2017),usfan (04-23-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Ha, the ignorance from the phony conservatives in this forum gallops.


oh settle down lil feller,,,we just like fucking with ya...

 :Cool20:

----------


## Rutabaga

> You have no idea what you're talking about.  I defy you to prove that you do.


you guys need to go into your huddle again,,,come up with a new plan..

what you and hardon have come up with so far isnt working...

feel free to pm me for some advice... :Thumbsup20:

----------


## Rutabaga

> All this angry white male, anti establishment/elite, anti choice, BS, is pure old time Democratic Party non-sense turned into phony conservative non-sense.


you negros aint seen nothing yet... :Headbang:

----------


## Rutabaga

> *Hate speech versus free speech
> 
> *Exactly how does one differentiate "hate speech" from "free speech"?
> 
> It's quite simple, really.
> 
> "Free speech" is the expression of intolerance, hatred, contempt, condescension, and wretched dishonesty by the left.
> That's all well and good, to hear them proselytize about the First  Amendment.
> 
> ...


dey just bitchy cause we gobsmacked em...purty soon dey be back fixing sammys in da kitchen...

----------


## Midgardian

> Would you believe the Holy Ghost's wife?


The Trinity doctrine says that the Holy Ghost is part of the Godhead - the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 

Since Christ is the Son, and the Church is described in various Biblical verses as the bride of Christ, I would say that the Church is the Holy Ghost's wife.

----------


## Midgardian

> Currently the electoral college is an issue.


It is an only an issue to butt hurt liberals who had no problem with it prior to November 8, 2016.

----------

Rutabaga (04-24-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

> So...the Holly Ghost is a Christmas sort of visitation, huh?


Holly and someone could be underneath the mistletoe...

----------


## Midgardian

> Yeah, nice try.  The OP was an assertion by a protestant evangelical making a silly assertion that the dark ages ended with "Jesus" from the point of view of the baptists, 'er some other such group.
> 
> I said it's nonsense and it is.


Your entire post is nonsense. 

What evidence do you have that the OP is a Protestant - evangelical or otherwise?

First you claim that William the Conqueror ended the Dark Ages and now you think that the OP said that someone who lived 1,000 years before Bill ended something 500 years after Bill lived.

WTH?

----------

Rutabaga (04-24-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

> What?????
> 
> Well then, lets just say the Dark Ages ended with Edison's invention of the light bulb.  That's a nonsensical time reference as well.


Might as well say that the dark ages ended whenever one of us was born.

I don't remember much about the time between when I was conceived and was born, but I reckon it was rather dark in there.

----------


## teeceetx

> You have no idea what you're talking about.  I defy you to prove that you do.



Time will prove me right or wrong. But given the shit that is passed for science by the progs, I have no doubt about my prognostication.

----------


## usfan

> Your entire post is nonsense. 
> What evidence do you have that the OP is a Protestant - evangelical or otherwise?
> First you claim that William the Conqueror ended the Dark Ages and now you think that the OP said that someone who lived 1,000 years before Bill ended something 500 years after Bill lived.
> WTH?


It is just a typical response from the left.  Logical fallacies is all they have.. facts, reason, science, history.. those are merely things to manipulate to promote their phony narratives.

Just about every response from the left in any forum, is filled with examples of logical fallacies, like this one.  It is a deflection.. an attempt to 'poison the well', or imply that someone is ignorant or driven by some secret conspiracy, like they are.  They cannot imagine that anyone actually seeks Truth, & can follow reason, discern facts, & understand history.

Instead of rebutting the points of an argument, they attack the source, & think by implying some kind of discredited smear, that will invalidate the points made.  It may work for the useful idiots of the left, but it does not work for rational, thinking people.  Unfortunately, the left is building their base from useful idiots, not rational, thinking people.

I'm a theist.  So what?  How does that have ANY effect on the facts of history?  How are my arguments somehow invalid, because of my philosophical beliefs?  It is a non-sequitur, & has no bearing on the debate.  It is a fallacy, and is the sign of a loser.

----------

Rutabaga (04-24-2017)

----------


## usfan

> It was down hill long before that.
> 
> Islam is anti-civilization and pure stagnation.


Since the progressive left & islam are allies in the destruction of western values, i see this as very much related.  And, i agree, that even in their heyday, the islamic caliphate did not create anything useful themselves, but merely stole & hijacked what others have done.  They are EXACTLY like the left in this regard.

It is a popular view of history, that fools like Obama promoted, that islam was responsible for many noble things for humanity.. arabic numerals, the founding of America (seriously, obama?  .. :Shakeshead: ) Art, literature, & genteel culture.

But they stole the numbers from the hindus they conquered by deception.. stole the art from the Byzantine christians, attacked & stole from American merchant ships.. all that islam has brought humanity is war, lying, murder, & terror.  THAT is their only contribution, as an ideology, to humanity.  Like the left, they are enemies of humanity, bent on domination, not peaceful coexistence.

----------


## sooda

> Since the progressive left & islam are allies in the destruction of western values, i see this as very much related.  And, i agree, that even in their heyday, the islamic caliphate did not create anything useful themselves, but merely stole & hijacked what others have done.  They are EXACTLY like the left in this regard.
> 
> It is a popular view of history, that fools like Obama promoted, that islam was responsible for many noble things for humanity.. arabic numerals, the founding of America (seriously, obama?  ..) Art, literature, & genteel culture.
> 
> But they stole the numbers from the hindus they conquered by deception.. stole the art from the Byzantine christians, attacked & stole from American merchant ships.. all that islam has brought humanity is war, lying, murder, & terror.  THAT is their only contribution, as an ideology, to humanity.  Like the left, they are enemies of humanity, bent on domination, not peaceful coexistence.


You are poorly informed about Berber coast pirates.

Have you read about the cities of Muslim Spain?

----------


## usfan

> You are poorly informed about Berber coast pirates.
> Have you read about the cities of Muslim Spain?


I already addressed this, toward another of your comrades..
You add to the basic 'ad hominem' fallacy, like the 'poison the well' one used by your crony, but include an 'appeal to the stone', of simple dismissal with no rebuttal.

You make no rebuttal, nor provide any evidence, but just assert your belief as if that is enough.  In a logical debate, it is not.  It may very well be enough for the agenda driven, low information voters & useful idiots that your ideology appeals to, but it is not enough for Truth seeking, intelligent, rational people.



> It is just a typical response from the left. * Logical fallacies is all they have*.. facts, reason, science, history.. those are merely things to manipulate to promote their phony narratives.
> 
> Just about every response from the left in any forum, is filled with examples of logical fallacies, like this one.  It is a deflection.. an attempt to 'poison the well', or imply that someone is ignorant or driven by some secret conspiracy, like they are.  They cannot imagine that anyone actually seeks Truth, & can follow reason, discern facts, & understand history.
> 
> Instead of rebutting the points of an argument, they attack the source, & think by implying some kind of discredited smear, that will invalidate the points made.  It may work for the useful idiots of the left, but it does not work for rational, thinking people.  Unfortunately, the left is building their base from useful idiots, not rational, thinking people.
> 
> I'm a theist.  So what?  How does that have ANY effect on the facts of history?  How are my arguments somehow invalid, because of my philosophical beliefs?  It is a non-sequitur, & has no bearing on the debate.  It is a fallacy, and is the sign of a loser.


But i do appreciate the illustration of my premise, in the last post, that all leftists have is logical fallacies.

----------


## sooda

> I already addressed this, toward another of your comrades..
> You add to the basic 'ad hominem' fallacy, like the 'poison the well' one used by your crony, but include an 'appeal to the stone', of simple dismissal with no rebuttal.
> 
> You make no rebuttal, nor provide any evidence, but just assert your belief as if that is enough.  In a logical debate, it is not.  It may very well be enough for the agenda driven, low information voters & useful idiots that your ideology appeals to, but it is not enough for Truth seeking, intelligent, rational people.
> 
> 
> But i do appreciate the illustration of my premise, in the last post, that all leftists have is logical fallacies.


Cities in Muslim Spain had street lights. garbage pick-up among other cool things when Europeans were still painting themselves blue.

----------


## sooda

In the 900s, the capital of Muslim Spain, Cordoba, had paved roads, hospitals, and street lights throughout the city. At the time, Christian Europe’s largest library had only 600 books, while Cordoba’s calligraphers were producing 6000 books _per year_.  The society was a peaceful mixture of European and African cultures, represented by Muslims, Jews, and Christians living in harmony side by side.

http://lostislamichistory.com/spains-forgotten-muslims-the-expulsion-of-the-moriscos/

----------


## usfan

> Cities in Muslim Spain had street lights. garbage pick-up among other cool things when Europeans were still painting themselves blue.


So you assert, without evidence, and it still does not refute my premise that all the arabic led muslims did was hijack other cultures, & steal their percs.  If some of the conquered cities in spain had some useful things for society, they were there before the muslims conquered them.

It is an ideology built on conquest & subjugation, not tolerant co-existence.. just like leftist ideology.

----------


## usfan

> In the 900s, the capital of Muslim Spain, Cordoba, had paved roads, hospitals, and street lights throughout the city. At the time, Christian Europe’s largest library had only 600 books, while Cordoba’s calligraphers were producing 6000 books _per year_.  The society was a peaceful mixture of European and African cultures, represented by Muslims, Jews, and Christians living in harmony side by side.
> 
> http://lostislamichistory.com/spains-forgotten-muslims-the-expulsion-of-the-moriscos/


'lostislamichistory.com?'  No doubt an unbiased, academic site..   :Rolleyes20: 

I already know you are a rabid islamist.. & your primary goal here seems to be promoting pro-islamist propaganda.

----------


## sooda

> So you assert, without evidence, and it still does not refute my premise that all the arabic led muslims did was hijack other cultures, & steal their percs.  If some of the conquered cities in spain had some useful things for society, they were there before the muslims conquered them.
> 
> It is an ideology built on conquest & subjugation, not tolerant co-existence.. just like leftist ideology.


Spain was quite backwards before the Muslims and reverted back in 1500.

In Muslim Spain Jews could join Muslim guilds or form their own and there was a lot of cooperation in translating and preserving books on many different subjects.

----------


## sooda

> 'lostislamichistory.com?'  No doubt an unbiased, academic site..  
> 
> I already know you are a rabid islamist.. & your primary goal here seems to be promoting pro-islamist propaganda.


I spent a month in Spain when I was a teen .. Muslim influence is quite striking.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> No, the major fault line in the thread over the last few days has been between rational and reasonable proven historic fact from my side and idiotic unreasonable and inaccurate Biblical proselytizing from your side; visa-vi the OP and your defense of it.



You know, I have to say,and I say this with all candor and in an attempt to assist you but you really are a total asshole.  It isn't so much that you are wrong (you may or may not be).  Its the way to come in to lecture us like we are a bunch of 4th graders and then demean anything that doesn't fit your opinion.  I might have been more willing to listen to what you were attempting to say if you weren't beating everyone over the head with your "superior knowledge".

So, I hope I don't hurt your feelings by saying once again that you are an asshole and I really have no desire to learn anything from you.

Be of good cheer.

----------

BobJam (04-25-2017),ChemEngineer (04-25-2017)

----------


## hardwork

> You know, I have to say,and I say this with all candor and in an attempt to assist you but you really are a total asshole.  It isn't so much that you are wrong (you may or may not be).  Its the way to come in to lecture us like we are a bunch of 4th graders and then demean anything that doesn't fit your opinion.  I might have been more willing to listen to what you were attempting to say if you weren't beating everyone over the head with your "superior knowledge".
> 
> So, I hope I don't hurt your feelings by saying once again that you are an asshole and I really have no desire to learn anything from you.
> 
> Be of good cheer.



This isn't a personal comment, more of a comment on the prevailing wisdom in this forum, or lack there of. You get what you ask for.

----------


## jet57

> You know, I have to say,and I say this with all candor and in an attempt to assist you but you really are a total asshole.  It isn't so much that you are wrong (you may or may not be).  Its the way to come in to lecture us like we are a bunch of 4th graders and then demean anything that doesn't fit your opinion.  I might have been more willing to listen to what you were attempting to say if you weren't beating everyone over the head with your "superior knowledge".
> 
> So, I hope I don't hurt your feelings by saying once again that you are an asshole and I really have no desire to learn anything from you.
> 
> Be of good cheer.


Thank you for that.

I have to say that is the best comment about me personally that I have ever received with respect to forum posting.

I think that it's my posting style that is objectionable.  To me _it's a form of writing_; I like to use the langue as well as I can because I think that a clear articulation of your ideas and opinions is a necessary in discussions of political policy and history.  (Even as I write THIS I'm think I might sound like a pompous ass, but that is really not my intention)...  It's just how I've learned to write and in college essays, I wrote the same way, so I'm trying to be clear for the reader.

As to how I handle personal attacks, I do tend to beat those types of people over the head with knowledge, not superior, but just a good grasp of the facts as I have studied them over the years.  I don't like the knee jerk reactionary right-wing nationalist attitude that has a my way or the highway approach and thinks that anything outside their world view, even by just a little bit, is part of the leftists socialist anti American agenda.  With these folks, it;s clear that they are not well studied (sounds pompous to say), but what I mean is that they clearly don't do any research to confirm their own opinions or assertions on a given subject, and just blurt out the most ridiculous things and double down on them when they are shown that what they are saying is not true.  Right-wing radio people and the far right political pundits say those same sorts of things and double down the same way and have actually had a maddening effect on political policy to the point that Donald Trump is the president of the United States!

So, not meaning to lecture you, but just trying to be complete.  Thanks again, I'll try and watch it, though I'll stumble I'm sure.

----------


## jet57

> Time will prove me right or wrong. But given the shit that is passed for science by the progs, I have no doubt about my prognostication.


How can you say that?  What science are you talking about?  Just global warming, or Darwinism, 'er what?

----------


## jet57

> Your entire post is nonsense. 
> 
> What evidence do you have that the OP is a Protestant - evangelical or otherwise?
> 
> First you claim that William the Conqueror ended the Dark Ages and now you think that the OP said that someone who lived 1,000 years before Bill ended something 500 years after Bill lived.
> 
> WTH?


The poster in the OP said: "The Reformation ended the dark ages.  What other Reformation was there?  And as for the Conqueror, I said that historians have used the invasion as a turning point that signaled the end of the Dark Ages because of the blast of record keeping, monasterial outreach, and an entire change in a nation that had a wide effect on the continent.  The "Reformation" took place 500 years after the end of the Dark Ages; ca: 476-1000 A.D. so the two cannot be conflated, that was the point I've been making here.  The poster of the OP has had plenty of opportunity to clarify his position, his thesis and he's really trying to say, but he's yet to do it.  He;s just doubled down on the same ignorant sounding position he took from the get go.  Maybe I've been too hard on him and maybe on all of you as well, but there is just too much misinformation and abuser of factual history and current events in politics and THAT is very grating to me; I don' know it all, but when I talk about things I've studied on them for sure.

It would drive today;s Republican crazy to find out that Abraham Lincoln was pro labor and liked country that allowed workers to strike.

----------


## hardwork

The OP belongs in the funny pages. It's self taught idiocy.

----------

jet57 (04-25-2017)

----------


## ChemEngineer

> But i do appreciate the illustration of my premise, in the last post, that all leftists have is logical fallacies.


Not true!   Their primary weapons are lies, at which they are truly masterful.

----------


## ChemEngineer

> Originally Posted by *jet57* 
> _No, the major fault line in the thread over the last few days has been between rational and reasonable proven historic fact from my side and idiotic unreasonable and inaccurate Biblical proselytizing from your side; visa-vi the OP and your defense of it._


"visa-vi" - from the arbiter of "rational, reasonable, proven historic fact" - "visa-vi"

Incroyable, n'est-ce pas?

----------


## usfan

People certainly have the right to believe what they want about history.  They may view the world through whatever lens they wish, & as long as there is some reason, facts, & evidence for their views, they can even claim the mantle of 'rational'.  But hysterical, irrational beliefs about history, based on ignorance, lies, or revisionist history is not valid.

I still notice that the critics of my points have not offered any rebuttal.  They dismiss, but do not provide any evidence, or contrary theory or observation about history.  Human events do not appear in a vacuum.  There are lines of thought, events, wars, philosophical ideas, & many other influences that steer the course of history, if we can follow the threads through the timeline.

I see the reformation as one of the key events in human history.  You would not have the Enlightenment without it.  Nor, the age of Reason.  Nor, the scientific revolution.  The movement toward Law, & away from imperial rule has been in the psyche of man for thousands of years.  It has found various expressions, throughout history.  The magna carta.  The American revolution.  The Reformation.  The Age of Reason & the Enlightenment.   I can follow the thin line of Law through much of the western history of man, & even further back, from the Greek philosophers, & even the writers of the old testament.  What was the giving of the 10 commandments, but an expression of LAW in the affairs of men, over the fickle whims of a ruler?

THE central defining characteristic of the dark ages is arguably the decline of this concept.. that of LAW being absolute, & over everyone.  The dark ages were defined by imperial rule.. arbitrary decrees from totalitarian rulers.. either popes, kings, or some other elite aristocracy.  They were not subject to their own decrees, but were above the Law.  THAT was the primary spark that fired the reformation.

I posted sometime back an essay where i listed a few of the 95 theses, that Luther nailed to the door that many historian consider to be sparks for the reformation.  It is impossible to miss the correlation between those, & the Enlightenment values that came later.  The enlightenment had its roots in the reformation, as did the birth of science, Natural Law, & even the American Experiment in self rule & individual freedom.

This post was a start of a thread, & i put it in the same format & some of the points nearly verbatim to Luther's 95 theses.  I'll repost it here so the points can be easily seen.




> Out of love for the truth and from desire to elucidate it, i intend to defend the following statements and to dispute on them in this place. Therefore, i ask that those who cannot be present to dispute with me orally shall do so in their absence over the internet.
> 
> The most basic of human rights are life & property.  All other rights stem from these underlying, foundational principles.These rights are not granted by any human institution, but are taken by the people as theirs, inherently, given by god or nature.Human institutions & tyrants may oppress the people & infringe upon their basic rights, but they do so only by oppressive power.  The people do not willingly relinquish their rights.Whenever executive power endeavors to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.  (paraphrased from locke)Individual rights are mitigated by the rights of the collective, but they cannot be negated.The individual's rights to life & property are paramount, with only minor limitations by the collective where other's rights are affected.The historical struggle within humanity has been to rescue individual liberty from the control of executive power.History bears a record of this struggle.. from the magna carta to the declaration of independence.The american declaration of independence is a culmination of this struggle for personal freedom from statist authority.The american experiment was & is an attempt to limit govt & the demands of the state to maximize individual freedom & protect the individual's basic rights.The american experiment was predicated upon the right of the people to choose & organize a govt that best secures their basic rights to life & property.The american experiment was a balance of powers, where the legislative, executive, & judicial branches were provided as separate and equal powers for securing the basic rights of the people.The american constitution was the culmination of the goal of securing the lives & property of the people.The consummate oath by all public servants in all branches of govt is to the constitution.  All other considerations are secondary or contrary.Each of the 3 branches of govt have specific duties to the constitution, & any dereliction of those duties is an affront to the people & american liberty.All wealth in the nation comes through production of real goods & services.The govt is responsible for providing a stable currency for the nation, for the purpose of trade & exchange.A stable currency should be based on something of value, such as hard assets or real production, as declared value has been shown to be historically unstable.A declared currency (fiat) is inflationary, dilutes the real wealth of the nation, plunders the producers, & promotes money shuffling as a standard for wealth accumulation, instead of actual production.A productive society with minimal dependency offers prosperity & opportunity to all.  A growing dependent society is a burden upon the producers that cannot be sustained.Justice is the primary duty of govt.  They are to protect the lives & property of the citizens from all thugs or enemies, foreign or domestic.If representatives of govt ignore their basic duty of justice, but instead become accomplices in stealing the wealth of the producers by legislation or edict, they have violated their basic duty to the people & have become enemies.If representatives of govt conspire against the producers of the nation by building a coalition of thieves to plunder the workers, & use law as an instrument of plunder, they violate their primary duty as citizen representatives & make themselves enemies of the people.Redistribution, or taking from some citizens to give it to others is a violation of the basic right to property & is an affront to human liberty & dignity.  It is a basic violation of individual sovereignty & is demeaning & builds dependency for those on the dole.Money and power are at the root of government corruption.Professional politicians breed corruption.  Citizen representatives are prone to less corruption & are the american ideal.Term limits & strict enforcement of corruption & conflict of interest laws should be employed to lessen govt corruption & revitalize the goal of citizen representation.Compensation for public service should be minimal and any graft or corruption punished severely.Deficit spending is crippling to the nation.  It robs future generations & promotes corrupt & irresponsible fiscal policy.A balanced budget should be mandated by the people to the representatives as the normal fiscal policy.Military aggression against other sovereign nations without a declaration of war is a violation of the constitution & the basic principles of america.Citizen representatives of america can make treaties, trade agreements, & settle international disputes of law.Citizen representatives of america violate the constitution by bribing other nation's officials, bombing or intimidating with violence, using the military might of america to promote business interests, or any meddling that is not a result of due process, with the congress having the final decision, not the executive branch.Foreign aid, in all its forms, robs the american worker, & violates his right to property.  It is unconstitutional & immoral.All govt grants, subsidies, or involvement in private business is a misuse of power, robs the workers of his labors, & breeds corruption.
> There are more, but this should last for a while.  I challenge anyone to debate on the points in these 35 theses, one at a time, addressing the basic philosophy & underlying principles regarding human rights.  If you cannot defend the antithesis of these points, i understand your position.  But please refrain from deflecting with ad hominems in your frustration.  At the very least, i hope for a diet of worms before these points are dismissed.  Thanks to Martin Luther for the inspiration.

----------


## usfan

> All this angry white male, anti establishment/elite, anti choice, BS, is pure old time Democratic Party non-sense turned into phony conservative non-sense.





> Yeah, nice try.  The OP was an assertion by a protestant evangelical making a silly assertion that the dark ages ended with "Jesus" from the point of view of the baptists, 'er some other such group.
> I said it's nonsense and it is.





> The OP belongs in the funny pages. It's self taught idiocy.


You guys just don't get it. Human freedom, & the quest for liberty has been going on for millennia. It is not new. We have built upon the shoulders of giants, & reach for an enlightened view, where the common man is protected, & not a subject for exploitation by men of power & ambition. I have illustrated this here with a nod to martin luther, framing the argument in this classic reformation historical event: The 95 theses nailed to the door of the All Saints' Church in Wittenberg, saxony. And while martin's 'theses' were primarily theological, they touched on some significant issues that affected ALL of humanity, & ESPECIALLY the rule of govt. The roman church was in essence the rule of govt in those times, & luther challenged the narrative. Was justice to be based on the whimsical decrees of men? Or was there an overriding LAW that trumped human caprice?

THAT is the issue here, & i am amazed at the shallowness of the responses from the leftist posters. Are you this dense? You want to return us to the dark ages? Do you care nothing for the rule of law, due process, jury of peers, presumed innocence, & other attributes of justice that have evolved over thousands of years? Do human RIGHTS mean nothing to you? You want to flit about peripheral notions of 'fairness' & completely trample the most basic rights of humanity, just to advance your socialist agenda. That is the height of folly & madness!! It is INSANE!! You want to take us BACKWARDS!!

You demonstrate this in the EXACT same way the roman church answered martin luther's 95 theses. Did they send a delegate to wittenberg to discuss these points in a rational manner? NO!! Of course not!! That is not the statist way of power! They declared him a heretic & put a bounty on his head for death!! This is the style of human justice the left is advocating. No rational discourse.. no debates over truth.. No transparent defense of ideology.

No.  The progressive left's way is decree.  Rule by power & decree.. rule by intimidation. Silence the opposition.  It is back to the dark ages.

How can advanced, educated, intelligent people advocate a return to dark age governance practices, where statist rule is promoted? Has the blindness of folly & madness overtaken their senses? Are they so full of arrogance & elitist disdain for humanity that they want to crush any hope for real freedom & offer illusions, complete with the chains of servitude?

You have done this for thousands of years, & will continue. But there are some among us who are wise to your deception. We see through the trap, & know where you want to lead us. Back to slavery. Back to subservience. Back to dominating state rule. But this is NOT the way of America. We have chosen a govt OF, BY, & FOR the PEOPLE. You are corrupting it, & are intent on destroying this experiment in human liberty, but we will NOT go quietly. We will fight you. We will cast off every chain.

My challenge remains. Take on any of the points in the OP, & rebut them. Present your own views, if you wish, as alternatives. But if all you have is ridicule & cries of 'heresy!', you are the same as the papists in reformation times, who could not defend their views of statist domination, either. Put up or shut up. Make your case, & defend like a rational human being, instead of a hysterical propagandist.

_Liberty and power are in eternal enmity. Liberty is defensive and power is offensive. Power is an armed aggressor. Liberty stands empty-handed, in need of unselfish champions at all times. Power is alluring and inspires both fear and worldly reverence... Those who rise to power, and in power ride rough-shod over the rights of men, seem always to stand in marble on our public squares while those who carry the torch of liberty rest in unmarked graves_. ~R. Carter Pittman

----------

BobJam (04-25-2017),JustPassinThru (04-25-2017),Rita Marley (04-25-2017)

----------


## usfan

Perhaps the most significant part of the reformation was the concept of 'Sola Scriptura!', or 'Scripture Only', as the final authority in the believer's life.  This is almost the exact same thing as the magna carta, the 10 commandments, & the American Constitution.  It is reducing to a written word, the Law.  Instead of being a fickle, elite whim, it is a codified, defined rule.  That is where the concept of 'Natural Law' from the Enlightenment came from.  That concept, which carries almost all of the rule of law, due process, & constitutional rule, has 'Sola Scriptura' as its roots.

I had a thread on this topic a while back, but it was too boring & didn't get much response.   :Smile: 

Sola Scriptura

----------


## hardwork

> Perhaps the most significant part of the reformation was the concept of 'Sola Scriptura!', or 'Scripture Only', as the final authority in the believer's life.  This is almost the exact same thing as the magna carta, the 10 commandments, & the American Constitution.  It is reducing to a written word, the Law.  Instead of being a fickle, elite whim, it is a codified, defined rule.  That is where the concept of 'Natural Law' from the Enlightenment came from.  That concept, which carries almost all of the rule of law, due process, & constitutional rule, has 'Sola Scriptura' as its roots.
> 
> I had a thread on this topic a while back, but it was too boring & didn't get much response.  
> 
> Sola Scriptura


Continue the fight for individual freedom: Vote for pro choice candidates.

----------


## jet57

> You guys just don't get it. Human freedom, & the quest for liberty has been going on for millennia. It is not new. We have built upon the shoulders of giants, & reach for an enlightened view, where the common man is protected, & not a subject for exploitation by men of power & ambition. I have illustrated this here with a nod to martin luther, framing the argument in this classic reformation historical event: The 95 theses nailed to the door of the All Saints' Church in Wittenberg, saxony. And while martin's 'theses' were primarily theological, they touched on some significant issues that affected ALL of humanity, & ESPECIALLY the rule of govt. The roman church was in essence the rule of govt in those times, & luther challenged the narrative. Was justice to be based on the whimsical decrees of men? Or was there an overriding LAW that trumped human caprice?
> 
> THAT is the issue here, & i am amazed at the shallowness of the responses from the leftist posters. Are you this dense? You want to return us to the dark ages? Do you care nothing for the rule of law, due process, jury of peers, presumed innocence, & other attributes of justice that have evolved over thousands of years? Do human RIGHTS mean nothing to you? You want to flit about peripheral notions of 'fairness' & completely trample the most basic rights of humanity, just to advance your socialist agenda. That is the height of folly & madness!! It is INSANE!! You want to take us BACKWARDS!!
> 
> You demonstrate this in the EXACT same way the roman church answered martin luther's 95 theses. Did they send a delegate to wittenberg to discuss these points in a rational manner? NO!! Of course not!! That is not the statist way of power! They declared him a heretic & put a bounty on his head for death!! This is the style of human justice the left is advocating. No rational discourse.. no debates over truth.. No transparent defense of ideology.
> 
> No.  The progressive left's way is decree.  Rule by power & decree.. rule by intimidation. Silence the opposition.  It is back to the dark ages.
> 
> How can advanced, educated, intelligent people advocate a return to dark age governance practices, where statist rule is promoted? Has the blindness of folly & madness overtaken their senses? Are they so full of arrogance & elitist disdain for humanity that they want to crush any hope for real freedom & offer illusions, complete with the chains of servitude?
> ...


Your entire argument is predicated on the fallacy that the Protestant Reformation ended the Dark Ages and the reality is that the two were 500 years apart and had nothing to do with one another.  THAT is your mistake.  The folly that follows that erroneous thesis could have been made with another try at a thesis and by restating your premise.

That's the point that has been made over and over again to you, and rather than just seeing that, you've doubled down on a ridiculous conflation of events that only serve to hobble your argument and confuse the issue.  You could have said, the Reformation ended a "Spiritual Dark Age"... and you could have just gone on with your points and how Martin Luther's 95 inspired and end to spiritual empire which inspired many other things...  But you didn't take the time to ask for any clarification because your entire premise is based on your evangelical perspective and anything that was not in line WITH your perspective  you have taken to mean leftist insolence.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I suggest that you go back through the thread and reevaluate posts that appear counter to your views.

----------


## jet57

> What evidence do you have that the OP is a Protestant - evangelical or otherwise? WTH?






> Perhaps the most significant part of the reformation was the concept of 'Sola Scriptura!', or 'Scripture Only', as the final authority in the believer's life.  This is almost the exact same thing as the magna carta, the 10 commandments, & the American Constitution.  It is reducing to a written word, the Law.  Instead of being a fickle, elite whim, it is a codified, defined rule.  That is where the concept of 'Natural Law' from the Enlightenment came from.  That concept, which carries almost all of the rule of law, due process, & constitutional rule, has 'Sola Scriptura' as its roots.
> 
> I had a thread on this topic a while back, but it was too boring & didn't get much response.  
> 
> Sola Scriptura


'nuff said.

----------


## Midgardian

> 'nuff said.


Evidence needs to be falsifiable. 

It doesn't take a Protestant to write that - just a good historian.

I have written papers that discuss Islamic topics in an objective and scholarly manner.

Does that make me a Muslim?

He could be a Protestant and I could be a Muslim, but you can't make those sort of judgments solely on the basis of words on a page.

----------

BobJam (04-25-2017),Rutabaga (04-25-2017)

----------


## jet57

> Evidence needs to be falsifiable. 
> 
> It doesn't take a Protestant to write that - just a good historian.
> 
> I have written papers that discuss Islamic topics in an objective and scholarly manner.
> 
> Does that make me a Muslim?
> 
> He could be a Protestant and I could be a Muslim, but you can't make those sort of judgments solely on the basis of words on a page.


Nonsense dude: nice run around.  The OP is written by a white protestant, and it conflates history into a fallacy.

----------


## ChemEngineer

> Continue the fight for individual freedom: Vote for pro choice candidates.


1.  Continue murdering unborn babies at the rate of  over a million a year.
2.  Continue denying fathers any rights whatsoever.  They either have to pay child support for 18 years, or else never get to hold their own flesh and blood.
3.  Neither do the grandparents, four of them.
4.  Abortion is a grotesque method of torturing unborn babies, many of which are murdered in their sixth or seventh month of life or later.
5.  http://AbortionNo.org

|_________________________________________________  ______|

This is a line representing conceptionat the left side of this time line and a child's first breath at the right end.
Draw the exact  line where YOU state it can no longer be murdered, and then explain your reasoning to all present here.

Finally, explain how Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering his unborn son, Conner, along with this wife, Staci.

Andrea Bocelli's mother was told to abort him for her own health and welfare.  Andrea is quite happy she loved him too
and did not have him destroyed.  Next time you hear his melifluous voice, recall your "choice" words.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Nonsense dude: nice run around.  The OP is written by a white protestant, and it conflates history into a fallacy.


i saw a tee-shirt the other day...a white guy on a harley was wearing it...it said, "i'm a white male, watch me fuck you up"

i LOL'd because it reminded me of how violent white males can be...throughout global history, white males have been killing on a scale never surpassed...they kill wholesale, with a ferocity never matched...

interesting times,,dont you agree?

----------


## usfan

I've heard a lot of bigotry over the years, but i must admit, that i haven't heard of dismissing history because of 'white protestantism'.  I would venture to guess that MOST of the historians, over the last few hundred years, have been 'white protestants'.  How does that invalidate their historical studies or conclusions?

If you are a 'black atheist', would that make it ok, to study history, or provide commentary on historical events?  What bearing does a person's race & creed have on their historical perceptions?  Are not 'facts' of history, still 'facts'?

I know leftists are very race based, & intolerant of other's religious views, but i did not know it extended to historical facts.  What is next?  Dismissing mathematical tables because a 'white protestant' uses them?  Would a 'brown catholic' be a better identity, for historical study?  Identity politics are so ridiculous.  It is no wonder our education system is in such disarray, with these kinds of thinking processes behind them.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (04-26-2017),Rutabaga (04-25-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> I've heard a lot of bigotry over the years, but i must admit, that i haven't heard of dismissing history because of 'white protestantism'.  I would venture to guess that MOST of the historians, over the last few hundred years, have been 'white protestants'.  How does that invalidate their historical studies or conclusions?
> 
> If you are a 'black atheist', would that make it ok, to study history, or provide commentary on historical events?  What bearing does a person's race & creed have on their historical perceptions?  Are not 'facts' of history, still 'facts'?
> 
> I know leftists are very race based, & intolerant of other's religious views, but i did not know it extended to historical facts.  What is next?  Dismissing mathematical tables because a 'white protestant' uses them?  Would a 'brown catholic' be a better identity, for historical study?  Identity politics are so ridiculous.  It is no wonder our education system is in such disarray, with these kinds of thinking processes behind them.


its the history they find so threatening...they fully understand my post above,,and that scares the living shit outta them...they can try to rewrite it, to obfuscate it,,even deny it,,but that changes nothing...sooner or later they will have to face their nightmare, personally,,i'm hoping for sooner...

----------

usfan (04-25-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

> Nonsense dude: nice run around.  The OP is written by a white protestant, and it conflates history into a fallacy.


You don't know that he is white or a Protestant. 

You assume, and you may be correct, but that is not objective evidence.

Your credibility in analyzing history and history writing just took a big nosedive - if you had any at all.

----------


## Midgardian

> I've heard a lot of bigotry over the years, but i must admit, that i haven't heard of dismissing history because of 'white protestantism'.  I would venture to guess that MOST of the historians, over the last few hundred years, have been 'white protestants'.  How does that invalidate their historical studies or conclusions?
> 
> If you are a 'black atheist', would that make it ok, to study history, or provide commentary on historical events?  What bearing does a person's race & creed have on their historical perceptions?  Are not 'facts' of history, still 'facts'?
> 
> I know leftists are very race based, & intolerant of other's religious views, but i did not know it extended to historical facts.  What is next?  Dismissing mathematical tables because a 'white protestant' uses them?  Would a 'brown catholic' be a better identity, for historical study?  Identity politics are so ridiculous.  It is no wonder our education system is in such disarray, with these kinds of thinking processes behind them.


"I think that a wise Latina, with the richness of her experiences, would come to a better decision than a white male you hasn't lived that life."

The above blatantly racist statement was made by Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Yes, liberals really think this irrationally.

----------


## Midgardian

> i saw a tee-shirt the other day...a white guy on a harley was wearing it...it said, "i'm a white male, watch me fuck you up"
> 
> i LOL'd because it reminded me of how violent white males can be...throughout global history, white males have been killing on a scale never surpassed...they kill wholesale, with a ferocity never matched...
> 
> interesting times,,dont you agree?


I am white, male, heterosexual, conservative, and Protestant - and proud. 

Thing is that if I went back to being a Catholic, it still wouldn't make a difference to these hate filled liberals.

----------


## Rutabaga

> You don't know that he is white or a Protestant. 
> 
> You assume, and you may be correct, but that is not objective evidence.
> 
> Your credibility in analyzing history and history writing just took a big nosedive - if you had any at all.


they fear white males,,particularly christian ones...they have every right to...

----------


## jet57

> You don't know that he is white or a Protestant. 
> 
> You assume, and you may be correct, but that is not objective evidence.
> 
> Your credibility in analyzing history and history writing just took a big nosedive - if you had any at all.


(chuckle)

Man; why'd you not reply to the post where I showed you he's an evangelical?  You all but demanded it, so I showed you.




> and you may be correct



I am right about him and his OP you know it.  So, when you can keep up with me on historical matters and how they relate to today, and actually put some substance in your material, I'll listen more often and perhaps be a little more respectful of your opinions.

----------


## jet57

> I've heard a lot of bigotry over the years, but i must admit, that i haven't heard of dismissing history because of 'white protestantism'.  I would venture to guess that MOST of the historians, over the last few hundred years, have been 'white protestants'.  How does that invalidate their historical studies or conclusions?
> 
> If you are a 'black atheist', would that make it ok, to study history, or provide commentary on historical events?  What bearing does a person's race & creed have on their historical perceptions?  Are not 'facts' of history, still 'facts'?
> 
> I know leftists are very race based, & intolerant of other's religious views, but i did not know it extended to historical facts.  What is next?  Dismissing mathematical tables because a 'white protestant' uses them?  Would a 'brown catholic' be a better identity, for historical study?  Identity politics are so ridiculous.  It is no wonder our education system is in such disarray, with these kinds of thinking processes behind them.


I've seen and heard a lot of bigotry myself over the years as well, but how I have "dismissed history because of white Protestantism" is a new one on me.  Your OP was a mess and you got called on it and I showed where you were wrong and actually took the time to give you some help on clarifying your position and instead of at the very least, taking me up on it, you intimate that I'm a bigot...

_Verrry mature_ indeed.

Yeah; I'm a leftists - "oooh boy"

----------


## usfan

> 'nuff said.





> Nonsense dude: nice run around.  The OP is written by a white protestant, and it conflates history into a fallacy.





> (chuckle)
> Man; why'd you not reply to the post where I showed you he's an evangelical?  You all but demanded it, so I showed you.
> I am right about him and his OP you know it.  So, when you can keep up with me on historical matters and how they relate to today, and actually put some substance in your material, I'll listen more often and perhaps be a little more respectful of your opinions.


So, in order to 'evaluate' my post, you needed to know my racial & religious background, so you could decide if my ideas had merit?  If i were black, or an atheist, my comments about historical events would have more value?

I don't think you see it, but this is EXACTLY what racism is.  You are bigoted toward 'white protestants', & prejudge them.  You don't listen to the ideas, but need the identity politics, first, to make a determination about something.

Don't you see, this is what elitist, dark ages values produces?  You can't evaluate ideas on their own merits, or on the basis of reason, facts, or reality, but have to see everything through a 'filter' of identity politics.

Your 'gotcha!' response where you think you made some kind of secret discovery about my identity is nothing but old fashioned human bigotry.  Since you 'outed' me as a 'white protestant', you can now automatically dismiss whatever i say.  I find that amazingly bigoted, especially since 'white protestants' have made some of the most contributions to mankind for centuries.  The age of reason?  The enlightenment?  The reformation?  The war against slavery (abolitionism).  Women's rights.  Civil rights.  The wars against despotism & oppression.  Scientific advances.  Expansion of Knowledge.  You cannot point to a single human discipline, where breakthroughs in life saving, technological advances, art, literature, science, knowledge, & EVERY endeavor of human ascension that does not have a large segment of 'white protestants' in it.  So how is your bigotry even justified?  If you judge by statistics or history, my opinions should have MORE weight, because of my ethnic background, not less.

But i find it absurd that you make these kinds of arguments, that have no rational basis at all, but are just racial & ethnic caricatures.. not even valid ones, but new, phony narratives from the left.

I do find your posts here as a reminder of another evidence of the left's driving humanity back to the dark ages.  More characteristics of the Dark Ages:

6. Elitism, based on birth, race, & class.  The 'unwashed masses' were inferior to the ruling elite, & existed to support the elite, & be managed & controlled by them.

7. Race, gender, & religious beliefs, that did not meet the standards of the ruling elite, were driven off, persecuted, 're-educated', or killed.

Modern 'identity politics' from the left are exactly the same as the dark ages values of elitism, nobility, & ethnic superiority.  Your worth as a person is not based on your inherent rights as a sovereign, equal human being, but are dependent on your groupthink loyalties & racial politics.  Arguments & ideas are not evaluated based on the content of their reason, but on the credentials of the presenter.


..doesn't quite fit the 'black lives matter' narrative, does it?  Unfortunately, that anti-human, anti -American, anti-enlightenment ideology is driving us backwards.  You do not offer freedom, but oppression.  You do not support equality, but elitism.  Yours is the ideology of bigotry, hate, & artificial groupthink loyalties, & it will destroy America & any hope for human freedom.

----------

BobJam (04-26-2017),Canadianeye (04-26-2017)

----------


## usfan

> Your entire argument is predicated on the fallacy that the Protestant Reformation ended the Dark Ages and the reality is that the two were 500 years apart and had nothing to do with one another.  THAT is your mistake.  The folly that follows that erroneous thesis could have been made with another try at a thesis and by restating your premise.
> 
> That's the point that has been made over and over again to you, and rather than just seeing that, you've doubled down on a ridiculous conflation of events that only serve to hobble your argument and confuse the issue.  You could have said, the Reformation ended a "Spiritual Dark Age"... and you could have just gone on with your points and how Martin Luther's 95 inspired and end to spiritual empire which inspired many other things...  But you didn't take the time to ask for any clarification because your entire premise is based on your evangelical perspective and anything that was not in line WITH your perspective  you have taken to mean leftist insolence.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I suggest that you go back through the thread and reevaluate posts that appear counter to your views.


My argument is predicated on the VISIBLE, EMPIRICAL reality, of leftist ideology correlating to the dark ages.  I laid the foundation with descriptions of the characteristics of that era, & also the thinking that delivered us from its destructive ideology.  I have made no religious arguments.  I have quoted no religious texts, other than the progressives with their Holy Pronouncements.

I have demonstrated, both in this thread, & many others, the line of FREEDOM for humanity, & followed its history.  Western Civilization has its ideological roots in the reformation, the age of reason, science, & the enlightenment.  That is CONTRARY to the progressive left's descent into identity politics, elitism, moral relativity, & collectivist naturalism.  The ideology of the progressive left is amazingly similar to the dark ages, with their intolerance to diversity, elitism, disdain for equality, life, & property.  It is a step backwards, for humanity, not anything 'evolving' us to a higher state.

That you refuse to see any  historical line from the dark ages to the renewals of the reformation, the enlightenment, & other movements toward freedom & equality, only confirms your leftist indoctrination.  You see history & humanity through a groupthink lens, not with any critical thinking, or rational process.  You have outed yourself as a propagandist.. an indoctrinated groupthink loyalist, not a thinking individual.

----------

BobJam (04-26-2017)

----------


## sooda

Odd. It seems to me that the church caused people to be stuck in the dark ages.

----------


## usfan

> Odd. It seems to me that the church caused people to be stuck in the dark ages.


Too narrow a view.. it was elitist, intolerant ideology, that had gained political power over all the human institutions of the time.  The name of the religion used was irrelevant.  They mandated Truth, oppressed open expression, maintained a ruling, aristocratic elite, & punished any outliers, to protect their turf.

You don't see any correlation between the practices of the dark ages, & progressive ideology?  The modern day 'inquisitors' are just as intolerant, elitist, & oppressive as their dark ages counterparts.  They haven't gotten Absolute Power, yet.. but they're working on it.

----------

Sled Dog (04-26-2017)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Odd. It seems to me that the church caused people to be stuck in the dark ages.


You mean like Islam today?

----------

Sled Dog (04-26-2017)

----------


## jet57

> So, in order to 'evaluate' my post, you needed to know my racial & religious background, so you could decide if my ideas had merit?  If i were black, or an atheist, my comments about historical events would have more value?
> 
> I don't think you see it, but this is EXACTLY what racism is.  You are bigoted toward 'white protestants', & prejudge them.  You don't listen to the ideas, but need the identity politics, first, to make a determination about something.
> 
> Don't you see, this is what elitist, dark ages values produces?  You can't evaluate ideas on their own merits, or on the basis of reason, facts, or reality, but have to see everything through a 'filter' of identity politics.
> 
> Your 'gotcha!' response where you think you made some kind of secret discovery about my identity is nothing but old fashioned human bigotry.  Since you 'outed' me as a 'white protestant', you can now automatically dismiss whatever i say.  I find that amazingly bigoted, especially since 'white protestants' have made some of the most contributions to mankind for centuries.  The age of reason?  The enlightenment?  The reformation?  The war against slavery (abolitionism).  Women's rights.  Civil rights.  The wars against despotism & oppression.  Scientific advances.  Expansion of Knowledge.  You cannot point to a single human discipline, where breakthroughs in life saving, technological advances, art, literature, science, knowledge, & EVERY endeavor of human ascension that does not have a large segment of 'white protestants' in it.  So how is your bigotry even justified?  If you judge by statistics or history, my opinions should have MORE weight, because of my ethnic background, not less.
> 
> But i find it absurd that you make these kinds of arguments, that have no rational basis at all, but are just racial & ethnic caricatures.. not even valid ones, but new, phony narratives from the left.
> ...


Your silly OP told me exactly what you are and now you admit it which only makes my point stronger.  You're a right-wing evangelical who decided to confuse the Reformation with the Dark Ages.

----------


## sooda

> Too narrow a view.. it was elitist, intolerant ideology, that had gained political power over all the human institutions of the time.  The name of the religion used was irrelevant.  They mandated Truth, oppressed open expression, maintained a ruling, aristocratic elite, & punished any outliers, to protect their turf.
> 
> You don't see any correlation between the practices of the dark ages, & progressive ideology?  The modern day 'inquisitors' are just as intolerant, elitist, & oppressive as their dark ages counterparts.  They haven't gotten Absolute Power, yet.. but they're working on it.


Religion even hampered the study of anatomy and medicine. Nope, superstition was the rule rather than the exception. Even in the modern age the truly devout reject science. They believe in  global flood and that the earth is flat.

Look at the backlash against the theory of evolution and origins of species. Much of America went hurtling backwards into fundamentalism as if scripture was science and history.

----------


## jet57

> My argument is predicated on the VISIBLE, EMPIRICAL reality, of leftist ideology correlating to the dark ages.  I laid the foundation with descriptions of the characteristics of that era, & also the thinking that delivered us from its destructive ideology.  I have made no religious arguments.  I have quoted no religious texts, other than the progressives with their Holy Pronouncements.
> 
> I have demonstrated, both in this thread, & many others, the line of FREEDOM for humanity, & followed its history.  Western Civilization has its ideological roots in the reformation, the age of reason, science, & the enlightenment.  That is CONTRARY to the progressive left's descent into identity politics, elitism, moral relativity, & collectivist naturalism.  The ideology of the progressive left is amazingly similar to the dark ages, with their intolerance to diversity, elitism, disdain for equality, life, & property.  It is a step backwards, for humanity, not anything 'evolving' us to a higher state.
> 
> That you refuse to see any  historical line from the dark ages to the renewals of the reformation, the enlightenment, & other movements toward freedom & equality, only confirms your leftist indoctrination.  You see history & humanity through a groupthink lens, not with any critical thinking, or rational process.  You have outed yourself as a propagandist.. an indoctrinated groupthink loyalist, not a thinking individual.


Your argument is predicated upon confusing the Protestant Reformation with the Dark Ages, which is stupid.

----------


## usfan

> You mean like Islam today?


And yesterday.. and 600 years ago.

But to the more salient point, Islam, like progressive ideology, is one of elitism, mandates, & authoritarian rule.  Those are the central qualities of the dark ages.  And, while many people see the islam/dark ages connection, most miss the progressive one.

Ideology brought us out of the dark ages, & it can drive us back there, if we let it.

----------

Dos Equis (04-26-2017)

----------


## usfan

> Your argument is predicated upon confusing the Protestant Reformation with the Dark Ages, which is stupid.


You have nothing but assertion & ad hominem.  I will not engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

----------


## sooda

> You mean like Islam today?


Depends what country you are talking about. The science centers in Arabia have interactive displays about geology, tectonic plates and such... and at every station there is a small brass plate with verses about the creation story. Not much superstitious conflict among educated Muslims.

----------


## jet57

> You have nothing but assertion & ad hominem.  I will not engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.


oookee dokee

----------


## sooda

> And yesterday.. and 600 years ago.
> 
> But to the more salient point, Islam, like progressive ideology, is one of elitism, mandates, & authoritarian rule.  Those are the central qualities of the dark ages.  And, while many people see the islam/dark ages connection, most miss the progressive one.
> 
> Ideology brought us out of the dark ages, & it can drive us back there, if we let it.


Consultative governance is so obvious in the tradition of the majlis.. Do you know what I'm talking about?

----------


## usfan

> Religion even hampered the study of anatomy and medicine. Nope superstition was the rule rather than the exception. Even in the modern age the truly devout reject science. The believe in  global flood and that the earth is flat.
> 
> Look at the backlash against the theory of evolution and origins of species. Much of America went hurtling backwards into fundamentalism as if scripture was science and history.


No, political oppression 'hampered' these things.  What in christian ideology does as you suggest?  And now, your 'science!' status quo is doing the same thing.  Mandates for conformity, not free inquiry.  Legislated beliefs about origins, global warming, identity politics, & revisionist history.  The progressive left is driving us away from due process & scientific methodology, & back to superstition & feeling oriented discernment.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (04-26-2017)

----------


## usfan

> Consultative governance is so obvious in the tradition of the majlis.. Do you know what I'm talking about?


If you have a point, make it so everyone can follow your reasoning.  Name dropping, or obfuscating with terminology does not bring understanding.

----------

BobJam (04-26-2017)

----------


## jet57

> If you have a point, make it so everyone can follow your reasoning.  Name dropping, or obfuscating with terminology does not bring understanding.


The irony meter just exploded.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Odd. It seems to me that the church caused people to be stuck in the dark ages.


That was Mohammed.


If the wealth of Europe hadn't been wasted fighting off those barbaric creatures, spawn of goats, if Christianity had been allowed to develop and grow in it's birth place, India would be prosperous today, as well as Europe.

And the world wouldn't know what "Islamic terrorism" is.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Religion even hampered the study of anatomy and medicine. Nope, superstition was the rule rather than the exception. Even in the modern age the truly devout reject science. They believe in  global flood and that the earth is flat.
> 
> Look at the backlash against the theory of evolution and origins of species. Much of America went hurtling backwards into fundamentalism as if scripture was science and history.


Actually, the "truly devout" believe in "global warming climate change global cooling" nonsense.  They reject science like nobody else but a moose limb.

----------

usfan (04-26-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Depends what country you are talking about. The science centers in Arabia have interactive displays about geology, tectonic plates and such... and at every station there is a small brass plate with verses about the creation story. Not much superstitious conflict among educated Muslims.


No.

Islame is islame.

In that shit hole called Saudi Arabia women are treated like dirt.  Worse, because good fertile dirt is hard to find in the desert.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Depends what country you are talking about. The science centers in Arabia have interactive displays about geology, tectonic plates and such... and at every station there is a small brass plate with verses about the creation story. Not much superstitious conflict among educated Muslims.


Or among educated Christians.  And a belief in a world wide flood does not automatically mean a belief in a flat earth.  There is some proof that much of the world was once covered by water.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Consultative governance is so obvious in the tradition of the majlis.. Do you know what I'm talking about?


You and jet must be related you are both arrogant twits.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Consultative governance is so obvious in the tradition of the majlis.. Do you know what I'm talking about?



....that means the mullah pulling the shit he wants to say out of Mohammed's ass, and not even bothering to wipe it off?

----------


## Sled Dog

> Or among educated Christians.  And a belief in a world wide flood does not automatically mean a belief in a flat earth.  There is some proof that much of the world was once covered by water.



A flat earth can't be flooded.

The stuff would fall of the edge.

And there's no evidence at all that any significant portion of the earth was ever flooded, especially not simultaneously in human history.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> A flat earth can't be flooded.
> 
> The stuff would fall of the edge.
> 
> And there's no evidence at all that any significant portion of the earth was ever flooded, especially not simultaneously in human history.


The conventional wisdom is that life began in the oceans, which would have covered much of the land mass at one time.  There are indications that many places that are now dry land were once under the sea.  Not all at once perhaps and certainly not in the last 100,000 years

Early Earth  | Metro News

----------


## Midgardian

> And there's no evidence at all that any significant portion of the earth was ever flooded, especially not simultaneously in human history.


There most certainly is, but you have been brainwashed into not even exploring the relevant facts, so you simply dismiss their existence.

----------


## Sled Dog

> There most certainly is, but you have been brainwashed into not even exploring the relevant facts, so you simply dismiss their existence.


No, there isn't.

And the continents formed some 3.5 to 4.0 billion years before the human species evolved.

"No global flood in human history" too complicated for your comprehension?

----------


## BobJam

> Consultative governance is so obvious in the tradition of the majlis.. Do you know what I'm talking about?


 @sooda

Echo on @usfan post #389.

What?  Are you trying to show us your towering intellect?

_"Never use a long word when a diminutive linguistic utterance will sufficiently articulate."_

----------

usfan (04-30-2017)

----------


## BobJam

Addendum to my post #401:

Echo also to @Dr. Felix Birdbiter post #395 and @Sled Dog post #396.

@sooda

Looks like quite a few people took exception to your attempt at being an "intellectual".  Your pseudo-intellectual approach might fly at a coffee shop at 3AM, but not here.  Here, your posts are just plain vanilla crappola.

----------


## usfan

> Your silly OP told me exactly what you are and now you admit it which only makes my point stronger.  You're a right-wing evangelical who decided to confuse the Reformation with the Dark Ages.


You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.  I am not confusing the reformation with the dark ages, I am correlating leftist ideology with the dark ages.  I postulated that the reformation (among other idealistic movements) brought us OUT of the dark ages, & opened the door to the enlightenment, the age of reason, & scientific methodology.

Your apparent belief that my religious views somehow invalidate my reasoning is very bizarre.  How does that work, actually?  History, facts, & empirical science depend on the philosophical beliefs of a person?  Is that not just leftist relativity, 'anti-science' gobbledy gook?  You seem to imply that knowledge is unknowable, which you assert as something you 'know'.

My beliefs are no mystery in this forum.  But i do not see the logical connection between a person's ideology, & any facts or arguments they present.  I would not dismiss a person's arguments because they are an atheist, or a new age vegan.  Knowledge has come, historically, from all walks of human philosophical beliefs.  And, if you want to make a case for a particular 'group' contributing the most to the human knowledge base, I would lean very heavily toward your hated 'white protestants' as being at the top of the heap.

But i leave such value judgement theorizing to you.  I still see your posts as a feeble attempt to derail the discussion, & avoid the topic, which is very pointed.  You have no rebuttal to the OP, so you try to  deflect with ad hominem, poison the well, or other logical fallacies.

How about one point?  Care to present your own 'theories' or beliefs about the reformation, the dark ages, & leftist ideology?  This from the OP:
*
3. Rights' are a gift from govt, not something inherently possessed. "Natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythological social zoology." John Dewey.*

Is this not one of the key 'debates' in any forum of 'right vs left' ideology?  Leftists deny the concept of 'Natural Law', & the inherent right to life, liberty, & property, the sum of enlightenment thought.  They reject that very 'enlightenment' view, for their own belief that all rights come from a benevolent govt, which graciously dispenses them to an undeserving populace.

So in the very current 'debate' over Natural Law, here is how the beliefs compare:

'Right wing' >>> There exists a Natural Law, given by God or nature, that is inherent to every human being.

'Left wing' >>> Natural Law is a myth.  Rights are only granted by collective institutions & the ruling elite.

Now, compare these basic views with those in the Dark ages.

Dark Ages >>> Any rights of man are granted (or taken) by the ruling elite.  The nobility decides what rights the populace has.

So, based on the views of Natural Law, which current ideology is most like the dark ages view?  Which one is based on the enlightenment view?  This is the central argument of the OP, which you have avoided like the plague (another dark ages issue!   :Big Grin:  )

I like to quote from the heroes of progressive ideology, to show where the thinking originated.  Wilson is a common favorite, as the 'father' of American Progressivism, but Dewey was very influential as well..

----------

Big Dummy (04-30-2017)

----------


## usfan

> @sooda
> 
> Echo on @usfan post #389.
> 
> What?  Are you trying to show us your towering intellect?
> 
> _"Never use a long word when a diminutive linguistic utterance will sufficiently articulate."_


..one of my favorite quotes.. even though i rarely heed its meaning.    :Big Grin: 

I have a little different version...  

_Don't use a big word where a diminutive word will suffice.



_

----------


## usfan

Bob brought up some interesting thoughts about 'intellectual' conversation.  I know i have been accused of being 'intellectual' or too wordy, & i admit that i tend toward longer, more wordy posts.  I attribute this to the reading of classics, where long, wide vocabulary writing was common.  But is always my desire to communicate in simple, easy to understand language.  I catch myself replacing many words that i write in my early morning inspiration sessions, with more basic, journalistic style language.  As i reread the OP, i don't see my usual problem of wordiness.  The outline format was very simple, & presented the concepts with short, numbered points.  I could have easily written pages on each point, expanding on it with historical events & quotes, but i deferred to the reader to have a basic grasp of history, to follow the reasoning.

I see a clear correlation, between leftist, marxist, progressive ideology, & the practices of the dark ages.  The departure from enlightenment values, & principles heralded in the reformation is clear, & the consequences will not be happy, for humanity.

I also note that many pseudo intellectuals try to muddy the waters with big words, or 'techno babble' as i have called it.  I see this often, mostly from the left, in any discussion of history or science.. any fact based knowledge discipline.  Most people can see through the pseudo intellectualism, but more & more cannot, as our education system produces intellectual cripples, forever stranded on the island of 6th grade reading level.

But even big words have meaning.. and if used properly, they can communicate accurate concepts.  I have no problem with intellectual verbiage, if they help in communicating the ideas.  But too often, this kind of pseudo intellectualism is used to obfuscate, or muddy the meaning, not enlighten it.

_When I listen to the lofty sentiments used to defend government redistribution, I reluctantly have to conclude that nowadays only criminals are honorable enough to steal without rhetorical excuses which brings me to statisms second means of trying to outwit democracy: the manipulation of language.  We have entered an Orwellian era in which entitlement replaces responsibility, coercion is described as compassion, compulsory redistribution is called sharing, race quotas substitute for diversity, and suicide is prescribed as death with dignity. Political discourse has become completely corrupted. The reason is that if you tell people directly that you want to raise their taxes, transfer their wealth, count them by skin color, or let doctors kill them, most will object. Statists know this and therefore are obliged to obfuscate._ ~Theodore Forstmann

_"As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: You liberate a city by destroying it. Words are used to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests."_ ~Gore Vidal

----------

Big Dummy (04-30-2017)

----------


## jet57

> You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.  I am not confusing the reformation with the dark ages, I am correlating leftist ideology with the dark ages.  I postulated that the reformation (among other idealistic movements) brought us OUT of the dark ages, & opened the door to the enlightenment, the age of reason, & scientific methodology.
> 
> Your apparent belief that my religious views somehow invalidate my reasoning is very bizarre.  How does that work, actually?  History, facts, & empirical science depend on the philosophical beliefs of a person?  Is that not just leftist relativity, 'anti-science' gobbledy gook?  You seem to imply that knowledge is unknowable, which you assert as something you 'know'.
> 
> My beliefs are no mystery in this forum.  But i do not see the logical connection between a person's ideology, & any facts or arguments they present.  I would not dismiss a person's arguments because they are an atheist, or a new age vegan.  Knowledge has come, historically, from all walks of human philosophical beliefs.  And, if you want to make a case for a particular 'group' contributing the most to the human knowledge base, I would lean very heavily toward your hated 'white protestants' as being at the top of the heap.
> 
> But i leave such value judgement theorizing to you.  I still see your posts as a feeble attempt to derail the discussion, & avoid the topic, which is very pointed.  You have no rebuttal to the OP, so you try to  deflect with ad hominem, poison the well, or other logical fallacies.
> 
> How about one point?  Care to present your own 'theories' or beliefs about the reformation, the dark ages, & leftist ideology?  This from the OP:
> ...




Here’s your thesis:



> The Reformation ended the Dark Ages.


*the·sis


/ˈTHēsis/


1: a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved.
"his central thesis is that psychological life is not part of the material world"*

Once again: 


> The Reformation ended the Dark Ages


Do you get it now?  THAT is what you are hinging your entire argument on.

It’s wrong, it’s silly and it’s ignorant:  _you are proselytizing_.

Now you say that you are conflating leftist ideology with the Dark Ages.  “Correlating” is not the correct word according to your argument and examples that you cite.  First, you may be talking about another sort of dark age, which I’ve already addressed.  “History facts and empirical evidence” as you put it are also against you because your beliefs are evangelical; you should just admit that outright so that we can ground your thinking.




> You seem to imply that knowledge is unknowable, which you assert as something you 'know'.


Whaaat? Are you getting where I’ve been going with this?

Yes, a person’s beliefs do control their thinking and if _their beliefs_ over rule their ability to take in empirical fact, say the way Billy Graham would be swayed by _his beliefs_, then the credibility of his argument _against a certain ideology_ is not credible.  By saying that WASPS have contributed the most to any sort of “enlightenment” as you call it is to dismiss human advancement going all the way back to the wheel. (And my ancestors were Presbyterians, so your characterization is rude and incorrect).

So; 


> * 3*. Rights' are a gift from govt, not something inherently possessed. "Natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythological social zoology." John Dewey.


Dewy’s philosophy of pragmatism is based more on the Dawinistic model of empirical reality rather than on abstracts like God; i.e. man had to learn to make fire and stone tools, based on need, having to withstand the lack of ethereal involvement.  That is the basis of science, theology was designed for funerals.  Locke’s writing on natural law are derived from Biblical invention wherein “God” has automatically blessed each and every with a conceptual abstract called “rights” that are to be observed and obeyed through each other in recognition of man’s spiritual welfare.  Weapons of every shape type and function were only invented for those people who did not recognize “ethereal natural law” and rights: something _had to be done; people were getting killed and losing their property_…
Natural Rights as they have been conceived, can only take place through what became in human history, _social contracts_ wherein “rights” as an abstract concept, are designed and recognized and then codified through deliberation, debate, and agreement in law which is where our founding US documents have come to represent for American society for instance.




> Right wing' >>> There exists a Natural Law, given by God or nature, that is inherent to every human being


  That is a purely theological interpretation that does not take into account things like, robbery, assault and war.  If those things _did not happen_ then you would be correct.




> Left wing' >>> Natural Law is a myth. Rights are only granted by collective institutions & the ruling elite


  Not a left wing idea, but correct concerning the pragmatism of empirical reality and the problem inherent in it as I have just stated.

In the Dark Ages such “social contracts” existed form petty kingdom to petty kingdom, tribe to tribe and especially clan to clan. Such documents like Magna Carta only came about because local feudal lords had decided to ether kill king john; and go back to war, or force him to sign a paper that made him behave. So such abstracts as social contracts have existed all along, through the Dark Ages, making your assertion in correct.  Moreover, your assertions of progressive “ideology” are purely ridiculous.




> AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.  Jerry fawell


Your ideology

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

Jet57, do you have aids?  Is that your problem?

----------


## usfan

> Here’s your thesis:
> 
> *the·sis
> 
> 
> /ˈTHēsis/
> 
> 
> 1: a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved.
> ...


That is absurd.  That is NOT my 'thesis' at all.  I am making no arguments trying to prove the reformation ended the dark ages.  That is an ASSUMPTION i make, based on many historical opinions & analyses.  My 'thesis', if you want to call it that, is that 'progressive ideology is driving us back to the dark ages'.  I support that premise with numbered points, facts, & historical evidence.

I see this as a deflection, still, to the central point of the OP.  You are attempting to nit pick some semantical details, rather than deal with the meat of the issue.




> It’s wrong, it’s silly and it’s ignorant:  _you are proselytizing_.


Proselytizing?  Seriously?  Shirley, you jest.

I have provided a premise, & supported it with facts, history, & rational arguments.  That is a DEBATE.  I am not proselytizing for any ideology, but have presented the 2 basic ideologies & contrasted their central bases.




> Now you say that you are conflating leftist ideology with the Dark Ages.  “Correlating” is not the correct word according to your argument and examples that you cite.  First, you may be talking about another sort of dark age, which I’ve already addressed.  “History facts and empirical evidence” as you put it are also against you because your beliefs are evangelical; you should just admit that outright so that we can ground your thinking.
> Whaaat? Are you getting where I’ve been going with this?


You can conflate, if you wish.  Or, you can correlate.  I don't really care.

You have provided NO EVIDENCE for you rebuttal.  Merely asserting that 'history & facts are against you', is not an argument, & can be dismissed by assertion.

The philosophical basis of my beliefs do not invalidate my points, anymore than your naturalistic/atheistic beliefs validate yours.  I am showing the result & the consequence of ideology, & the roots from which they sprang.

If any 'thinking' needs grounded, it is yours.  You bluff with dogmatic assertions, with no factual or historical support.  You have no points of rebuttal, just hand waving dismissal.



> Yes, a person’s beliefs do control their thinking and if _their beliefs_ over rule their ability to take in empirical fact, say the way Billy Graham would be swayed by _his beliefs_, then the credibility of his argument _against a certain ideology_ is not credible.  By saying that WASPS have contributed the most to any sort of “enlightenment” as you call it is to dismiss human advancement going all the way back to the wheel. (And my ancestors were Presbyterians, so your characterization is rude and incorrect).
> So;


I also include Marx, Darwin, Wilson, Dewey, & many others who are 'swayed' by their beliefs.  I do not accept your belief that because someone is not a naturalistic atheist, any contributions made to mankind are automatically dismissed.  You merely PRESUME the absolute Truth of naturalism, and reject any alternate beliefs if it conflicts with YOUR belief system.  But that is based on prejudicial bias, not empirical evidence.  You have NO PROOF that your belief in naturalistic atheism is Absolute Truth.  It is merely your belief, & many humans throughout history have believed otherwise, & have made many scientific & cultural advances.



> Dewy’s philosophy of pragmatism is based more on the Dawinistic model of empirical reality rather than on abstracts like God; i.e. man had to learn to make fire and stone tools, based on need, having to withstand the lack of ethereal involvement.  That is the basis of science, theology was designed for funerals.  Locke’s writing on natural law are derived from Biblical invention wherein “God” has automatically blessed each and every with a conceptual abstract called “rights” that are to be observed and obeyed through each other in recognition of man’s spiritual welfare.  Weapons of every shape type and function were only invented for those people who did not recognize “ethereal natural law” and rights: something _had to be done; people were getting killed and losing their property_…
> Natural Rights as they have been conceived, can only take place through what became in human history, _social contracts_ wherein “rights” as an abstract concept, are designed and recognized and then codified through deliberation, debate, and agreement in law which is where our founding US documents have come to represent for American society for instance.


You merely assert Dewey's beliefs as Absolute Truth.. they are not.  That is only your opinion, with NO empirical basis.  Locke, Pasteur, Jefferson, & even Paine disagreed with Dewey, as do many living philosophers now.  Many people believe in the concept of Natural Law, & do NOT accept the darwinist, relativist view of marxist ideology.




> That is a purely theological interpretation that does not take into account things like, robbery, assault and war.  If those things _did not happen_ then you would be correct.
>   Not a left wing idea, but correct concerning the pragmatism of empirical reality and the problem inherent in it as I have just stated.


Yours is also a 'theological interpretation'.  You cannot claim the mantle of 'science', & dismiss other philosophical ideals as 'religion'.  That is merely prejudicial dismissal.  Your beliefs have no scientific basis, but are only beliefs.  I accurately summarized the typical 'right vs left' wing views about Natural Law.  Since both are based in philosophical, abstract beliefs about the nature of man & the universe, both are opinions, & neither can claim to be 'settled science'.  It is only the mandated belief of naturalism that pretends this status.  That is not empiricism, but dark ages, 'declared' facts, which the left mimics from the dark ages.



> In the Dark Ages such “social contracts” existed form petty kingdom to petty kingdom, tribe to tribe and especially clan to clan. Such documents like Magna Carta only came about because local feudal lords had decided to ether kill king john; and go back to war, or force him to sign a paper that made him behave. So such abstracts as social contracts have existed all along, through the Dark Ages, making your assertion in correct.  Moreover, your assertions of progressive “ideology” are purely ridiculous.
> Your ideology


Again, you merely assert your beliefs, with no facts, no history, & no reasoning.  How?  Why?  Yours is a dogmatic, mandated belief system, with no critical thinking involved.  You merely parrot your indoctrination, without facts or reason.

All you have are logical fallacies.. you try to poison the well, dismiss by assertion, & deflect with irrelevant issues.  You merely illustrate your indoctrination, & ignore reason.

----------


## jet57

> That is absurd.  That is NOT my 'thesis' at all.  I am making no arguments trying to prove the reformation ended the dark ages.  That is an ASSUMPTION i make, based on many historical opinions & analyses.  My 'thesis', if you want to call it that, is that 'progressive ideology is driving us back to the dark ages'.  I support that premise with numbered points, facts, & historical evidence.
> 
> I see this as a deflection, still, to the central point of the OP.  You are attempting to nit pick some semantical details, rather than deal with the meat of the issue.
> 
> 
> Proselytizing?  Seriously?  Shirley, you jest.
> 
> I have provided a premise, & supported it with facts, history, & rational arguments.  That is a DEBATE.  I am not proselytizing for any ideology, but have presented the 2 basic ideologies & contrasted their central bases.
> 
> ...



Okay; apparently you have no idea what a thesis statement is, which doesn’t surprise me, because you don’t know what you’re writing either.  Moreover, there is nothing historical or analytical about anything you’ve said in this thread.  You’ve made glaringly ignorant assertions about a political perspective that you don’t like, so you tried to create an argument that places that perspective into “your version” of the dark ages, which is so silly that you should actually be embarrassed.

You have presented your opinion alone and haven’t backed up a single thing with any sort of information that would even be considered factual, let alone coherent enough to advance your argument, which is still beyond rational comprehension.  So, I’ll give you chance to prove a point:  name _one fact_ that you have presented that advances the argument that the progressives of this country are in the dark ages as we knew them.

Can you do that?

Your philosophical beliefs are evangelical Christian doctrine that colors the world around you and stamen like “The Reformation ended the Dark Ages” only proves it.  I have absolutely refuted everything you’ve written, _more than once_, and the only reason that you think that Marx, Darwin, Wilson and Dewey are _”swayed in their beliefs”_ is because you don’t have the slightest idea what the hell any of them ever talked about so you grab it out of your : ”things I just hate, but don’t know why” hat, open a thread and throw shit at the wall to see if any of will stick.  Moreover, you don’t have the slightest idea WHAT my beliefs are; I haven’t told you.  You’re just making it up as you go along.

Now, _go read up un Dewey!_ and then tell me I’m wrong.  Don’t sit in an ignorance bath and try and cram the too big square peg into the round hole because you can’t make a cogent argument about Dewy or anything else.  It’s not important that _anybody_ believes in Natural Rights because they are just and abstract concept that does not exist in the empirical world without a social contract to breathe life into them.

Finally, you have not accurately summarized anything to do with left OR right; you’ve inserted your biased opinion into subjects you know nothing about and your religious perspective keeps YOU in the dark ages.  Now, try and advance yourself by going out and proving the one fact that I asked you about earlier in this post.

----------


## BobJam

> Originally Posted by sooda
> 
> 
> Depends what country you are talking about. The science centers in Arabia have interactive displays about geology, tectonic plates and such... and at every station there is a small brass plate with verses about the creation story. Not much superstitious conflict among educated Muslims.
> 
> 
> Or among educated Christians. And a belief in a world wide flood does not automatically mean a belief in a flat earth. *There is some proof that much of the world was once covered by water*.





> Originally Posted by Dr. Felix Birdbiter
> 
> 
> Or among educated Christians. And a belief in a world wide flood does not automatically mean a belief in a flat earth. There is some proof that much of the world was once covered by water.
> 
> 
> A flat earth can't be flooded.
> 
> The stuff would fall of the edge.
> ...





> Originally Posted by Sled Dog
> 
> 
> A flat earth can't be flooded.
> 
> The stuff would fall of the edge.
> 
> And there's no evidence at all that any significant portion of the earth was ever flooded, especially not simultaneously in human history.
> 
> ...





> Originally Posted by Sled Dog
> 
> 
> And there's no evidence at all that any significant portion of the earth was ever flooded, especially not simultaneously in human history.
> 
> 
> There most certainly is, but you have been brainwashed into not even exploring the relevant facts, so you simply dismiss their existence.





> Originally Posted by Midgardian
> 
> 
> There most certainly is, but you have been brainwashed into not even exploring the relevant facts, so you simply dismiss their existence.
> 
> 
> No, there isn't.
> 
> And the continents formed some 3.5 to 4.0 billion years before the human species evolved.
> ...


 @Dr. Felix Birdbiter @Sled Dog @Midgardian

Rather than contribute to more thread drift, I've started a new thread here:  The Great Flood . . . myth or real?

I'm jumping in to your lively discussion on the flood story.  Would invite your comments.

----------


## usfan

> Okay; apparently you have no idea what a thesis statement is, which doesnt surprise me, because you dont know what youre writing either.  Moreover, there is nothing historical or analytical about anything youve said in this thread.  Youve made glaringly ignorant assertions about a political perspective that you dont like, so you tried to create an argument that places that perspective into your version of the dark ages, which is so silly that you should actually be embarrassed.
> 
> You have presented your opinion alone and havent backed up a single thing with any sort of information that would even be considered factual, let alone coherent enough to advance your argument, which is still beyond rational comprehension.  So, Ill give you chance to prove a point:  name _one fact_ that you have presented that advances the argument that the progressives of this country are in the dark ages as we knew them.
> 
> Can you do that?
> 
> Your philosophical beliefs are evangelical Christian doctrine that colors the world around you and stamen like The Reformation ended the Dark Ages only proves it.  I have absolutely refuted everything youve written, _more than once_, and the only reason that you think that Marx, Darwin, Wilson and Dewey are _swayed in their beliefs_ is because you dont have the slightest idea what the hell any of them ever talked about so you grab it out of your : things I just hate, but dont know why hat, open a thread and throw shit at the wall to see if any of will stick.  Moreover, you dont have the slightest idea WHAT my beliefs are; I havent told you.  Youre just making it up as you go along.
> 
> Now, _go read up un Dewey!_ and then tell me Im wrong.  Dont sit in an ignorance bath and try and cram the too big square peg into the round hole because you cant make a cogent argument about Dewy or anything else.  Its not important that _anybody_ believes in Natural Rights because they are just and abstract concept that does not exist in the empirical world without a social contract to breathe life into them.
> ...


No arguments.  No facts.  No debate.  You have ad hominem & other logical fallacies, which are antithetical to the enlightenment values of reason & science.  You probably don't realize it, but you are illustrating the OP with your replies.  Your pathetic attempts to lecture me are not even witty.  Most leftists at least try for some wit with their insults & deflections.

You offer me nothing to debate.  You have no points, no rebuttals, & don't provide facts or quotes, just your emotional beliefs.  It is clear to me you are either completely indoctrinated into your dogmatic ideology, or you are an active player/deceiver, hoping to benefit from some socialist utopian system, that you help usher in.  Your obsession & hatred for 'white protestants!' & inability to discuss ideas without focusing on identity politics also exposes you as a partisan dupe.. a useful idiot for leftist manipulation.

My philosophical beliefs are mainstream American, with roots in the reformation, the enlightenment, the scientific revolution, & the age of reason.  These are beliefs that the left makes a caricature of, to manipulate people to vote against the best interests of the nation.

Here is what you offer:
Revisionist history.Mandated science.Mandated beliefs in the State Religion.Distorted facts, to promote an agenda.Violence & force to promote your collectivist agenda.Constant lies & propaganda, to deceive the electorate.Elitist rule, using oppression & controlUndermine & destroy the American Experiment in self rule.Departure from enlightenment & American values of human equality, Natural Law, & self rule.A return to the dark ages.
This is obviously what you want, as well as the rest of your leftist comrades.  Most of the useful idiots who vote do not see this subtle undercurrent of ideology, changing the values of the nation, & slowly morphing us into a naturalistic, collectivist hell hole, but that is the direction you are driving us.

Some of us will not sit idly by & watch you destroy the only successful experiment in self rule, but will resist you & expose the deadly evil of this collectivist, marxist ideology.  But we are a dying breed, & will not likely prevail over the constant drum of progressivism, blaring constantly over the propaganda loudspeakers.  I will die a free American.  I will take with me the memory of a dream.. a nation of self rule, where freedom, equality, & opportunity were the standards for the culture.

----------

Rutabaga (05-02-2017)

----------


## ChemEngineer



----------


## Sled Dog

> Jet57, do you have aids?  Is that your problem?


It doesn't look like anyone's helping him.

----------


## RobertLafollet

The dark ages were pretty much restricted to Western Europe.  Byzantium was not affected and the Muslim states were in intellectual flower.

----------


## Rutabaga

> The dark ages were pretty much restricted to Western Europe.  Byzantium was not affected and the *Muslim states were in intellectual flower.*




yes,,the blooming idiot stage...

----------


## usfan

> The dark ages were pretty much restricted to Western Europe.  Byzantium was not affected and the Muslim states were in intellectual flower.


I am addressing the european 'dark ages', & the conditions or traits of the time.  No doubt other 'dark ages' in other cultures & regions had a similar history.

I don't really agree with the concept of 'intellectual flower' in the muslim world.. theirs was a culture of conquest & absorption, taking what they liked, & killing everyone else.  Even so-called 'arabic numbers' were hijacked from the hindus of india.  Most of the 'culture' was stolen from the indigenous people they conquered & 'converted' at the edge of a sword.

Originality was not a trait of the muslim conquerors.. they ended up getting some 'culture', but only after a time of relative peace, when they had conquered & converted the surrounding regions.

Byzantine culture was no exception.  They defended, for a while, the muslim onslaught, but eventually they also had to submit to the conquerors, who also absorbed their art & advances.  The bedouins got tired of living in huts & tents, & admired the houses, plumbing, streets, & architecture of more advanced civilized cultures.  When they were in charge, after conquering their neighbors, they had a time of relative peace, as long as everyone bowed to their totalitarian rule.

IMO, the brutality of the islamic conquerors contributed to the dark ages in europe.  The common people were afraid of the muslim hordes, & allowed the rule of divinely appointed Kings, to protect them from annihilation.  Martel repelled the muslim invaders, in the middle of the middle ages.  It gave credence to his Divine Ability, & if anything, put the reformation off by a  few centuries.  It was not until europe was relatively free from mongul or islamic hordes, that the principles of the reformation were able to gain traction.

----------

iceberg (05-04-2017),Sled Dog (05-06-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

Byzantium which last till 1453 was conquered by the Turks and not the Bedouins.

----------


## jet57

> No arguments.  No facts.  No debate.  You have ad hominem & other logical fallacies, which are antithetical to the enlightenment values of reason & science.  You probably don't realize it, but you are illustrating the OP with your replies.  Your pathetic attempts to lecture me are not even witty.  Most leftists at least try for some wit with their insults & deflections.
> 
> You offer me nothing to debate.  You have no points, no rebuttals, & don't provide facts or quotes, just your emotional beliefs.  It is clear to me you are either completely indoctrinated into your dogmatic ideology, or you are an active player/deceiver, hoping to benefit from some socialist utopian system, that you help usher in.  Your obsession & hatred for 'white protestants!' & inability to discuss ideas without focusing on identity politics also exposes you as a partisan dupe.. a useful idiot for leftist manipulation.
> 
> My philosophical beliefs are mainstream American, with roots in the reformation, the enlightenment, the scientific revolution, & the age of reason.  These are beliefs that the left makes a caricature of, to manipulate people to vote against the best interests of the nation.
> 
> Here is what you offer:
> Revisionist history.Mandated science.Mandated beliefs in the State Religion.Distorted facts, to promote an agenda.Violence & force to promote your collectivist agenda.Constant lies & propaganda, to deceive the electorate.Elitist rule, using oppression & controlUndermine & destroy the American Experiment in self rule.Departure from enlightenment & American values of human equality, Natural Law, & self rule.A return to the dark ages.
> This is obviously what you want, as well as the rest of your leftist comrades.  Most of the useful idiots who vote do not see this subtle undercurrent of ideology, changing the values of the nation, & slowly morphing us into a naturalistic, collectivist hell hole, but that is the direction you are driving us.
> ...


57339241130000f004381569.jpg

----------


## sooda

Where were the first hospitals, libraries and universities? I know that the first university was in ancient India.... and Muslim Spain had hospitals. Any indication that Europe had any of those things prior to the dark ages?

----------


## Dave37

I'd think collections of power and people can enlighten things with libraries, hospitals, etc but nowhere has it ever blossomed like western Europe, and withered elsewhere until they started copying western civilization. Though many seem only interested in it's technology to be the biggest barbarians on their block.

----------

usfan (05-07-2017)

----------


## sooda

> I'd think collections of power and people can enlighten things with libraries, hospitals, etc but nowhere has it ever blossomed like western Europe, and withered elsewhere until they started copying western civilization. Though many seem only interested in it's technology to be the biggest barbarians on their block.


That was my question.. Were there libraries, hospitals and universities in Western Europe before the Dark Ages?

Always seemed to me that the Catholic church really contributed to the Dark Ages.

----------


## Dave37

> That was my question.. Were there libraries, hospitals and universities in Western Europe before the Dark Ages?  Always seemed to me that the Catholic church really contributed to the Dark Ages.


   Catholic monks are credited with saving a lot of classical learning. I don't think anybody has a problem with "enlightenment' opening up elsewhere and/or earlier but at least in the middle east it didn't seem to survive the religion there.

----------


## sooda

> Catholic monks are credited with saving a lot of classical learning. I don't think anybody has a problem with "enlightenment' opening up elsewhere and/or earlier but at least in the middle east it didn't seem to survive the religion there.


Most monasteries were rude, impoverished places... not much classical learning going  on when monks were working barefoot in the garden and milking cows. Its not like in the movies.

----------


## Dave37

> Most monasteries were rude, impoverished places... not much classical learning going  on when monks were working barefoot in the garden and milking cows. Its not like in the movies.


  Not like it was in the movies? How old are you?  I think an historical search will turn up a lot of manuscripts carefully copied over the generations. I don't know why you want to deny the Catholics contribution when you are defending the Muslims contribution, doesn't sound very enlightened to me, no offense.

----------

Rutabaga (05-06-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> That was my question.. Were there libraries, hospitals and universities in Western Europe before the Dark Ages?
> 
> Always seemed to me that the Catholic church really contributed to the Dark Ages.


But not as much as Islame did.

Islame is still living in the dark ages.

----------

usfan (05-07-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Most monasteries were rude, impoverished places... not much classical learning going  on when monks were working barefoot in the garden and milking cows. Its not like in the movies.


That's right.   Only islame saved European culture.   Just like they did for India.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Catholic monks are credited with saving a lot of classical learning. I don't think anybody has a problem with "enlightenment' opening up elsewhere and/or earlier but at least in the middle east it didn't seem to survive the religion there.


Islame doesn't want anyone to be enlightened.

----------

Dave37 (05-06-2017),Rutabaga (05-06-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Byzantium which last till 1453 was conquered by the Turks and not the Bedouins.



You mean, of course, the Turks who used to be camel-fucking Bedouins.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Where were the first hospitals, libraries and universities? I know that the first university was in ancient India.... and Muslim Spain had hospitals. Any indication that Europe had any of those things prior to the dark ages?



pssssstt.....everyone.....be very quiet.....we don't want @sooda to know that Rome and Greece are in Europe.

----------

Midgardian (05-06-2017),Rutabaga (05-06-2017),usfan (05-07-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

I will suggest that the problem with the Middle ages was that wealth and power was concentrated in the hands of the few.

----------


## Midgardian

Want to return to the dark ages?

Enroll in the University of Midgardian - now for an introductory trial offer of $19.95/quarter!

----------


## Midgardian

> I will suggest that the problem with the Middle ages was that wealth and power was concentrated in the hands of the few.


Kind of like the Soviet Union, eh?

----------


## Sled Dog

> I will suggest that the problem with the Middle ages was that wealth and power was concentrated in the hands of the few.


There's really nothing to say to a comment as empty headed as this one, is there?  I mean, here is a socialist with the socialist's agenda of making everyone once again a slave to a group of elites complaining that what he's after worked so well in the Middle Ages, too.

----------


## Rutabaga

> I will suggest that the problem with the Middle ages was that wealth and power was concentrated in the hands of the few.


thats been your answer to everything bob...


have you ever given a thought to how much actual cash would be redistributed if ALL of it from EVERYONE on the planet were divided up equally?

i have,,its not that difficult,,,global population divided by liquid global wealth...

it amounts to just under $3500.00 US dollars per person. [every man, woman, child on the planet]

now if you gave that to some,,say poor ghetto folks from democrat held cities, its most likely they would spend it on expensive tennis shoes, cell phones and gold chains and be broke again in a week...

others might use the same money to start a business, pay down debt or just party..

the wise would figure out how to use it to increase its potential..

soo bob,,poor people are poor mostly because they suck at handling money...

while the rich know how to use it to make more.

which one are you bob?

did you live at or below your means, or did you constantly increase your debt?

have you taught your children to be fiscally responsible?

to sacrifice now at their peak earning years so they can enjoy more later when they wont have as much leverage?

are they poor because they made poor choices?

whose fault is that, bob?

people who made wiser decisions than you/yours?

take some responsibility...take it all bob...

----------

JustPassinThru (05-06-2017),Midgardian (05-06-2017),usfan (05-06-2017)

----------


## sooda

> There's really nothing to say to a comment as empty headed as this one, is there?  I mean, here is a socialist with the socialist's agenda of making everyone once again a slave to a group of elites complaining that what he's after worked so well in the Middle Ages, too.


No country with a democratic system can survive without a robust middle class. America won't survive as a republic without a literate middle class and a free press.

----------


## Midgardian

> No country with a democratic system can survive without a robust middle class. America won't survive as a republic without a literate middle class and a free press.


How does importing Muslims help accomplish those objectives?

----------

Dave37 (05-08-2017),usfan (05-06-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> No country with a democratic system can survive without a robust middle class. America won't survive as a republic without a literate middle class and a free press.


the middle class just dumped the progs this last election...and fewer college age people are opting for the ripoff that college has become for so many...how many "womens study" professions are needed, or most "liberal arts" diplomas?

whos doing the actual work while others reap their sweat?

whos judging the masters, the "intellectuals" who contribute nothing but false hope and worthless pieces of paper at a ever increasing cost for no other reason than to provide tenure for unqualified workers?

its just like the actors who judge each other and hand out praise and rewards to each other,,,its the education cartel smugly ensuring they know best while sucking the life blood out of the very ones they are paid to enlighten all the while sending them out into the real world with worthless degrees and crushing debt...

----------

usfan (05-07-2017)

----------


## JustPassinThru

The middle class did not create capitalism or our representative republic.

Capitalism, the Industrial Revolution and our republican government allowed the formation of a middle class, of skilled tradesmen, middle-managers and small entrepreneurs.

Government can NOT create a "middle class."  What they do, in tyrannical collectivist systems, is create a Vassal Class of lackeys, _apparatchiks_ and court-flatterers who benefit from the largesse of the Royal or the Soviet.

That is not a middle class.

----------


## jet57

> How does importing Muslims help accomplish those objectives?


Stormfront much?

----------

sooda (05-06-2017)

----------


## sooda

> pssssstt.....everyone.....be very quiet.....we don't want @sooda to know that Rome and Greece are in Europe.


The first university was in India and predates Greece and Rome. The first library was probably in Alexandria, Egypt. The first hospital was in Muslim Spain. 

You see, sled dog .. Europe was still in the dark ages and the Catholic church pretty much stifled science and medicine. They were pretty busy burning heretics, witches and Cathars.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Stormfront much?


go back under your rock, troll...

----------


## sooda

> the middle class just dumped the progs this last election...and fewer college age people are opting for the ripoff that college has become for so many...how many "womens study" professions are needed, or most "liberal arts" diplomas?
> 
> whos doing the actual work while others reap their sweat?
> 
> whos judging the masters, the "intellectuals" who contribute nothing but false hope and worthless pieces of paper at a ever increasing cost for no other reason than to provide tenure for unqualified workers?
> 
> its just like the actors who judge each other and hand out praise and rewards to each other,,,its the education cartel smugly ensuring they know best while sucking the life blood out of the very ones they are paid to enlighten all the while sending them out into the real world with worthless degrees and crushing debt...


Most Americans were well aware of the shrinking middle class during the Bush administration.

You want to blame the universities, but by the second quarter of 2001 the economy was beginning its freefall. All the fortune 500 companies had hiring freezes, we were coming off the dot com bubble and the price or housing was going up MONTHLY.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Most Americans were well aware of the shrinking middle class during the Bush administration.
> 
> You want to blame the universities, but by the second quarter of 2001 the economy was beginning its freefall. All the fortune 500 companies had hiring freezes, we were coming off the dot com bubble and the price or housing was going up MONTHLY.


i blame the democrats,,period...they control the educational system,,they control hollywood where most young folks get their "education" now, i blame the media, news orgs. who further push prog mantras/ideals/falsehoods and i blame the middleclass for not doing something about it sooner...

----------


## Sled Dog

> No country with a democratic system can survive without a robust middle class. America won't survive as a republic without a literate middle class and a free press.


No shit.

Why do you think I oppose socialists AND moose limbs?

----------

Rutabaga (05-06-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> The first university was in India and predates Greece and Rome.


Predates moose-limbism, too, which destroyed the great civilization that was India.

Beside you leaving out that important piece of info, who gives a flying shit where "the first" university was?

Was Mohammed the first camel-pumper to ride goats? Is that important somehow?




> You see, sled dog .. Europe was still in the dark ages and the Catholic church pretty much stifled science and medicine. They were pretty busy burning heretics, witches and Cathars.


You mean like what ALL of islame is like TODAY.

Like what the Rodents are today, with their AGW crap.

What's your point, toots?


====
Final point to the taqiyya thing:

Who built Alexandria and where was he from?

----------

Rutabaga (05-06-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Predates moose-limbism, too, which destroyed the great civilization that was India.
> 
> Beside you leaving out that important piece of info, who gives a flying shit where "the first" university was?
> 
> Was Mohammed the first camel-pumper to ride goats? Is that important somehow?


its typical soda re-direction...when she cannot directly confront issues, she goes off into the weeds...

----------


## sooda

> Predates moose-limbism, too, which destroyed the great civilization that was India.
> 
> Beside you leaving out that important piece of info, who gives a flying shit where "the first" university was?
> 
> Was Mohammed the first camel-pumper to ride goats? Is that important somehow?
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like what ALL of islame is like TODAY.
> ...


No these small, ugly terror groups are in response to changes in the Muslim world.

----------


## Rutabaga

> No these small, ugly terror groups are in response to changes in the Muslim world.


common knowledge.

----------


## Midgardian

> Want to return to the dark ages?
> 
> Enroll in the University of Midgardian - now for an introductory trial offer of $19.95/quarter!


You get what you pay for!

----------


## Midgardian

> Stormfront much?


Thunderstorms are approaching L.A. County as I type.

But that has nothing to do with importing Muslims into the republic.

----------


## jet57

> Thunderstorms are approaching L.A. County as I type.
> 
> But that has nothing to do with importing Muslims into the republic.


Yep: you _Stormfront_.

----------


## Rutabaga

> Yep: you _Stormfront_.


yep,,you troll...

----------

Midgardian (05-06-2017)

----------


## usfan

> I will suggest that the problem with the Middle ages was that wealth and power was concentrated in the hands of the few.


That was in  the OP..




> 4. Wealth was concentrated in the hands of the elite, ruling classes. There was no middle class. The privileged elite did not work, themselves, but were leeches & looters of the production from the working class.The ruling elite were above the laws that they themselves decreed & enforced.

----------


## sooda

> Predates moose-limbism, too, which destroyed the great civilization that was India.
> Beside you leaving out that important piece of info, who gives a flying shit where "the first" university was?
> 
> Was Mohammed the first camel-pumper to ride goats? Is that important somehow?
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like what ALL of islame is like TODAY.
> 
> ...


Here' the point:

 Originally Posted by *Sled Dog* 
_
pssssstt.....everyone.....be very quiet.....we don't want @sooda to know that Rome and Greece are in Europe._

----------


## ChemEngineer

> As one of the leftists on this forum I find the OP's post totally wrong.
> 1)  The American left wants power to the people not the 1%.


"The 1%:  George Soros, Leftist.  Hanoi John Kerry.  Hanoi Jane Fonda.  Al The Whale Gore.  Barack and Michelle Obama.  Bill and Hillary.  Their countless Fat Cat friends, like Richard Branson.  Nancy Pelosi.  Warren Buffett.    Hollywood Ignorati.  Pocahantos Warren.  Jesse Jackson.



> 2)  We differ in our interpretation of the Constitution.  In fact I think the lefts (sic) interpretation is closer to the interpretation of the founding fathers (sic) then (sic) the rights. (sic)




iamdisappointmentheather_fullpic.png


My but aren't YOU well read and enlightened.  Surely we can trust what you say about the Constitution and the Founding Fathers.  Just one question.  Have you EVER read anything like, oh, the Federalist Papers?  I can quote some of their libertarian comments for you.  You seem blissfully unaware of them.



> 3)  We are born equal.  Blacks are equal to whites.  Asian are equal.  Muslims are equal.  A rich man is the equal of a poor man.


Then WHY do you Leftists insist on preferential treatment for blacks?  WHY do you Leftists play the race card constantly, pitting race against race, encouraging out of wedlock births, crime, ignorance, unemployment, and justifying anything you want on the basis of "discrimination" which manifests itself most virulently in black-on-white crime?  [Read *White Girl Don't Bleed Much* and _Don't Make the Black Kids Angry_, by Colin Ferguson. * Vision of the Anointed*, by Thomas Sowell.
"I've always thought women are the equal of men, if not more so." - Al The Whale Gore, inventor of the internet, the Tesla, the Space Shuttle, the iPhone, and the Solar Cell, in case you didn't know.

"And we all know the tiger doesn't change its spots."  So there.

Such sophistication is what America really needs.   Just ask any sophisticator, like, oh Bobby.

----------

BobJam (05-06-2017)

----------


## usfan

> The first university was in India and predates Greece and Rome. The first library was probably in Alexandria, Egypt. The first hospital was in Muslim Spain. 
> You see, sled dog .. Europe was still in the dark ages and the Catholic church pretty much stifled science and medicine. They were pretty busy burning heretics, witches and Cathars.


..and what were the CONDITIONS & characteristics of the dark ages?  What was their ideology & agenda?  THAT is the issue, not the region, or the culture, or the religious beliefs, or other irrelevant issues.

The 'stifling' of science & medicine was for control by the elites.. they did not promote open inquiry, but mandated conformity, as the scientific elites do now.

As to the rest of your claims, i have serious doubts about your assertions, but since they are irrelevant to the discussion, i have no need to rebut them.  I am showing the similarity in ideology, methodology, & practice from the dark ages elites & the progressive elites.  Freedom & open inquiry are NOT important to these systems, but control & domination.

A lot is made about 'witch burning!' in past times, but it pales in comparison to the persecution of the reformers, who resisted the mandates & control of the ruling elites.  Actual 'witch burning!' was very rare, & i doubt it if was more than a few hundred or thousand.  But the persecution of protestants & reformers was in the millions.

And, the real issue is the ideology that supports such intolerance, persecution, & mandated conformity.  You see that same intolerance from the left, now, as you did from the inquisitions from the elites in the dark ages.  They may not have the power, YET, to kill or torture, but they use every other means to bully, intimidate, & squash other views, & promote their own as the Only True Belief.

----------


## sooda

> ..and what were the CONDITIONS & characteristics of the dark ages?  What was their ideology & agenda?  THAT is the issue, not the region, or the culture, or the religious beliefs, or other irrelevant issues.
> 
> The 'stifling' of science & medicine was for control by the elites.. they did not promote open inquiry, but mandated conformity, as the scientific elites do now.
> 
> As to the rest of your claims, i have serious doubts about your assertions, but since they are irrelevant to the discussion, i have no need to rebut them.  I am showing the similarity in ideology, methodology, & practice from the dark ages elites & the progressive elites.  Freedom & open inquiry are NOT important to these systems, but control & domination.
> 
> A lot is made about 'witch burning!' in past times, but it pales in comparison to the persecution of the reformers, who resisted the mandates & control of the ruling elites.  Actual 'witch burning!' was very rare, & i doubt it if was more than a few hundred or thousand.  But the persecution of protestants & reformers was in the millions.
> 
> And, the real issue is the ideology that supports such intolerance, persecution, & mandated conformity.  You see that same intolerance from the left, now, as you did from the inquisitions from the elites in the dark ages.  They may not have the power, YET, to kill or torture, but they use every other means to bully, intimidate, & squash other views, & promote their own as the Only True Belief.


Martin Luther wasn't even born until 1483.. What dates are you assigning to the Dark Ages?

----------


## usfan

> Yep: you _Stormfront_.


Identity politics at work.  Issues are avoided, while smears & labels are used to deflect from any rational discussion.

Let's see.. i have seen you use 'white protestants!', as a pejorative, 'Racist!' with the stormfront association, & i think i remember some kind of shot at 'evangelicals!' in there, too.

That seems to be the major weapon in your arsenal.  No facts.  No reason.  No history.  No common sense.  You can only dismiss & deflect with smears by association, which you think invalidates your opponent's reasoning.  It does not.  That is only a logical fallacy, that you use to deflect from your impotent arguments.  It is a form of ad hominem, & is the hallmark of a defeated debater.

----------

BobJam (05-07-2017),JustPassinThru (05-07-2017)

----------


## usfan

> Martin Luther wasn't even born until 1483.. What dates are you assigning to the Dark Ages?

----------


## usfan

> Attachment 21697


How does posting selfies contribute to the discussion?

----------


## ChemEngineer

> A lot is made about 'witch burning!' in past times, but it pales in comparison to the persecution of the reformers, who resisted the mandates & control of the ruling elites.  Actual 'witch burning!' was very rare, & i doubt it if was more than a few hundred or thousand.


Fan, my Friend, you have to wonder why soda doesn't move to the middle east, wear a hijab, and become someone's fourth wife, so enamored is she by the Muslims.  She and Hillary, who of course laughed as she bragged about getting Thomas Tayler, rapist of a 12-year-old girl, off with only 10 months in jail.  Hillary argued that her client, the child rapist, was "enticed" by the little girl, who wanted it.   Does Hillary sound like  a defender of women's rights to you?  Sooda adores her.  Why she hangs around here to troll, when no liberal dominated forum will tolerate a conservative is puzzling.  Obviously she enjoys getting pummeled.

----------

usfan (05-07-2017)

----------


## sooda

> Fan, my Friend, you have to wonder why soda doesn't move to the middle east, wear a hijab, and become someone's fourth wife, so enamored is she by the Muslims.  She and Hillary, who of course laughed as she bragged about getting Thomas Tayler, rapist of a 12-year-old girl, off with only 10 months in jail.  Hillary argued that her client, the child rapist, was "enticed" by the little girl, who wanted it.   Does Hillary sound like  a defender of women's rights to you?  Sooda adores her.  Why she hangs around here to troll, when no liberal dominated forum will tolerate a conservative is puzzling.  Obviously she enjoys getting pummeled.


Every defense attorney swears to provide a vigorous defense for their client. Are you opposed to our legal system now? Further, Hillary was appointed to defend the guy by the court.

Americans and Christians can't be Saudi citizens nor can they have a visa without some purpose.

I do not adore Hillary, never have. I don't think she should have run for president.

American women don't wear hijab.

The more you know the less you will make ignorant accusations.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Fan, my Friend, you have to wonder why soda doesn't move to the middle east, wear a hijab, and become someone's fourth wife, so enamored is she by the Muslims.  She and Hillary, who of course laughed as she bragged about getting Thomas Tayler, rapist of a 12-year-old girl, off with only 10 months in jail.  Hillary argued that her client, the child rapist, was "enticed" by the little girl, who wanted it.   Does Hillary sound like  a defender of women's rights to you?  Sooda adores her.  Why she hangs around here to troll, when no liberal dominated forum will tolerate a conservative is puzzling.  Obviously she enjoys getting pummeled.


This is a political forum.  Wouldn't you get bored if all you had were people who agreed with you?  What would you learn?

----------

Rutabaga (05-07-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Here' the point:
> 
>  Originally Posted by *Sled Dog* 
> _
> pssssstt.....everyone.....be very quiet.....we don't want @sooda to know that Rome and Greece are in Europe._



Instead of answering the important question, she babbles off into repeating amusing anecdotes...

----------


## Sled Dog

> Most Americans were well aware of the shrinking middle class during the Bush administration.
> 
> You want to blame the universities, but by the second quarter of 2001 the economy was beginning its freefall. All the fortune 500 companies had hiring freezes, we were coming off the dot com bubble and the price or housing was going up MONTHLY.


Oh, yawn.

WHAT caused the "shrinking middle class"?

Oh.

That's right.

Socialism.

The Invasion.

The fucking moose limbs.

What didn't cause the middle class to shrink?

Smaller government.  Because we, none of us, have ever once seen the government get smaller from the day we were born until today.

----------


## Sled Dog

> No these small, ugly terror groups are in response to changes in the Muslim world.



More than 50% of moose limbs in the world support the terroristic jihad against the free peoples.

Ergo, terrorism is moose limb MAINSTREAM.

Terrorism is the NORM for moose limbism.  It was when those animals invaded India, it was when they invaded Europe in the Middle Ages, it IS NOW.

Terrorism IS islame.

There no divorcing the two.

----------

Rutabaga (05-07-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Thunderstorms are approaching L.A. County as I type.
> 
> But that has nothing to do with importing Muslims into the republic.


I slept through the storm.  Pity.

But it washed the street, which was nice because I'd backflushed my pool filter yesterday and that drain goes out to the street, then across the street to the storm drain.

Not that anyone cares.

----------


## Rutabaga

> This is a political forum.  Wouldn't you get bored if all you had were people who agreed with you?  What would you learn?


i know i would...besides,,,who would believe us when we told them of people like,,oh,,i dont know, usurpers?

imagine trying to tell someone that words have no meaning, that the definitions can be changed on a whim, or that the known actions of some were just misconstrued..

kinda defeats the whole point of history, eh?

to remember, so we can learn not to make the same mistakes again...

is that why progs dont do history?

because it ALWAYS makes them look bad?

i dont blame them,,for what else could they do?

except,,try to rewrite it,,,by controlling whats remembered through the "education system"....reverse the blame and put it on the opposition...

i yearn for a day THAT is history, bob...

history to be taught to future generations so as to never be forgotten again...

----------

usfan (05-07-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> ..and what were the CONDITIONS & characteristics of the dark ages?  What was their ideology & agenda?  THAT is the issue, not the region, or the culture, or the religious beliefs, or other irrelevant issues.
> 
> The 'stifling' of science & medicine was for control by the elites.. they did not promote open inquiry, but mandated conformity, as the scientific elites do now.
> 
> As to the rest of your claims, i have serious doubts about your assertions, but since they are irrelevant to the discussion, i have no need to rebut them.  I am showing the similarity in ideology, methodology, & practice from the dark ages elites & the progressive elites.  Freedom & open inquiry are NOT important to these systems, but control & domination.
> 
> A lot is made about 'witch burning!' in past times, but it pales in comparison to the persecution of the reformers, who resisted the mandates & control of the ruling elites.  Actual 'witch burning!' was very rare, & i doubt it if was more than a few hundred or thousand.  But the persecution of protestants & reformers was in the millions.
> 
> And, the real issue is the ideology that supports such intolerance, persecution, & mandated conformity.  You see that same intolerance from the left, now, as you did from the inquisitions from the elites in the dark ages.  They may not have the power, YET, to kill or torture, but they use every other means to bully, intimidate, & squash other views, & promote their own as the Only True Belief.


Let's state the obvious.  Most of the persecution in the Middle Ages was due to the Catholic Church.  The Pope tried to be the successor to the Roman emperor.  He demanded the fealty of every European ruler.   Basically the popes of the Middle Ages want to turn Europe into one large theocracy.  

The military leaders who became the Kings, dukes and Barron's of western Europe were bawsically military dictators.  Like most dictators they feared the people.  They wanted to keep the peasants tied to the land so that they could collect a part of there produce in taxes.  They were not educated and they feared education.  The cities developed guilds (unions) which became competing power sources.  Since these were the technologists of the day they were more educated.    They also found what was then international trade useful.

Meanwhile in the Muslim world and Byzantine world both of which influenced the Mediterranean world and particularly Italy an attempt to maintain education and science.  Then about 1700 the Middle East went into decline.  The Ottoman's became corrupt.  This is one of the problems we have now the Middle East needs another group of Ottomans to control it.

----------


## Sled Dog

> This is a political forum.  Wouldn't you get bored if all you had were people who agreed with you?  What would you learn?


Actually, the conservatives here are hunting snarks.

A snark is a left winger capable of using reason and fact to construct logical arguments to promote the proposition that people should be slaves to Masters.

YOU promote the idea of slavery.  In fact, you LOVE the idea.
 @sooda promotes the idea of slavery to a moon-god for camel-rapers, but she doesn't use logic, either.


The Americans on the board post here for each other, awaiting the snark and certain that the beasties do not exist.  In the mean time, we receive from each other knowledge of events and viewpoints on those events that aren't obvious to some of us at first.


YOU are always looking for unicorns that shit rainbows.  YOU believe they exist.

----------


## sooda

> Actually, the conservatives here are hunting snarks.
> 
> A snark is a left winger capable of using reason and fact to construct logical arguments to promote the proposition that people should be slaves to Masters.
> 
> YOU promote the idea of slavery.  In fact, you LOVE the idea.
>  @sooda promotes the idea of slavery to a moon-god for camel-rapers, but she doesn't use logic, either.
> 
> 
> The Americans on the board post here for each other, awaiting the snark and certain that the beasties do not exist.  In the mean time, we receive from each other knowledge of events and viewpoints on those events that aren't obvious to some of us at first.
> ...


You sure are fixated on moon gods and camel rapers. Does that turn you on?

----------


## Sled Dog

> Meanwhile in the Muslim world and Byzantine world both of which influenced the Mediterranean world and particularly Italy an attempt to maintain education and science.  Then about 1700 the Middle East went into decline.  The Ottoman's became corrupt.  This is one of the problems we have now the Middle East needs another group of Ottomans to control it.


Always the same with the damned socialists.

They're always seeking another MASTER to control people.

If it ain't that cunt Hillary, it's a new footrest for the animals of islame.

What the people of islame NEED to enter the modern world is FREEDOM of religion, FREEDOM of thought, FREEDOM of speech and the press, FREEDOM of economics and FREEDOM from government tyranny.

The complete opposite of what @RobertLafollet and all the other fascist trash seek.

----------


## Sled Dog

> You sure are fixated on moon gods and camel rapers. Does that turn you on?


No.  You do not.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> i know i would...besides,,,who would believe us when we told them of people like,,oh,,i dont know, usurpers?
> 
> imagine trying to tell someone that words have no meaning, that the definitions can be changed on a whim, or that the known actions of some were just misconstrued..
> 
> kinda defeats the whole point of history, eh?
> 
> to remember, so we can learn not to make the same mistakes again...
> 
> is that why progs dont do history?
> ...


Of course as a degreed historian I'd like to see more history taught.  But as a degreed historian I also know that history is always interpreted.  I also kow that the meaning of words changes.  For instance few would disagree with the statement Hitler was a totalitarian, but depending on your political persuasion he was either a right winger or a leftwinger.  Nobody wants him.  Hitler, himself, would have likely called himself a popularly elected anti-communist.  That to some extent would be a true statement.  He did start as popularly elected and sine the communists were rivals he opposed them.  

I might quote a line from Jesus Christ Super Star.  Pilot says "Are your truths the same as my truths?"

----------


## Rutabaga

> Of course as a degreed historian I'd like to see more history taught.  But as a degreed historian I also know that history is always interpreted.  I also kow that the meaning of words changes.  For instance few would disagree with the statement Hitler was a totalitarian, but depending on your political persuasion he was either a right winger or a leftwinger.  Nobody wants him.  Hitler, himself, would have likely called himself a popularly elected anti-communist.  That to some extent would be a true statement.  He did start as popularly elected and sine the communists were rivals he opposed them.  
> 
> I might quote a line from Jesus Christ Super Star.  Pilot says "Are your truths the same as my truths?"


i agree that "history is written by the victors" and that progs do everything in their power to rewrite their past...as i said earlier,,i dont blame them as its a shameful one...however, i can bring to light more recent examples of progs forgetting even their most recent heinous actions, their most recent insane acts [insane by the very definition of the word,,unless you wish to argue its definition]...

a recent past i personally remember, so no written account is needed..

----------


## RobertLafollet

And I have experienced the success of American socialism and seen how the right rewrites history including that I experienced.

----------


## iceberg

> You sure are fixated on moon gods and camel rapers. Does that turn you on?


like trumps tweets and your fascination with them?

----------


## iceberg

> And I have experienced the success of American socialism and seen how the right rewrites history including that I experienced.


you mean like how the left is redefining "fascism" right now?

*Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism,[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce,[3] 
*
dictatorial power - each side says the other is. tie.
forcible suppression of opposition? - which side is forbiding the other to speak under the guise of protecting THEIR rights?
control of industry - which side wants the government to control and regulate everything?

anti-fa sounds more like whole-lotta-fa to me.

but wait - they're redefining it now aren't they. liberal tactic - blame the other side for doing what you're doing right in front of them and keep saying NO YOU ARE!

not working, robs.

----------

Rutabaga (05-07-2017),usfan (05-07-2017)

----------


## iceberg

then hell - nazi.

*What were the main characteristics of the Nazi State 1933-1939?*

(A “Team Essay” done by my students on Google Docs)
In January 1933 Hitler became Chancellor of Germany. He soon set about the task of making himself the absolute ruler of the country and created a totalitarian dictatorship. He introduced the Enabling Act and banned all other political parties, to become eventually become “Der Fuhrer”. Other Nazi characteristics that I believe are significant are: Propaganda , Education , Anti-semitism , Terror and the Nazi run Economy. *4*
Propaganda was a massive characteristic of Nazi state in Germany. Hitler knew the importance of *propaganda*. In this he was greatly assisted by Joseph Goebbels who once said “ *If you tell a big lie for long enough people will believe it*” Goebbels introduced “Heil Hitler “ and the slogan “ Ein Volk , ein Reich , ein Fulmar!”. The Nazis controlled Newspapers. They were subjects of severe censorship. The Nazis also controlled the radio. The Nazis “ Peoples Receiver” was available on a cheap price of 76 Marks. Jazz music was banned and the radio had a narrow waveband, sp Germans could only listen to Nazi controlled radio.In cinemas Jewish actors and directors were banned. Movie that played were mostly propaganda movies like “ Triumph of the Will” or Anti-semitic movies like “Eternal Jew”. *7*
Propaganda was also seen in the Nazi education system and in the Hitler Youth Movements. From a young age children were indoctrinated with Nazi ideals. All teachers had to be vetted by Nazi officials and any teachers considered disloyal were fined. Even school subjects were wrought with propaganda lies. History lessons were taught so as to glorify Germany and Hitler and condemn Jews. Biology was used to educate children on “blood purity” and to teach the importance of selecting the right partner when marrying. Youth movements were also a main characteristic of the state, again used for indoctrinating the minds of the young. Hitler wanted “young men and women who can suffer pain”. In 1936 it became compulsory to join the Hitler Youth. There were separate organisations for boys and girls. The German League of Maidens for girls and the Hitler Youth for the boys. Boys were taught to prepare for military service whereas girls were prepared for motherhood. For boys, part of their military training was to be able to shoot a gun, read maps, dig and how to throw a grenade. For girls, they had to be able to complete a two hour march, swim 100 metres and know how to make a bed.* 11 (paragraph should have been broken for more marks)*

which side has the press with them? that would be the left.
which side has the school systems re-writing history to fit their beliefs and wants to tear down history that shows our past? that would be the left.

wow. anti-fa's sound like nazis more than constitutionalism.

----------

Rutabaga (05-07-2017),usfan (05-07-2017)

----------


## jet57

> Identity politics at work.  Issues are avoided, while smears & labels are used to deflect from any rational discussion.
> 
> Let's see.. i have seen you use 'white protestants!', as a pejorative, 'Racist!' with the stormfront association, & i think i remember some kind of shot at 'evangelicals!' in there, too.
> 
> That seems to be the major weapon in your arsenal.  No facts.  No reason.  No history.  No common sense.  You can only dismiss & deflect with smears by association, which you think invalidates your opponent's reasoning.  It does not.  That is only a logical fallacy, that you use to deflect from your impotent arguments.  It is a form of ad hominem, & is the hallmark of a defeated debater.


Never said any of the things you're asserting and I defy you to prove that I have.

----------


## jet57

> Martin Luther wasn't even born until 1483.. What dates are you assigning to the Dark Ages?


The man hasn't the slightest idea what he's talking about, so don't even try an ask him to straighten out his bullshit, he'll just pull you into the rabbit hole of is his own stupidity and asinine world view that the Reformation ended the Dark Ages

----------

sooda (05-07-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> And I have experienced the success of American socialism and seen how the right rewrites history including that I experienced.


examples please...

----------


## Rutabaga

> The man hasn't the slightest idea what he's talking about, so don't even try an ask him to straighten out his bullshit, he'll just pull you into the rabbit hole of is his own stupidity and asinine world view that the Reformation ended the Dark Ages


find a rock, troll,,

----------


## BobJam

> And I have experienced the success of American socialism


Huh?

What "success" would that be?  (I see Rutabaga also wants an example.)

Where and when have "American socialists" gained sufficient power (for example, votes in any legislature) to impact the U.S. system?

Was/is this "success" you're referring to in the political arena?





> and seen how the right rewrites history including that I experienced.


What, SPECIFICALLY was "rewritten"?  What is your version of whatever this was?

----------

Rutabaga (05-07-2017),usfan (05-08-2017)

----------


## BobJam

> liberal tactic - blame the other side for doing what you're doing right in front of them and keep saying NO YOU ARE!


The leftist version of _"I'm rubber, you're glue . . . whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you."_

Juvenile schoolyard sayings are tactics for the left.

----------

iceberg (05-07-2017),Rutabaga (05-07-2017),usfan (05-08-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> The leftist version of _"I'm rubber, you're glue . . . whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you."_
> 
> Juvenile schoolyard sayings are tactics for the left.


they simply cannot admit to failure,,if they ever started to, they could never finish...

----------


## Sled Dog

> Of course as a degreed historian I'd like to see more history taught.  But as a degreed historian I also know that history is always interpreted.  I also kow that the meaning of words changes.  For instance few would disagree with the statement Hitler was a totalitarian, but depending on your political persuasion he was either a right winger or a leftwinger.  Nobody wants him.  Hitler, himself, would have likely called himself a popularly elected anti-communist.  That to some extent would be a true statement.  He did start as popularly elected and sine the communists were rivals he opposed them.  
> 
> I might quote a line from Jesus Christ Super Star.  Pilot says "Are your truths the same as my truths?"


You're not a degreed historian.

You're a propagandist for fascists.

In order to be a historian, you'd have to have some semblance of honesty and respect for your subject matter.  

You have neither.  You just lie and distort.

Example:  By EVERY OBJECTIVE measure, Hitler and National Socialism are LEFTIST constructs.  There's no debate.  We just have to fend off your never ending lies about the matter.

You're not wrong about it, you're lying about it.
Tell us about your vast economic knowledge again.

----------

BobJam (05-08-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> And I have experienced the success of American socialism and seen how the right rewrites history including that I experienced.


There are no successes of American socialism, because Americans aren't socialists.  Also, there are no successes of socialism.

EVER.

Say Venezuela @Robertalfollet.

----------


## Sled Dog

> you mean like how the left is redefining "fascism" right now?
> 
> *Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism,[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce,[3] 
> *
> dictatorial power - each side says the other is. tie.


No tie.

The Rodents, when in power, seek to prosecute people who expose their crimes while defending the real criminals.  The Attorney General of California charged the man who recorded the Planned Parenthood monster selling fetal baby parts with felonies, and did nothing against the person confessing to selling baby parts illegally.

FASCISM.

The Rodents, when in power, sought dictatorial control over the entire internet.

FASCISM.




> forcible suppression of opposition? - which side is forbiding the other to speak under the guise of protecting THEIR rights?
> control of industry - which side wants the government to control and regulate everything?
> 
> anti-fa sounds more like whole-lotta-fa to me.


Modern fascists, just like all the other socialists, ALWAYS lie about who they are and what their real goals are.

Just look to @RobertLafollet and @sooda for local examples.




> but wait - they're redefining it now aren't they. liberal tactic - blame the other side for doing what you're doing right in front of them and keep saying NO YOU ARE!
> 
> not working, robs.


Not working, right.

But the fascists are going to be hammering that bong...gong for the next twenty years unless we make them stop.

Making them stop will cost blood.  Hopefully theirs.

----------


## Sled Dog

> then hell - nazi.
> 
> *What were the main characteristics of the Nazi State 1933-1939?*
> 
> 
> 
> (A Team Essay done by my students on Google Docs)






> Platform of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei
> 
> 1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.


Nazism spreads internationally, just like communism.

Anyone going to deny that communism is a natural variant of socialism?

Anyone going to deny that socialism and communism is "leftist"?




> 2. We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated.


Nothing left or right here. A simple demand for equal stature among the community of nations.




> 3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.


Demanding free shit is what socialism is all about.

Rodents today have no problems with Invaders stealing US land so the Invaders can have room to spawn.

People on the right expect someone who wants land to BUY it, like the US did with Florida, Louisiana, the Mexican Territories and Alaska.




> 4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman.


Racism is leftism.

More accurately, leftism is racism.

Americans don't limit the vast gift of US citizenship to only Americans, but we do, of course, require that the LAW be obeyed in obtaining residency and then citizenship.




> 5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.


ALL sane nations codify special laws for non-citizen residents. Nothing left or right here.

What's special about the Rodents of today is their absolute insistence that the CITIZEN submerge HIS rights and HIS privileges and HIS interests to welcome the Invader Criminal.

Leftism has grown more diseased as the centuries turn from birth in the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution.




> 6. The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen.


Again, and DUH.

Only traitors want non-citizens to vote.

We have active traitors posting on these forums. We call them Rodents.

We have active traitors in government.

We still call them Rodents, but the RINOs help.

Anyone going to argue that today's Rodents and RINOs aren't leftist pigs?




> We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness.


Given that the Rodents of the US since it's inception have been violators of the law, to the point even of causing a vast Civil War, and it's clear to see that this tiny piece of NSDAP Platform isn't "of the left".

It's fucking centrist, aka common fucking sense.




> 7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.


Bernie's Free Shit Brigade and those economically illiterate morons demanding a "living wage".




> 8. Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.


Life-boat Full is a concept neither of right nor left.

Again, it's fucking common sense.

Inasmuch as the fucking Rodents are traitors and can't ever exhibit anything like common sense, this idea is deemed by those treasonous idiots to be "extreme right wing".

I wonder how many homeless people share Moochelle's house?

However, it's totally "leftist" to know the lifeboat is full and desire that it be filled to overflowing so the lifeboat can sink, giving the "leftist" a chance to seize power from whatever is left.




> 9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.


"Duties"? Regimentation is very LEFT wing.

Just look at all the "volunteer service" requirements imposed on today's youth with no Constitutional substantiation whatsoever.

Rodents.




> 10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.


Pop Quiz:
So...who said "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"?
A) Groucho Marx
B) Chico Marx
C) Harpo Marx
D) Karl Marx

Wasn't Groucho, he painted his moustache on.

Couldn't be Chico, he said, famously, "everyone knows there's no Sanity Clause".

Harpo never spoke in public.

So it was Karl.

But...no matter who you picked, you just admitted that Point 10 is Marxist.




> Therefore we demand:
> 11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.


Gee....that sounds like something Reagan would say.

No, just kidding, the confiscation of wealth is something only leftists want.




> 12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.


What I just said for Point 11 applies for 12.




> 13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.


US Progressive Movement, late 19th Century.




> 14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.


Bernie/Hillary's Free Shit Brigade in brown shirts.




> 15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.


And I present to you:
FDR's Socialist Security Ponzi Scheme.
Medicaid
MessiahCare
And the rest of Bernie/Hillary's Free Shit Brigade.




> 16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.


Only economically illiterate Leftists would believe THE GOVERNMENT could create a "sound middle-class".

Only economically illiterate LEFTISTS demand government interference in the market place and the busting of trusts.

Economically literate people on the Right recognize that trusts can only be created by an interfering and overweening government in the first place.

Also, you'll see there the demand for state control of businesses even if the private citizen retains nominal titular ownership. Classic fascism is classic leftism.




> 17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.


Agrarian "reforms" are ALWAYS leftists...
...and they ALWAYS fail.

Economically sound agrarian practice are the free-market principles of the RIGHT.

Also, notice the taking of land without "just compensation".

THEFT is the hallmark of socialism.

Just ask Bernie/Hillary's Free Shit Brigade.





> 18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.


Rodents wage war in the innocent. 

In this day and age, those to be punished are bakers, wedding photographers, and state governments that have the weird idea that MEN shouldn't be pissing in the LADIES rooms.




> 19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.


Ruth Buzzy Ginzberg, Soon May She Die, wants to use foreign law when the Constitution became inconvenient, just as Hitler wanted to throw away written law for common law, for his convenience.
RBG is a Rodent, hence a Leftist.




> 20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.


BERNIE/HILLARY'S FREE SHIT BRIGADE HISTORICAL MODEL.

RIGHT HERE.

Pop Quiz II:
Which horrid cunt said "It takes a village to kidnap your child to stop you from protecting him from us"?
A) The Hillary Horrid Cunt
B) The Stalin Horrid Cunt
C) Some other LEFTIST?




> 21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.


Fucking MESSIAHCARE, aka the ACA aka Gruberism.

LEFTIES. Damn they're stupid. 

And now you know why Rodents don't want real history taught in US schools.




> 22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.


Amerikorps Volunteers and the noted efforts of the Rodents to destroy the US military by budget cuts and by fag infestations.




> 23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand: 
> 
> (a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens. 
> 
> (b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language. 
> 
> (c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich. 
> 
> Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.


The decades-long Rodent War on AM talk-radio.

[/quote]24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race. 

The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple:
COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD [/quote]

Today's Rodents are all for the religious freedom of the moose limb terrorist and the fags having a pretend-wedding.

Christians? Eh, not so much...because Christianity "endangers the existence of the Rodent State and certainly offends the amoral and immoral sensibilities of the Rodent elites".




> 25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations. 
> 
> The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states. 
> 
> The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.


BIG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.

WHO's claiming the NSDAP was "right wing"?

The fucking left-wing Rodent socialist gruberoid baby-killing pro-terrorist terrorists and their diseased followers, that's who.

----------

BobJam (05-08-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

National self determination is not ideological.

----------


## Midgardian

> Example:  By EVERY OBJECTIVE measure, Hitler and National Socialism are LEFTIST constructs.


I agree.

----------


## Midgardian

> Nothing left or right here. A simple demand for equal stature among the community of nations.


Just like Palestine.

----------


## Midgardian

> Rodents today have no problems with Invaders stealing US land so the Invaders can have room to spawn.
> 
> *People on the right expect someone who wants land to BUY it*, like the US did with Florida, Louisiana, the Mexican Territories and Alaska.


With the exception of Jews.

----------


## JMWinPR

> As one of the leftists on this forum I find the OP's post totally wrong.
> 
> 1)  The American left wants power to the people not the 1%.  
> 2)  We differ in our interpretation of the Constitution.  In fact I think the lefts interpretation is closer to the interpretation of the founding fathers then the rights.
> 3)  We are born equal.  Blacks are equal to whites.  Asian are equal.  Muslims are equal.  A rich man is the equal of a poor man.  
> 4)


Would you give an example to number 1? I can think of no leftist legislation in the past 50+ years that supports that premiss.

----------


## Midgardian

> Racism is leftism.
> 
> More accurately, leftism is racism.


That plank of the platform mentioned Jews (exempting them from citizenship).

Are Jews a race or not?

----------


## Midgardian

> Given that the Rodents of the US since it's inception have been violators of the law, to the point even of causing a vast Civil War, and it's clear to see that this tiny piece of NSDAP Platform isn't "of the left".


Abraham Lincoln was a Rodent?




> It's fucking centrist, aka common fucking sense.


See, Hitler wasn't nuts.

Me? Perhaps.

----------


## Midgardian

> Bernie's Free Shit Brigade and those economically illiterate morons demanding a "living wage".


Bernie isn't proposing expelling foriegners - he wants to bring them in.

----------


## Midgardian

> "Duties"? Regimentation is very LEFT wing.
> 
>  Just look at all the "volunteer service" requirements imposed on today's youth with no Constitutional substantiation whatsoever.


Does this mean that you oppose a draft?

----------


## Midgardian

> But...no matter who you picked, you just admitted that Point 10 is Marxist.


Do you prefer people be on welfare rather than work?

----------


## Midgardian

> No, just kidding, the confiscation of wealth is something only leftists want.


When I think of unearned income, I think of usury.


Interest is unearned income.


End usury and there will be no unearned income from moneylending to confiscate.

----------


## Midgardian

> What I just said for Point 11 applies for 12.


You want there to be incentives for war?

----------


## Midgardian

> Amerikorps Volunteers and the noted efforts of the Rodents 
> to destroy the US military by budget cuts and by fag infestations.


Uh you are stetching there.

That point only mentions a folk army.

The founders were also in favor of citizen militias.

Are you anti-Second Amendment?

----------


## Midgardian

> The decades-long Rodent War on AM talk-radio.


Maybe you should read that point again.

It would come quite in handy against the lying media today, and the requirement that media be owned and operated by citizens would come in handy here in southern California where every other radio station is Spanish language, Chinese, or Arab.

Of course if we did take down the dominant media here today, it would be "anti-Semitic", just like it was in 1933 Germany.

Maybe you like being lied to.

----------


## Midgardian

Those 25 points are leftist, and would work, but only in a racially and culturally pure state, and in one that didn't have war declared upon them from its exception (as happened to Nazi Germany).

----------


## ChemEngineer

> This is a political forum.  Wouldn't you get bored if all you had were people who agreed with you?  What would you learn?


First, we have our own disagreements, even though they may pale in comparison to the disagreements we have with far left-wingers like you.
Second, we exchange ideas and strategies, even as you condemn them and put in your two cents' worth day after day, you and sooda.
Finally, and most importantly, we learn NOTHING from you and her.  Absolutely NOTHING.

You make us slap our heads in disbelief that people can come here and blather like you do.  It's one thing for professional liars such as Chris Matthews, with a chill running down his leg every time he even thinks about Bozo Bama, to say the most hateful, most inane comments imaginable, but it's quite different for you to do the same thing, without being paid $10 mil a year, and get pummeled every single time.  You keep coming back for more as if you enjoy pain.

----------

BobJam (05-08-2017),Sled Dog (05-08-2017),usfan (05-08-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> Would you give an example to number 1? I can think of no leftist legislation in the past 50+ years that supports that premiss.


Creating the NLRB.  Medicare.  The 1964 civil rights act.  The lilyleadbedder act.  Lots ,more.

----------


## Midgardian

> The 1964 civil rights act.


That was sponsored by a Republican. 

LBJ opposed it, until the GOP shamed him into signing the thing when he was president.

Then he said "I'll have those ******s voting Democrat for the next 200 years".

LBJ was nothing if not an opportunist.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> examples please...


Probably the most blatant example is saying fascism is leftist.  Another example would be saying Tip O'Neil constantly tricked Ronald Reagan.  Then too there is saying FDR extended the great depression.  More recently assigning Bushes 2008 bank bailout to Obama.

----------


## iceberg

> Creating the NLRB.  Medicare.  The 1964 civil rights act.  The lilyleadbedder act.  Lots ,more.


BLM, calling everyone names, created "micro-aggression" and only blacks can have dreads or sing black music karaoke...

if you're gonna list your "liberal" accomplishments, let's pile on! hell, liberals made taking a piss a supreme court issue.

----------

usfan (05-07-2017)

----------


## iceberg

> Probably the most blatant example is saying fascism is leftist.  Another example would be saying Tip O'Neil constantly tricked Ronald Reagan.  Then too there is saying FDR extended the great depression.  More recently assigning Bushes 2008 bank bailout to Obama.


the original term of fascism *is* leftist. gov control, pc type behavior, control what people say.... sounds very anti-fa left to me.

why don't you list out traits of fascism and how it applies to constitutionalism like you're trying to tie it to.

go ahead. i'll wait.

this will be a giggler.

----------

BobJam (05-08-2017),Midgardian (05-07-2017),usfan (05-08-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

> Probably the most blatant example is saying fascism is leftist.


No one expects leftists to admit that they are fascists, but they don't need to when they put the fact that they are fascists on full display everyday.

----------

usfan (05-07-2017)

----------


## RobertLafollet

> That was sponsored by a Republican. 
> 
> LBJ opposed it, until the GOP shamed him into signing the thing when he was president.
> 
> Then he said "I'll have those ******s voting Democrat for the next 200 years".
> 
> LBJ was nothing if not an opportunist.


The 1964 act was backed by Northern Democrats and many Republicans.  Basically Northerners supported it and southerners opposed it.  Lbj twisted the arms to get it passed with Dirksin's help.  The conservative Democrats of the South opposed it.  Conservative Southern Democrats are close to extinct.  Many became Republicans after 1064.  Certainly the radical Republicans of the 1870's are gone.  Political parties tend to change their spots regularly.

----------


## RobertLafollet

> the original term of fascism *is* leftist. gov control, pc type behavior, control what people say.... sounds very anti-fa left to me.
> 
> why don't you list out traits of fascism and how it applies to constitutionalism like you're trying to tie it to.
> 
> go ahead. i'll wait.
> 
> this will be a giggler.


Fascism is not constitutionalism.  It control of the state and everything else by one man or a small group of men.  It is generally considered right wing because it usually arises from big business taking control of the government whereas Communism usually comes form a popular revolution.  The key point is that like absolute monarchy both operate outside of elective government.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Fascism is not constitutionalism.  It control of the state and everything else by one man or a small group of men.  It is generally considered right wing because it usually arises from big business taking control of the government whereas Communism usually comes form a popular revolution.  The key point is that like absolute monarchy both operate outside of elective government.


Nice construct.

Business, in a free society, has no interest in taking over government.

When government gets involved in business...business, to survive, tries to manipulate the government that is regulating it.

That is a response to Leftism - and the result is STILL Leftism.

Authoritarianism, dictatorship, control of the means to produce by government - *THESE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH AMERICAN CONSERVATISM.*  Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

----------

BobJam (05-09-2017),usfan (05-08-2017)

----------


## JMWinPR

> Creating the NLRB.  Medicare.  The 1964 civil rights act.  The lilyleadbedder act.  Lots ,more.


I'm glad you pointed those out and walked into it with both feet and sunk to your nose
Medicare was nothing more than a bailout for union and big business pension plans that couldn't support their offered retirement medical plans.1 down
64 Civil Rights Act, this was a race baiting issue. After LBJ destroyed the much better 57 CRA. 2
Lilly was nothing more than payback for trial attorneys, it is like the 1990's version of the ADA full employment for trial attorneys. Most of whom are not 1%ers, but certainly not the working guy you "jess wanna hep*"  
*Paraphrase of that SotH Jim Fort Worthless Wright and there is 3.
Keep 'em coming and I'll bury you How 'bout the Great Society? You know the one to get the "n's to vote D for the next 200 yrs. "
There was one. The guy was from the midwest, and eventually spent time in prison for some type of fraud.
No, the primary purpose of all D legislation was/is to buy votes. The R's have stepped up to the plate in the past 20 yrs or so and are giving the D's a run for our money.

----------

BobJam (05-09-2017),Midgardian (05-07-2017),Sled Dog (05-08-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

> The 1964 act was backed by Northern Democrats and many Republicans.  Basically Northerners supported it and southerners opposed it.  Lbj twisted the arms to get it passed with Dirksin's help.  The conservative Democrats of the South opposed it.  Conservative Southern Democrats are close to extinct.  Many became Republicans after 1064.  Certainly the radical Republicans of the 1870's are gone.  Political parties tend to change their spots regularly.


Yeah, you lefties always like to use the "Northern Democrat"/Southern Democrat" dodge and pretend that southern Democrats became Republicans overnight because the Democrats somehow magically became no longer racist. 

Of course, you always say in the same breath that all those racist Democrats jumped to the GOP in 1964 and that is why the south is "red".

There is a problem with this politically driven narrative, Bob, and as an historian you ought to be ashamed that you haven't seen it.

There was no magical switcheroo.

Nearly every southern Democrat in Congress in 1964 remained a Democrat - including Robert "KKK" Byrd, of whom Hillary was a fan

In 1976 and 1992, Democratic southerners were elected President.

If all those southern Democrats had jumped to the GOP in 1964, what in the heck were they doing voting Democrat 12 and 28 years later, respectively?

I can point you to election studies (and books) that prove that in congressional elections, governor races, and down-ticket statewide races, Democrats were still winning elections in the South all the way up to the mid-1990s.

So - if there was no magic change in the political parties in the South after 1964 - what happened?

Why did once solid Democrat Dixie turn "red".

First - it was a gradual change. 

I will not throw out some arbitrary year (say 1992 - which is tempting!) and put the blame on one event (like the election of Bill Clinton).

As an historian, you ought to appreciate the concept of change over time and realize that there are never any simple answers, which is why I am disappointed that you have bought into the "southern strategy" myth.

What occurred was that over more than three decades, the Democratic Party lost touch with the southern working class and alienated them so much that the only alternative was to vote for the party that best reflected their values - the GOP.

How did the Donkey Party offend them?

They attacked the concept of hard work. They attacked the family unit. They attacked the Christian faith. They embraced socialism - which is anathema to people who fought and died to rein in communism. They attacked tradition and engaged in a culture war. They promoted sexual deviancy and put filth in front of the faces of children.

Boiled down to the essentials - the Democratic Party went full tilt loony socialist left and pissed a lot of people off with their divisiveness.

Did you see race or "racism" mentioned there?

That was part of it - because the Democrats never stopped being racist - they just rebranded it as "multi-culturism" and "affirmative action".

The Democrats adopted identity politics and projected their own racism onto the other party in a pathetic attempt to dupe enough people that they had changed their stripes.

You ought to be ashamed that you bought into their dishonest tactics.

----------

BobJam (05-09-2017),JMWinPR (05-10-2017),usfan (05-08-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Just like Palestine.


Those fucking camel humpers lost the dignity reserved for nations when they strapped bombs on the backs of their own children and sent them out to murder other children.

----------


## Sled Dog

> That plank of the platform mentioned Jews (exempting them from citizenship).
> 
> Are Jews a race or not?


You have a serious problem with da joos.

I have a serious issue of idongiveaphuqueaboutyouremotions.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Abraham Lincoln was a Rodent?
> 
> See, Hitler wasn't nuts.
> 
> Me? Perhaps.



I also don't give a shit about your lies about American history.

You're no different than the other Rodents.

Note the deliberate use of the word "OTHER".

----------


## Sled Dog

> Does this mean that you oppose a draft?


Always.

Unlike you, I'm a libertarian.

And a veteran.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Do you prefer people be on welfare rather than work?


I don't recall saying "welfare" is an option.

They have the freedom to starve, don't they?

----------


## Sled Dog

> When I think of unearned income, I think of usury.


I don't care about bears.




> Interest is unearned income.


For the ignorant.

Interest is the price you pay when you're too dumb to earn your own money in the first place.

If you don't want to pay the price to use someone else's money, don't fucking borrow it.

You do not have a right to get a loan.




> End usury and there will be no unearned income from moneylending to confiscate.


Just stupidity.

----------


## Sled Dog

> You want there to be incentives for war?


Rodents just don't understand human nature.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Uh you are stetching there.
> 
> That point only mentions a folk army.
> 
> The founders were also in favor of citizen militias.
> 
> Are you anti-Second Amendment?



Rodents love defending the Nazis.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Maybe you should read that point again.
> 
> It would come quite in handy against the lying media today, and the requirement that media be owned and operated by citizens would come in handy here in southern California where every other radio station is Spanish language, Chinese, or Arab.
> 
> Of course if we did take down the dominant media here today, it would be "anti-Semitic", just like it was in 1933 Germany.
> 
> Maybe you like being lied to.


Run along, little boy, read the Constitution some time.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Those 25 points are leftist, and would work, but only in a racially and culturally pure state, and in one that didn't have war declared upon them from its exception (as happened to Nazi Germany).


Those points are leftist, and would NEVER work in ANY state.

Because they're leftist.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Creating the NLRB.  Medicare.  The 1964 civil rights act.  The lilyleadbedder act.  Lots ,more.



How about if you name something that was CONSTITUTIONAL?

NOTHING you listed is.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Probably the most blatant example is saying fascism is leftist.  Another example would be saying Tip O'Neil constantly tricked Ronald Reagan.  Then too there is saying FDR extended the great depression.  More recently assigning Bushes 2008 bank bailout to Obama.


So ya gots nothin'.

No surprises there.

----------


## Sled Dog

> The 1964 act was backed by Northern Democrats and many Republicans.  Basically Northerners supported it and southerners opposed it.  Lbj twisted the arms to get it passed with Dirksin's help.  The conservative Democrats of the South opposed it.  Conservative Southern Democrats are close to extinct.  Many became Republicans after 1064.  Certainly the radical Republicans of the 1870's are gone.  Political parties tend to change their spots regularly.


When did fucking Robert KKK Byrd become a "conservative"?

Your LIES are incredible.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Fascism is not constitutionalism.  It control of the state and everything else by one man or a small group of men.


You mean Rodents.






> It is generally considered right wing


by Rodents because Rodents can't permit the truth of history to be told.

But honest historians (you are neither) know it's as left wing as Karl Marx.

----------

BobJam (05-09-2017),usfan (05-08-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

> Those fucking camel humpers lost the dignity reserved for nations when they strapped bombs on the backs of their own children and sent them out to murder other children.


So you don't support national self determination. 

What do you think about Israelis burning Palestinian families (including children) alive in their homes?

You don't like theft, do you?

What do you think of the Zionists stealing the Palestinian's land and then building walls to separate families and bulldozing homes because they want to "settle" on land that is not theirs?

What do you think of the IDF murdering innocent Palestinian children in Gaza?

----------


## Midgardian

> I have a serious issue of idongiveaphuqueaboutyouremotions.


Unlike you, "emotion" isn't much part of my vocabulary.

I used it here in quotes because you did, and I linked to a Smokey Robinson song in another thread to make a point.

Rational people think, others feel.

Those who feel use "emotion" without provocation.

What does that make you?

----------


## Midgardian

> I also don't give a shit about your lies about American history.
> 
> You're no different than the other Rodents.
> 
> Note the deliberate use of the word "OTHER".


You have bought lies about American history if you THINK that Lincoln didn't start it. 

See the post above about "others".

Do you fit the bill?  Think - don't feel.

----------


## Midgardian

> Always.
> 
> Unlike you, I'm a libertarian.
> 
> And a veteran.


You don't know what libertarian means.  

You shouldn't need me to tell you this, but veterans don't trumpet their status.

Do you want to feel part of a "protected group" SD?

Didn't you serve so as to prevent that nonsense?

----------


## Midgardian

> I don't recall saying "welfare" is an option.
> 
> They have the freedom to starve, don't they?


Not in a sane society.

Roman slaves never starved - so long as they were needed for labor, did they?

How about American blacks 175 years ago?

----------


## Roadmaster

> Unlike you, "emotion" isn't much part of my vocabulary.
> 
> I used it here in quotes because you did, and I linked to a Smokey Robinson song in another thread to make a point.
> 
> Rational people think, others feel.
> 
> Those who feel use "emotion" without provocation.
> 
> What does that make you?


Unlike here in America, say I own two homes, which I do,  when I die my kids inherit them. In Israel even if your parents are Christians, once you die your kids have no rights to what you own even with deeds. There is no future for your kids there.

----------

Midgardian (05-08-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

> Rodents just don't understand human nature.


Interesting.

Human nature is SIN, but as an atheist, you don't believe in that - no?

----------


## Midgardian

> Rodents love defending the Nazis.


In that case, why do they spend so much time condemning the NSDAP?


Don't you oppose the Nazis?

----------


## iceberg

> Fascism is not constitutionalism.  It control of the state and everything else by one man or a small group of men.  It is generally considered right wing because it usually arises from big business taking control of the government whereas Communism usually comes form a popular revolution.  The key point is that like absolute monarchy both operate outside of elective government.


so - avoid the question and pile on the bullshit.

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change: Jonah Goldberg: 9780767917186: Amazon.com: Books

do some reading. in the meantime, list the traits of both fascism and nazi'ism (those *ism* left wing words they love to use) and again tell me which side is acting more like fascists and nazis.

----------

usfan (05-08-2017)

----------


## sooda

> so - avoid the question and pile on the bullshit.
> 
> Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change: Jonah Goldberg: 9780767917186: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> do some reading. in the meantime, list the traits of both fascism and nazi'ism (those *ism* left wing words they love to use) and again tell me which side is acting more like fascists and nazis.


How odd.. Italian conservatives LOVED fascism.. and now Goldberg redefines the word?

----------


## sooda

> Unlike here in America, say I own two homes, which I do,  when I die my kids inherit them. In Israel even if your parents are Christians, once you die your kids have no rights to what you own even with deeds. There is no future for your kids there.


Is that because the land is leased rather than owned?

----------


## RobertLafollet

> so - avoid the question and pile on the bullshit.
> 
> Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change: Jonah Goldberg: 9780767917186: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> do some reading. in the meantime, list the traits of both fascism and nazi'ism (those *ism* left wing words they love to use) and again tell me which side is acting more like fascists and nazis.


You seem to be saying that if I disagree with your premise then I am not answering the question.  You asked me to show that fascism was right wing.  Really the only way to show that is to point out it's antecedents because once it comes to full fruition it is neither of the right or left as used in America.  It is simply one man rule.  The same is true of communism  and absolute Monarchy.  All 3 are just different names for totalitarian government by a despot.   That despot may claim to be a capitalist or a communist but like the absolute monarch if a person or business does not do what he wants voluntarily he forces them to do it.  Usually as a punishment he also kills them.  Thousands of years ago it is rumored some huge guy named ogg found a big club and started this system.  He had no concept of economic theory but wanted the sexist women and most food and best place to sleep.  If he didn't get his way he hit you over the head and feed you to the sabertooth tigers.  Eventually, he got old and was overthrown by ogg II.

----------


## iceberg

> How odd.. Italian conservatives LOVED fascism.. and now Goldberg redefines the word?


i suppose my bigger point is there are elements of "fascism" in most form of governing. however, i do see the left doing more of the SHUT UP YOU #*@*$(@(* out there. don't see the right doing that. do you?

instead of the typical liberal deflection again - i invite you to list traits common to fascism and let's compare behavior. seems funny to me so few liberals will do that.

tag, you're it.

----------


## iceberg

> You seem to be saying that if I disagree with your premise then I am not answering the question.  You asked me to show that fascism was right wing.  Really the only way to show that is to point out it's antecedents because once it comes to full fruition it is neither of the right or left as used in America.  It is simply one man rule.  The same is true of communism  and absolute Monarchy.  All 3 are just different names for totalitarian government by a despot.   That despot may claim to be a capitalist or a communist but like the absolute monarch if a person or business does not do what he wants voluntarily he forces them to do it.  Usually as a punishment he also kills them.  Thousands of years ago it is rumored some huge guy named ogg found a big club and started this system.  He had no concept of economic theory but wanted the sexist women and most food and best place to sleep.  If he didn't get his way he hit you over the head and feed you to the sabertooth tigers.  Eventually, he got old and was overthrown by ogg II.


my question was - name the traits of fascism / nazi'ism. more of a request, i suppose if you want to be literal. 

you didn't do that. you still are not doing that. i don't care about how you choose to apply them cause we already seem to not agree. i'm asking to back up and define what we're bitching at more clearly so we can be debating from the same set of criteria.

again - not something liberals like, to be held to their own standards and definitions, but give it a shot. i don't need to know who invented what, which leader kills people the most, or other big and fancy words and phrases your pretty fingers can type out that do not address backing up and ensuring we're working from the same set of criteria.

so - simply name the traits of fascism and nazi'ism. that's it.

----------


## usfan

> Let's state the obvious.  Most of the persecution in the Middle Ages was due to the Catholic Church.  The Pope tried to be the successor to the Roman emperor.  He demanded the fealty of every European ruler.   Basically the popes of the Middle Ages want to turn Europe into one large theocracy.  
> 
> The military leaders who became the Kings, dukes and Barron's of western Europe were bawsically military dictators.  Like most dictators they feared the people.  They wanted to keep the peasants tied to the land so that they could collect a part of there produce in taxes.  They were not educated and they feared education.  The cities developed guilds (unions) which became competing power sources.  Since these were the technologists of the day they were more educated.    They also found what was then international trade useful.
> 
> Meanwhile in the Muslim world and Byzantine world both of which influenced the Mediterranean world and particularly Italy an attempt to maintain education and science.  Then about 1700 the Middle East went into decline.  The Ottoman's became corrupt.  This is one of the problems we have now the Middle East needs another group of Ottomans to control it.


I'm not so sure about your conclusions about the Byzantine & muslim world, but i am in basic agreement with the european dark ages statements.  Attributing to 'the catholic church!' is an easy cop out, but it ignores the ideology from within, that provided the foundation for tyranny.  The Bible did not provide the basis for this ideology, it was a more common, historical view of elitism.. 'Divine right of Kings', & the superiority of the elite over the huddled masses.

This is EXACTLY the same ideology that is sweeping Progresso World.  They want a messiah.  They look for The One.  They long for a more highly evolved, superior minded elite who can govern them & rule with complete fairness, justice, & benevolence.

THAT is the lure.  It is the shiny, spinning draw to make us bite.  But it is a fantasy.  It is a popular fantasy, & has been with us for all of human history, but it never works out.  Tyrants are never fair, just, or benevolent.  They oppress & plunder the common man.  They are not his friend.

So the roots of ideology, in the dark ages, is the issue, here, not the specific individuals, or the labels.  The lesson from history is to avoid elitism & hero worship, & putting an elite class of people over the rest of us.




> Of course as a degreed historian I'd like to see more history taught.  But as a degreed historian I also know that history is always interpreted.  I also kow that the meaning of words changes.  For instance few would disagree with the statement Hitler was a totalitarian, but depending on your political persuasion he was either a right winger or a leftwinger.  Nobody wants him.  Hitler, himself, would have likely called himself a popularly elected anti-communist.  That to some extent would be a true statement.  He did start as popularly elected and sine the communists were rivals he opposed them.  
> I might quote a line from Jesus Christ Super Star.  Pilot says "Are your truths the same as my truths?"


You illustrate the common leftist view that Truth is relative.. history is relative.. science is relative, & words can change meaning.  You do this with Hitler, redefining him as a 'conservative right winger!', when he was a socialist.. a leftist, statist, controlling, dominator.. the very thing the left adores in governance.  That is NOT the American System of self rule, which is by citizen representatives, Law, & minimal govt.  The nazis were leftist, through & through, & it is just the redefining propaganda from the left that revises this for their agenda of smear, lies, & control.



> Never said any of the things you're asserting and I defy you to prove that I have.


I quoted you directly.  You can deny it, if you want, but you have several times, since posting here, used 'poison the well' fallacies, trying to smear by association different groups.  You deflected with 'stormfront!', 'white protestant', & 'evangelical', that i know of, & probably others, in threads i have not followed.  That is a typical tactic, for the irrational left, who have never met a fallacy they didn't like.



> Fascism is not constitutionalism.  It control of the state and everything else by one man or a small group of men.  It is generally considered right wing because it usually arises from big business taking control of the government whereas Communism usually comes form a popular revolution.  The key point is that like absolute monarchy both operate outside of elective government.


Most communist dictators have a semblance of an 'election'.  Democracy is not panacea, & is fraught with problems.  Constitutional law is the preferred system, for American, Enlightenment based values, with democratically elected citizen representatives.  Our departure from this system has not been a positive move.

Like most leftists, you obsess over labels.. you need everything neatly placed into your definitions.. categories to organize your words, so you don't have to think or make rational decisions.  There is not a division between 'right & left'.  That is a statist construct, by those who want to control others, & fleece the working man.  Both 'right & left' from your definitions are statist controllers, and as far away from American Constitutionalism as you can get.  They are both peas in the same pod, & are enemies of human freedom & the American experiment.



> so - avoid the question and pile on the bullshit.
> 
> Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change: Jonah Goldberg: 9780767917186: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> do some reading. in the meantime, list the traits of both fascism and nazi'ism (those *ism* left wing words they love to use) and again tell me which side is acting more like fascists and nazis.


It is part of the muddying process.  Obfuscating to promote a narrative, rather than clear analysis.  They hope that everyone will throw up their hands in despair, & just 'trust the experts', to rule over them, rather than sifting through the barrage of BS.  By & large, it has been effective, as most of the enabling useful idiots do that.  They don't have to think, but can cling to their groupthink loyalties, & Believe in their All Wise, Superior Leaders.

----------

BobJam (05-09-2017),iceberg (05-08-2017),JustPassinThru (05-08-2017)

----------


## iceberg

> It is part of the muddying process.  Obfuscating to promote a narrative, rather than clear analysis.  They hope that everyone will throw up their hands in despair, & just 'trust the experts', to rule over them, rather than sifting through the barrage of BS.  By & large, it has been effective, as most of the enabling useful idiots do that.  They don't have to think, but can cling to their groupthink loyalties, & Believe in their All Wise, Superior Leaders.


and that's just a game i refuse to play. whether they full realize they do it or it's just nature, i don't care. when i ask specific questions like that there's a dual purpose really. nothing more.

- to see if the person i'm talking to has any interest at all in defining a baseline we can both work from
- or to see if they choose to run from putting their thoughts to the same standards they demand others use

either way i get my answer about the type of person i'm talking to. when they fail to define the basis of their opinions, i fail to give a shit and just move away from their ramblings for the most part.

----------


## sooda

The "left" is concerned with a shrinking middle class..

----------


## usfan

> and that's just a game i refuse to play. whether they full realize they do it or it's just nature, i don't care. when i ask specific questions like that there's a dual purpose really. nothing more.
> 
> - to see if the person i'm talking to has any interest at all in defining a baseline we can both work from
> - or to see if they choose to run from putting their thoughts to the same standards they demand others use
> 
> either way i get my answer about the type of person i'm talking to. when they fail to define the basis of their opinions, i fail to give a shit and just move away from their ramblings for the most part.


Rational minded conservatives, & emotionally led leftists think from 2 completely different worldviews.  You cannot debate with those who are locked in the groupthink loyalty system of indoctrination.  They are completely dedicated to their ideology, & 'facts' are just tools for manipulation.  Spin, impression, & innuendo are the important things, to the socialist/marxist/darwinist left, not empirical reality.  For the most part, they do not even believe in empirical truth, or facts, or reality.  Everything is relative.  Everything is based on feeling, or desired outcome.  Truth is a meaningless concept, which is why they can lie so easily.  They do not grasp the simple concept of there being an objective reality.

----------

iceberg (05-08-2017),Midgardian (05-08-2017)

----------


## usfan

> The "left" is concerned with a shrinking middle class..


The left has been shrinking the middle class for decades.. they are the ones responsible for the housing crash, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a small elite, the revolving door to riches, a ruling class/elite, driving the poor into gulags of dependency, hopelessness & despair.  The only concern i see from the left, toward the middle class, is to eliminate them.  They want 2 classes.. the ruling, aristocratic elite, & the working poor.. the huddled masses that exist to support the elite, superiors in the manner they have become accustomed.

----------

BobJam (05-09-2017),Midgardian (05-08-2017),Sled Dog (05-08-2017)

----------


## iceberg

> Rational minded conservatives, & emotionally led leftists think from 2 completely different worldviews.  You cannot debate with those who are locked in the groupthink loyalty system of indoctrination.  They are completely dedicated to their ideology, & 'facts' are just tools for manipulation.  Spin, impression, & innuendo are the important things, to the socialist/marxist/darwinist left, not empirical reality.  For the most part, they do not even believe in empirical truth, or facts, or reality.  Everything is relative.  Everything is based on feeling, or desired outcome.  Truth is a meaningless concept, which is why they can lie so easily.  They do not grasp the simple concept of there being an objective reality.


yep. and trying to cross-talk is difficult at best, esp when someone on either side is so entrenched in "us vs. them" they refuse to find any common ground at all to compromise on. i guess that's one of the first things i try to do is set a baseline for "facts" as either side may see them and dig for commonalities both can share.

----------

usfan (05-08-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Unlike you, "emotion" isn't much part of my vocabulary.


Neither is reason or logic.

What's left is sociopathic insanity.

----------


## Sled Dog

> You don't know what libertarian means.  
> 
> You shouldn't need me to tell you this, but veterans don't trumpet their status.
> 
> Do you want to feel part of a "protected group" SD?
> 
> Didn't you serve so as to prevent that nonsense?



As the latest tee-shirts say, if I'm a Trumpet, then blow me.

----------


## sooda

> The left has been shrinking the middle class for decades.. they are the ones responsible for the housing crash, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a small elite, the revolving door to riches, a ruling class/elite, driving the poor into gulags of dependency, hopelessness & despair.  The only concern i see from the left, toward the middle class, is to eliminate them.  They want 2 classes.. the ruling, aristocratic elite, & the working poor.. the huddled masses that exist to support the elite, superiors in the manner they have become accustomed.


Like pursuing two wars with insufficient money to pay for them? Like Iraq and Afghanistan?

----------


## Sled Dog

> Interesting.
> 
> Human nature is SIN, but as an atheist, you don't believe in that - no?



Take it to the religion thread, boy
The Logical Meaning of Sin

----------


## Sled Dog

> In that case, why do they spend so much time condemning the NSDAP?


For the same reason they pretend to be against racism.

Because they're cynical lying assholes using emotion as a divisive tool.



> Don't you oppose the Nazis?


I've always opposed people such as yourself.

----------


## Sled Dog

> How odd.. Italian conservatives LOVED fascism.. and now Goldberg redefines the word?


How typical.  A taqiyya muslim using the word "conservative" out of context to lie about a topic she's paid to defend.

----------


## sooda

> How typical.  A taqiyya muslim using the word "conservative" out of context to lie about a topic she's paid to defend.


What's wrong with you? Why are you still blithering that I am a Muslim? You're like some old woman.. Mussolini was a nationalist and a fascist that appealed to Italian conservatives.

----------


## Sled Dog

> You seem to be saying that if I disagree with your premise then I am not answering the question.  You asked me to show that fascism was right wing.


Yes, Bob, we asked the impossible of you.

And, of course, you're failing.




> Really the only way to show that is to point out it's antecedents because once it comes to full fruition it is neither of the right or left as used in America.


OH!!!

Suddenly fascism is not "right wing" anymore.

Moving Goalpost Fail!




> It is simply one man rule.


Like the guy in the White House who bragged about his phone and his pen.




> The same is true of communism  and absolute Monarchy.  All 3 are just different names for totalitarian government by a despot.


No.

That's like saying an F150 pick-up, a Kenwood tractor-trailer rig and a Cuban "chebby" are all just "words for truck".

Still moving the goal post, bobby.

Still failing.




> That despot may claim to be a capitalist or a communist but like the absolute monarch if a person or business does not do what he wants voluntarily he forces them to do it.  Usually as a punishment he also kills them.  Thousands of years ago it is rumored some huge guy named ogg found a big club and started this system.  He had no concept of economic theory but wanted the sexist women and most food and best place to sleep.  If he didn't get his way he hit you over the head and feed you to the sabertooth tigers.  Eventually, he got old and was overthrown by ogg II.


But as everyone but today's Rodents know, ogg was LEFT-HANDED.

----------

BobJam (05-09-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> The "left" is concerned with a shrinking middle class..


Here, let me fix your typo:

The "left" is concerned with shrinking the middle class..

Socialism is all about returning to feudalism.

So is islame, so it's not surprising you're paid to take the side you do.

----------

JustPassinThru (05-08-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> yep. and trying to cross-talk is difficult at best, esp when someone on either side is so entrenched in "us vs. them" they refuse to find any common ground at all to compromise on. i guess that's one of the first things i try to do is set a baseline for "facts" as either side may see them and dig for commonalities both can share.



Where is there common ground between "I want to be free" and "I want EVERYONE to be my slave"?

----------

usfan (05-08-2017)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Like pursuing two wars with insufficient money to pay for them? Like Iraq and Afghanistan?


We had enough money to pay for those wars.

All we had to do was stop feeding the useless.

And to make those wars less expensive, we should have gone into the war to WIN the wars.

That RINO Bush went into those conflicts to MAKE FRIENDS when he should be been going in to just kill people until those people apologized for living.

That is, after all, how wars are won.


Trashcanistan would have been done in six months, Iraq wouldn't have needed any "nation building", it wouldn't have had any buildings left.  Nor oil wells or croplands.

----------


## Sled Dog

> What's wrong with you?


Nothing.

I'm an American.  In the eyes of the world, Americans are perfect and free of all flaws.

Just ask us.




> Why are you still blithering that I am a Muslim?


Because we know what you are and why you are here.




> You're like some old woman.. Mussolini was a nationalist and a fascist that appealed to Italian conservatives.


See?  There you go again, slipping in the "c" word in an attempt to establish a false equivalency between the modern American conservative movement based on the concept of freedom, self-responsibility and Constitutional law, and the left-wing socialist movements of ...everywhere.

Since I reject your taqiyya process, I reject your deliberately misleading misuse and mal-appropriation of terms.  To use YOUR vernacular, you cannot culturally appropriate MY political terms for your lies.

You're as embarrassing as Dan Blather who insisted the old-line commies in post-Soviet Russia were "conservatives".   It's the SAME STUPID LIE.

What's wrong with you, that you support islam and are so willing to lie for it?

----------

BobJam (05-09-2017),usfan (05-08-2017)

----------


## usfan

> Like pursuing two wars with insufficient money to pay for them? Like Iraq and Afghanistan?


Exactly.  That is just the kind of thing the progressive left has done.. illegal wars, wasteful, corrupt, cronyism, revolving doors to riches, pay for play, & all the other statist maneuvering they do to destroy the only successful experiment in self rule.

----------


## sooda

> Exactly.  That is just the kind of thing the progressive left has done.. illegal wars, wasteful, corrupt, cronyism, revolving doors to riches, pay for play, & all the other statist maneuvering they do to destroy the only successful experiment in self rule.


Don't you even know who was president in 2001?

----------


## sooda

> Nothing.
> 
> I'm an American.  In the eyes of the world, Americans are perfect and free of all flaws.
> 
> Just ask us.
> 
> 
> 
> Because we know what you are and why you are here.
> ...


I don't have to lie about Islam. I just have more education than you. Check out Grace Church in Charleston.. That's where I was baptized a million years ago.

----------


## usfan

> Where is there common ground between "I want to be free" and "I want EVERYONE to be my slave"?


Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue. ~Barry Goldwater



> Don't you even know who was president in 2001?


Of course.  But i note your little veiled insult, in addition to the deflection from the point.

Do you know who the progressive president was in 2001?  The 'tax & spend' liberal, who helped engineer the housing crash, redistributed trillions from the middle class to the ruling & banking elite?  The one who spent trillions of the worker's money in fool's errands of 'nation building', or other delusional leftist fantasies?  The elite family who has been in the pockets of the moneyed elite for decades?  THAT progressive?

Thank you for proving my point.  Progressive leftists, regardless of party affiliation, are driving us back to the dark ages.

----------

BobJam (05-09-2017),Midgardian (05-08-2017)

----------


## iceberg

> Where is there common ground between "I want to be free" and "I want EVERYONE to be my slave"?


where is working together illustrated in the way you're doing things? you put things in an un-winnable situation then on one wins and we all sit around angry at the other side for not budging while we refuse to budge also.

----------


## ChemEngineer

> Probably the most blatant example is saying fascism is leftist.  Another example would be saying Tip O'Neil constantly tricked Ronald Reagan.  Then too there is saying FDR extended the great depression.  More recently assigning Bushes 2008 bank bailout to Obama.


The Left IS far more fascist than the right, notwithstanding your constant name-calling to the contrary.

The Nazis were the "Social Democrat" Party.  Hitler said "We are socialists."  Socialist Russia was under Molotov Ribbentrop Pact with Hitler until Hitler violated it.  

Democrats today are for ever growing government, ever more controlling government, fewer and fewer liberties and less freedom.
Don't you even know and admit that?
 The political spectrum runs from fascism on the far left, complete government control, to anarchy on the far right, beyond libertarianism, which is beyond conservatism.


Political Spectrum.jpg

----------

BobJam (05-09-2017),JustPassinThru (05-08-2017),usfan (05-08-2017)

----------


## usfan

> The Left IS far more fascist than the right, notwithstanding your constant name-calling to the contrary.
> 
> The Nazis were the "Social Democrat" Party.  Hitler said "We are socialists."  Socialist Russia was under Molotov Ribbentrop Pact with Hitler until Hitler violated it.  
> 
> Democrats today are for ever growing government, ever more controlling government, fewer and fewer liberties and less freedom.
> Don't you even know and admit that?
>  The political spectrum runs from fascism on the far left, complete government control, to anarchy on the far right, beyond libertarianism, which is beyond conservatism.
> 
> 
> Political Spectrum.jpg


This, of course, is the RATIONAL explanation, using facts & logic to define the argument.  But those are not the tools of the left, who need spin, lies, & illusion to promote their agenda.  They can  only smear any conservative or libertarian position as 'fascist!!', when the label cannot even be forced into the ideology.  Nothing about conservative or libertarian ideology is 'fascist' in the least.  That is all in the realm of the left, & their govt worshipping, elitist ruling despots.

That is why they have no use for facts or reason.  It contradicts their narrative, so they must rely on lies, spin, innuendo, & phony caricatures.   'Hitler!' has been a favorite pejorative for the left for decades, even though he was one of their cronies.  But they use revisionist history, blatant lies, & subtle half truths to pitch their narrative, that they hold unflinchingly in any discussion.  Reason is useless, in any 'debate' with a leftist.  They ignore the facts, & pitch the lies, constantly.  That is all they have.

----------

Sled Dog (05-08-2017)

----------


## ChemEngineer



----------


## jet57

> I quoted you directly.  You can deny it, if you want, but you have several times, since posting here, used 'poison the well' fallacies, trying to smear by association different groups.  You deflected with 'stormfront!', 'white protestant', & 'evangelical', that i know of, & probably others, in threads i have not followed.  That is a typical tactic, for the irrational left, who have never met a fallacy they didn't like.


You're lying.

----------


## Trinnity

* 

The insults/personal attacks WILL stop or thread bans will ensue. You all are adults and are expected to be civil.*

----------


## Midgardian

> Don't you even know who was president in 2001?


Bill Clinton.

----------


## Midgardian

> Run along, little boy, read the Constitution some time.


14th Amendment?

  Rodents make love to the 14th daily.

----------


## Midgardian

> Those points are leftist, and would NEVER work in ANY state.
> 
> Because they're leftist.


I once thought that as well.

I overcame my liberal brainwashing .

----------


## Midgardian

> Thousands of years ago it is rumored some huge guy named ogg found a big club and started this system.  He had no concept of economic theory but wanted the sexist women and most food and best place to sleep.  If he didn't get his way he hit you over the head and feed you to the sabertooth tigers.


That describes the American left perfectly.

----------


## Midgardian

> The "left" is concerned with a shrinking middle class..


Yes, they are concerned that it is no longer shrinking fast enough since President Trump was inaugurated.

----------

BobJam (05-09-2017),Rutabaga (05-08-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

> Like pursuing two wars with insufficient money to pay for them? Like Iraq and Afghanistan?


Talk to Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.

----------

Rutabaga (05-08-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

> Take it to the religion thread.
> The Logical Meaning of Sin


This thread is about progressive ideology. 

Don't you always say that liberalism is a religion?

----------


## Midgardian

> I don't have to lie about Islam. I just have more education than you. Check out Grace Church in Charleston.. That's where I was baptized a million years ago.


Charleston didn't exist a million years ago. 

Neither did the planet.

----------


## usfan

> You're lying.


More lame ad hominem.  I do not lie, & i quoted your own words.  But i can see that having a 'discussion' with you is a waste of time & thought.

----------


## jet57

> More lame ad hominem.  I do not lie, & i quoted your own words.  But i can see that having a 'discussion' with you is a waste of time & thought.


You're lying, you can't prove anything you say, so let's just move on.

----------


## Rutabaga

> You're lying, you can't prove anything you say, so let's just move on.


LOL!

you have filed to provide any proof of anything your have posted...

you offer your opinion as proof of fact...

you are insane.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I don't have to lie about Islam.


Then you're lying out of desire, not need.

But lying, you are.

Do tell us the story about Mohammed did not rape Ayisha, again.




> I just have more education than you.


How many helicopters have you gotten approved by the FAA?




> Check out Grace Church in Charleston.. That's where I was baptized a million years ago.


Charleston did not exist a million years ago.

----------


## Sled Dog

> where is working together illustrated in the way you're doing things? you put things in an un-winnable situation then on one wins and we all sit around angry at the other side for not budging while we refuse to budge also.


Where is "helping to put the noose around my children's neck" any part of my stated goals?

If you want to defeat the enemy, you have to kill them.

If you want to defeat the Rodent, you have to kill them with kisses and kindness? 

What rot.

Kill them.

If they're illogical, hammer them with facts.   

If they're lying, rape them with the truth.

But don't pretend to be nice to them.  They are ALL Mohammed Atta. 

The Rodent IS NOT your friend and never will be.

----------


## sooda

> Then you're lying out of desire, not need.
> 
> But lying, you are.
> 
> Do tell us the story about Mohammed did not rape Ayisha, again.
> 
> 
> 
> How many helicopters have you gotten approved by the FAA?
> ...


Aisha was born before the Call and you aren't smart enough to figure out what that means about her age.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Aisha was born before the Call and you aren't smart enough to figure out what that means about her age.



See?

Can't tell the truth about Islame.

You MUST stick to the paid-for line, or else.

Must be a bitch, wearing a burqa in the summer in Charleston.

----------


## Midgardian

> Aisha was born before the Call and you aren't smart enough to figure out what that means about her age.


We are well aware that Aisha was born before that Bell fellow made the first call to Mr. Watson.

----------


## sooda

> We are well aware that Aisha was born before that Bell fellow made the first call to Mr. Watson.


Oh dear. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

----------


## Midgardian

> Oh dear. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.


Are you trying to say that she was born after March 10, 1876?

----------


## Midgardian

By the way, the guy who coined the phrase "a mind is a terrible thing to waste" was a black Republican named Art Fletcher.

When he ran for Lt. Governor of Washington state in the early 1970s, he had a driver and a bodyguard during the campaign.

His name was Ted Bundy, who later was executed in Florida's electric chair.

----------


## RobertLafollet

None of us can know exactly what the founding fathers felt they had agreed o.  I note that many Republicans seem to think they voted for a bill that would not hurt anyone on Medicaid.  They seem to think that someone with diabetes will be able to get care in an emergency room.  That someone with a small lump in the breast will be able to get it diagnosed in the emergency room.  They seem to think that rural emergency rooms can afford to treat people who can't pay for free.  All of this is of course idiotic.  But they believe what they want to.  I suggest the founding fathers were no different.  

No real method for determining constitutionality is included in the Constitution.  There is no description of how the Supreme Court is to work.  Certainly there is no statement that the courts cans determine constitutionality. This seems to be a massive omission. 

The founding fathers had little knowledge of transportation.  50 miles was a long distance.  There were no canals, national roads, trains, or air plains .  This affects what interstate commerce means.  Clearly, the founding fathers could have no understanding of national radio and TV etworks.  How could they have understood a dam sending power to dozens of states?

The founding fathers feared a standing army.  They had just won a war with muskets.  They wanted to be able to call up a citizen militia to defend the country.  Those in the south wanted a citizen militia to defend against slave revolt.  When Shays ani-tax rebellion occured Washington called up that militia and led it against the rebels.  

I suggest that if we could bring Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington to today they just might become catatonic.  Cars would appears to be some kind of smoking monsters.  A bus ride from Washington to Philadelphia would scare them as many at that time felt you couldn't breath at 50 miles an hour.  Jefferson the deist would be horrified by evangelicals.  Madison and Hamilton, to say nothing of Washington would be constantly arguing.  All four would be shocked by integration.  All 4 would likely wonder how the Supreme Court got it's power.           

None of this is to say the founding fathers were not great people, but they were not all knowing.  They were not in full agreement about everything.  They were politicians.

----------


## JustPassinThru

The Founding Fathers WROTE what it was they agreed upon, Bobby.  The _Federalist Papers_.  You can even get it free online in PDF form...no, I don't have a link.

Many of them also took notes and wrote letters back to their State Assemblies to report on progress and explain what they did.  I haven't read those; but they are out there.

Only a sophist with an agenda will pretend to not know the intent of the Framers.

And none of what they did was disqualified by technological advances.  The Constitution set up a FRAMEWORK.  Automobiles do not change the need for Separation of Powers.

No, they did not set up a structure to determine what is Constitutional.  They felt the Constitution was self-evident - this was one mistake; they apparently didn't realise that sophists would come out of the woodwork almost immediately.  It is what Franklin was speaking of in saying that with time, the People would become Corrupt - and require despotic government.

But of course, Leftists believe HISTORY BEGINS TODAY.  Forget the past - it's a new era; we have cars and computers, so we don't heed that Separation Of Powers crap!  Let's just get a REALLY SMART GUY in there, and go to town!

LIke Venezuela.  EXACTLY like Venezuela.  They were a prosperous country, twenty years ago.  Then Hugo sold them on this really-smart PLAN...and of course, like good Communists everywhere, he left lots of things OUT.

----------

BobJam (05-09-2017),iceberg (05-09-2017),Rutabaga (05-09-2017),Sled Dog (05-09-2017),usfan (05-09-2017)

----------


## Midgardian

I keep a paperback copy of _The Federalist Papers_ in arms reach, not far from the U.S. Constitution and the Holy Bible.

----------


## RobertLafollet

The federalist papers were political documents designed to convince the various states to adopt the Constitution.  Note that foreign commerce is addressed in #42.  Currently, most large business are international and thus subject to this clause.  For instance Trump owns business all business all over the world.  Likewise Toyota is a Japanese company.  RT TV is a Russian company.  Thus it would seem that the federal government can regulate any international business.  That would appear to be all the TV networks and anything that advertises on them.  Robert Kennedy argued successfully that business that uses products that cross state lies can be regulated.  It would seem that now most small business use products or services that are provided by international companies so that make them regulatable under the federal governments right to regulate foreign commerce.  

Looking at Federalist 42 it is clear that the author did not contemplate 
an international economy such as now exists.  Thus we can infer that the Constitution does not contemplate this.  

None of this deals with the separation of powers.  However, the communications revolution started by radio and then TV does as it greatly increases the power of the President at the expense of the Congress.  The unconstitutional Supreme Court has held up better in this regard.

----------


## Sled Dog

> The federalist papers were political documents designed to convince the various states to adopt the Constitution.  
> .


And thus they EXPLAINED what the Constitution was to do.

YOu know NOTHING about the Constitution, why do you post on the topic?

You know NOTHING about economics.    Why do you post on the topic?

You know nothing about politics.  Why do you post on the topic.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> The federalist papers were political documents designed to convince the various states to adopt the Constitution.


And this disqualifies them?  They were trying to explain the results of their work to a sceptical public.

There was no monetary or power-based incentive; no reason to lie.




> Note that foreign commerce is addressed in #42.  Currently, most large business are international and thus subject to this clause.


Commerce is not foreign relations.  What is your point?




> For instance Trump owns business all business all over the world.  Likewise Toyota is a Japanese company.  RT TV is a Russian company.  Thus it would seem that the federal government can regulate any international business.


It would seem so to someone who's erotically aroused by government regulation.  Trade is not diplomacy.  And taxation on foreign goods (tariffs) barring some National Security need, or intent to punish hostile foreign powers...absent those, it amounts to crony protections for Americans, usually specific Americans and as quid-pro-quo for campaign money or other favors.




> That would appear to be all the TV networks and anything that advertises on them.  Robert Kennedy argued successfully that business that uses products that cross state lies can be regulated.  It would seem that now most small business use products or services that are provided by international companies so that make them regulatable under the federal governments right to regulate foreign commerce.


And now, with all this microregulation, most businesses have sent manufacturing outside our borders.

And tariffs won't change that.  All those will do is immediately double prices; and eventually limit what's in our stores.

So we, too, can have department stores with bare shelves.  




> Looking at Federalist 42 it is clear that the author did not contemplate 
> an international economy such as now exists.  Thus we can infer that the Constitution does not contemplate this.


So that's your excuse for expanding government powers beyond the Constitution?  That something wasn't mentioned, and now the control freaks who are illiberal Liberals, want to regulate it to death?




> None of this deals with the separation of powers.  However, the communications revolution started by radio and then TV does as it greatly increases the power of the President at the expense of the Congress.  The unconstitutional Supreme Court has held up better in this regard.


Unconstitutional Supreme Court.  Have you read the Constitution?  Apparently not.

Have you read history, historian?  Apparently not.  Your answer to a modern world not described in detail in the Constitution...is _FEUDALISM_.  Which didn't work well in the Middle Ages and had to be overthrown for humans to progress.

----------

BobJam (05-09-2017),Rutabaga (05-09-2017),usfan (05-09-2017)

----------


## iceberg

> Where is "helping to put the noose around my children's neck" any part of my stated goals?
> 
> If you want to defeat the enemy, you have to kill them.
> 
> If you want to defeat the Rodent, you have to kill them with kisses and kindness? 
> 
> What rot.
> 
> Kill them.
> ...


dude - i SERIOUSLY have zero time for your blind hate. whatever you're hating must be pretty bad for you to pretty much give your life to hate in that regard.

good luck with it.

----------


## usfan

> dude - i SERIOUSLY have zero time for your blind hate. whatever you're hating must be pretty bad for you to pretty much give your life to hate in that regard.
> 
> good luck with it.


I would not call it 'blind hate'..  'Open disdain' is probably a better description.  The Dog pulls no punches, & he is a bit over the top, with some of the comments.  I have certainly gotten into some heated discussions with him, & the 'open disdain', comes through evenly.. he is an equal opportunity offender...    :Big Grin:

----------

Sled Dog (05-09-2017)

----------


## BobJam

> . . . Let's see.. i have seen you use *'white protestants!'*, as a pejorative, 'Racist!' with the *stormfront* association, & i think i remember some kind of shot at *'evangelicals!'* in there, too . . .





> *Never said any of the things you're asserting* and *I defy you to prove that I have*





> . . . I quoted you directly . . .





> You're lying.





> . . . i quoted your own words . . .





> *You're lying, you can't prove anything you say*, so let's just move on.


Considering that sequence, let's see what was actually said:




> Nonsense dude: nice run around. The OP is written by a *white protestant*, and it conflates history into a fallacy.





> Yep: you *Stormfront*





> Your silly OP told me exactly what you are and now you admit it which only makes my point stronger. You're a right-wing *evangelical* who decided to confuse the Reformation with the Dark Ages.


Now, @jet57, tell us again who's lying.

----------

Rutabaga (05-09-2017),usfan (05-09-2017)

----------


## iceberg

> I would not call it 'blind hate'..  'Open disdain' is probably a better description.  The Dog pulls no punches, & he is a bit over the top, with some of the comments.  I have certainly gotten into some heated discussions with him, & the 'open disdain', comes through evenly.. he is an equal opportunity offender...


just not going to get into calling people who disagree with me scum, rodents and the like. he seems to revel in it and every post he makes is just over the top asshole to people.

he's free to do what he wants. that's not up to me. but i'm free to slide his unhappy anger boner to ignore and move on.

----------

Sled Dog (05-09-2017)

----------


## usfan

> None of us can know exactly what the founding fathers felt they had agreed o.  I note that many Republicans seem to think they voted for a bill that would not hurt anyone on Medicaid.  They seem to think that someone with diabetes will be able to get care in an emergency room.  That someone with a small lump in the breast will be able to get it diagnosed in the emergency room.  They seem to think that rural emergency rooms can afford to treat people who can't pay for free.  All of this is of course idiotic.  But they believe what they want to.  I suggest the founding fathers were no different.  
> 
> No real method for determining constitutionality is included in the Constitution.  There is no description of how the Supreme Court is to work.  Certainly there is no statement that the courts cans determine constitutionality. This seems to be a massive omission. 
> 
> The founding fathers had little knowledge of transportation.  50 miles was a long distance.  There were no canals, national roads, trains, or air plains .  This affects what interstate commerce means.  Clearly, the founding fathers could have no understanding of national radio and TV etworks.  How could they have understood a dam sending power to dozens of states?
> 
> The founding fathers feared a standing army.  They had just won a war with muskets.  They wanted to be able to call up a citizen militia to defend the country.  Those in the south wanted a citizen militia to defend against slave revolt.  When Shays ani-tax rebellion occured Washington called up that militia and led it against the rebels.  
> 
> I suggest that if we could bring Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington to today they just might become catatonic.  Cars would appears to be some kind of smoking monsters.  A bus ride from Washington to Philadelphia would scare them as many at that time felt you couldn't breath at 50 miles an hour.  Jefferson the deist would be horrified by evangelicals.  Madison and Hamilton, to say nothing of Washington would be constantly arguing.  All four would be shocked by integration.  All 4 would likely wonder how the Supreme Court got it's power.           
> ...


I'm not sure what the point of this is.. other than to deflect from the content of WHAT the founders said, by painting them as dull, archaic cave men.  Truth is timeless.  Ideology flavors your thoughts, words, & actions.  If the ideology is sound, & has a track record of success, then it has been tested & proven by time & practice.

But, if the ideology has been shown to produce negative consequences... oppression, corruption, despotism, slavery... then why pretend, 'We'll get it right, this time!!'?  Face the facts.  Learn from history.  Embrace a positive ideology for society, instead of returning to failed, archaic policies that have never worked, & never will.

In fact, the 'Enlightenment' ideology is much newer than the elitist ideology from the dark ages, so you are actually more hip & cutting edge by embracing that as a model for governance, rather than the elitist, socialist, repackaged aristocracy of marxism.  The roots of your progressive ideology are as old as the hills, & are not really 'New!  Improved!' at all.  Moral relativity is not new.  Authoritarianism is not new.  Nanny state control over the working man is older than any 'Fighting Bob' activist.  Looting & exploiting the working man is as popular now with the marxist left as it ever was with the elitist kings & popes.

You are quite wrong about the founders.  If you could time travel them to now, they would be apalled at how we Americans have so quickly allowed statist, monarchist style rule in the back door, masquerading as something 'New!' and hip.  they would have adapted to technology better than poor immigrants from the 3rd world do here.  They do not jump on the table in loin cloths, pointing to the sky crying, 'Iron bird!'

The American founders were not ignorant cave men.  They were deep thinkers, born of the Enlightenment.  Freedom, individual rights, Natural Law, human equality.. THESE were the high aspirations for these unique individuals, born at the perfect time in human history, to change it forever.

The cave men you mock are the current crop of progressive leftists, & their ignorant, delusional view of reality.  Professing to be wise, 'modern', & trendy, they rush headlong into madness & folly, trading the most significant advance in collective governance for a failed, unworkable system of control & elite domination.  You have done it by stealth.. gaining control of the educational system, the media, entertainment, law, politics.. all the industries that elevate talking for a living have become dominated by progressive ideology.  But it is isolated from reality, & has no connection with the very real world of work, production, & survival.

You are on a fool's errand of destruction of the American experiment.  You believe, very strongly, that the concepts of America are outdated, & we should be hip & current, & move toward nanny state socialism.  You may very well succeed in destroying the only successful experiment in self rule, & drive us back to elitist, aristocracy control, as has been the standard for most of human history.  I don't know if you truly believe this crap, or if you are just a deluded fool, who has been indoctrinated into the progressive fantasy, but it does not matter.  You are an enemy of American Freedom, even if you can't see it.

----------

iceberg (05-09-2017)

----------


## Calypso Jones

> I don't have to lie about Islam. I just have more education than you. Check out Grace Church in Charleston.. *That's where I was baptized a million years ago.*


for who.

----------

FirstGenCanadian (05-09-2017)

----------


## ChemEngineer

> None of this is to say the founding fathers (sic) were not great people, but they were not all knowing.


  Like you liberals are... in your own minds....




> They were not in full agreement about everything.


  Like you liberals are... about everything.... because you KNOW everything, and Barack is perfect and anyone who says differently is "a racist."  
And Hillary is perfect and anyone who says differently is "a misogynist."






> They were politicians.


No, they were simple farmers, and lawyers, and preachers, and businessmen with none of that vaunted "experience" in politics which you liberals pretended Hillary was simply FULL OF and therefore "the most qualified candidate."

Actually the best qualifications for any public office are integrity, honesty, courage, faith in "one nation, under God," all of which add up to common sense, a very uncommon feature of Democrats.  One man, or woman, good and true, can appoint and administer talented and knowledgeable staff while listening carefully to their inputs.   Politicians very often put themselves before their country, as did Hillary.
The Founding Fathers pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor."  Liberals pledge others' lives, the fortunes of "the rich," and decry anything "sacred," citing "separation of church and state."

----------

2cent (05-09-2017),Rutabaga (05-09-2017),usfan (05-09-2017)

----------


## usfan

> Considering that sequence, let's see what was actually said:
> Now, @jet57, tell us again who's lying.


Anyone who has followed the thread knew this, & it was obvious.  It is telling to me, how the progressive left will lie, accuse, & bluff their way through something like this, just for propaganda purposes.. to deflect or smear their opponent.  It is absurd, but we see it all the time with the left.  Even when it is clearly exposed, they deny it, & keep up the lie.. as obama, hillary, & so many progressives who are role models for this behavior.

It is a deadly evil for humanity, this 'lying for expediency', 'taqqiya' like justification.  It shows why the islamists & the progressives are so simpatico on every issue.  the goals, methods, & ideologies are nearly identical.

I get tired of playing the game with them, exposing their lies, & repeating the facts to deaf ears.  They are willfully, deliberately deaf & blind, & that is part of their agenda.  They frustrate rational people, who have a sense of Truth, Reason, & Reality.  And that is the goal, imo.  They are not seeking Truth, but promoting an agenda, at all costs.  And the ends justify the means, so if you further your cause by lying, killing, smearing, mocking, or any normal vice of humanity for millennia, it is ok with them.

Almost every thread where any discussion with the left takes place, has illustrations of these tactics.

----------

BobJam (05-09-2017),iceberg (05-09-2017),JustPassinThru (05-09-2017),Rutabaga (05-09-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

> Anyone who has followed the thread knew this, & it was obvious.  It is telling to me, how the progressive left will lie, accuse, & bluff their way through something like this, just for propaganda purposes.. to deflect or smear their opponent.  It is absurd, but we see it all the time with the left.  Even when it is clearly exposed, they deny it, & keep up the lie.. as obama, hillary, & so many progressives who are role models for this behavior.
> 
> It is a deadly evil for humanity, this 'lying for expediency', 'taqqiya' like justification.  It shows why the islamists & the progressives are so simpatico on every issue.  the goals, methods, & ideologies are nearly identical.
> 
> I get tired of playing the game with them, exposing their lies, & repeating the facts to deaf ears.  They are willfully, deliberately deaf & blind, & that is part of their agenda.  They frustrate rational people, who have a sense of Truth, Reason, & Reality.  And that is the goal, imo.  They are not seeking Truth, but promoting an agenda, at all costs.  And the ends justify the means, so if you further your cause by lying, killing, smearing, mocking, or any normal vice of humanity for millennia, it is ok with them.
> 
> Almost every thread where any discussion with the left takes place, has illustrations of these tactics.


its prog nature to lie...

----------


## ChemEngineer



----------


## JustPassinThru

> *I get tired of playing the game with them, exposing their lies, & repeating the facts to deaf ears.  They are willfully, deliberately deaf & blind, & that is part of their agenda.  They frustrate rational people, who have a sense of Truth, Reason, & Reality.  And that is the goal, imo.  They are not seeking Truth, but promoting an agenda, at all costs.  And the ends justify the means, so if you further your cause by lying, killing, smearing, mocking, or any normal vice of humanity for millennia, it is ok with them.
> * 
> Almost every thread where any discussion with the left takes place, has illustrations of these tactics.


So VERY true.  And it's the case on nearly every open discussion forum on the Web.  Not just _taqiyya_; the secular Left is putting out its sophistry and spin, and attacking those who violate their sense of PC like hyenas smelling blood.

Their aim is to shout down, intimidate, silence anyone who speaks contrary to their diktats, their Narrative...the better that they can preserve their Potemkin Village of collectivist liberalism.

It's such a far cry from what the Web was like fifteen years ago, when there was open discussion, without agendas.

----------

Rutabaga (05-09-2017),usfan (05-09-2017)

----------


## Rutabaga

the internet has led to perception=truth...before,,if you didnt read the newspapers or watch the news,,,you could not be so easily influenced...now we are bombarded every day with fake this and fake that claiming to be the gospel...everyone has an agenda and truth is an obstacle to be overcome... 

its difficult for some to wade through the bullshit to find the bull...

----------

usfan (05-09-2017)

----------


## jet57

> Considering that sequence, let's see what was actually said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, @jet57, tell us again who's lying.


usfan is: he's of the opinion that my comments were made to be derogatory when they certainly were not. His opinion is historically inaccurate, he can;t prove anything he says, which is a form of lying, and he's motivated through his religious world view on the subject we were debating. My replies have been true and my reply to you is also true.

As for Midguardian; the guy makes racist comments all the time, so commenting on his _perceived_ online hangouts was only a reasonable conclusion.

So I suggest that you take the time to go back through the thread and perhaps gain a context rather than blindly making an accusation.

_The Reformation did not end the Dark Ages_.

----------


## Sled Dog

> where is working together illustrated in the way you're doing things? you put things in an un-winnable situation then on one wins and we all sit around angry at the other side for not budging while we refuse to budge also.


Where is "working together" illustrated when that option leads to an early grave if not slavery first.

I fought in the Cold War.

Dead IS better than Red.

----------


## Sled Dog

> This thread is about progressive ideology. 
> 
> Don't you always say that liberalism is a religion?


Rodents don't have an ideology.

An ideology is an rationally organized system of ideas.

Islame is an ideology.   It's ideas are rationally organized around the themes of rape, murder, rape and robbery.

Rodents got themselves a RELIGION.

Their religion is "win one for the Master, no matter how, no matter what".

----------


## Sled Dog

> just not going to get into calling people who disagree with me scum, rodents and the like. he seems to revel in it and every post he makes is just over the top asshole to people.
> 
> he's free to do what he wants. that's not up to me. but i'm free to slide his unhappy anger boner to ignore and move on.


Explain what being nice to the friggin' Rodents has gotten us.

MORE Rodents.

MORE chains.

MORE debt.

MORE terrorism.

MORE murdered babies.

MORE lies.

MORE treason.

LESS security.

LESS wealth.

LESS freedom.

LESS opportunity.

YOU can play kissy-face with Rodents.

I cannot.

I know what those things are and what they are after.

----------


## usfan

@memesofine posted a video in another thread that illustrated exactly what i posted in this thread.  I looked for this graphic, which is a picture of what my thousand words have said..   :Big Grin: 



Now, this focuses on Obama, who is but a bit player in this agenda, but the roots, & thread of doom can be followed.

I have especially been convinced, from reading the works of marx, darwin, & the many early progressives & their ilk, that the roots are exactly as illustrated.. beginning in earnest with marx & darwin, who were contemporaries, & who influenced each other.

Newton vs Darwin:  Basis for Worldviews

----------


## usfan

I replied to a mosh pit thread with something that should have a glimpse, at least, in the public forums.  It relates to this thread topic,  so I'll put it here.   :Smile: 

I see a progression of thought.. ideology and mindsets.. that continued from the 19th century.

'Science!' and logic were the realm, historically, of monks, the priesthood, and the aristocracy. Reasoning and the 'age of reason' were from theologians and Enlightenment philosophers, almost all of them steeped in religious terminology and a God centered worldview.

Even by Darwin, the religious implications AND reasoning are impossible to ignore. 
Marx, and a few others, led the way with an anti-christian, atheistic worldview. He co-opted Darwinism, and it sprouted into full fledged Progressivism by the turn of the 20th century. But the emotionalism of the abolitionists, and the moral outrage and indignation it produced was far more effective than dry reasoning. THAT was for academians, who were mostly theologians, at that time. But the religious hysteria that prohibition, women's suffrage, civil rights, and other social issues generated was more powerful and effective than rational moralizing. THAT was needed for social change and engineering, not ivory tower hypothesizing.

The irony is that Progressivism, with its roots in atheistic marxism AND humanism (Dewey, et al), has no basis for moralizing.. not rationally, anyway. But, they seized the emotion, and used the power of hysterics to fire up their base, even when they had no rational basis for it.

Thus was born the modern progressive liberal. They had the presumption of the new godless intellectualism.. Marx, etc, but absorbed the righteous indignation of the Christian social activists. Even now we see this same, conflicted, bizarre blend of moral indignation, while holding to an amoral worldview

----------

