Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You can be moral without being religious, but your morality living in the West is informed by Christian precepts whether you want to admit it or not.

Irrelevant. As one need not say, adopt the concept of the Trinity to recognize that killing is wrong.

Really?

Let's try it.

For the sake of this discussion, the two of us are 'society', in its entirety. In our scenario, there is only us, no God, and no law except what I say the law is. I am therefore solely responsible for you.

Sadly, for you, I say that you represent an inconvenience to me. Your very presence offends me...

Now because your exist, I feel that I may not fit into my prom dress, by virtue of the effect you have on my gravity.

Now, I've decided that you are not a viable life, that you can't live outside of me and I possess the power to destroy you with you being helpless to do anything to stop me.

In this scenario, you lack the means to communicate, to defend yourself in any way... I am the decider.

IF you could speak however, I'd be interested in knowing ANY REASON, within the boundaries of the above scenario, that may preclude me from exercising my supreme power over you, and removing the inconvenience that is YOU from this reality.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Supreme Court (do you know the Supreme Court is the only court in are nation not to have a Code of Ethics?).

It's certainly notthe only one without ethics though.

Really, that's not my understanding - please enlighten me.

If I could enlighten a liberal then you would have to buy my book to find out how I do it. I'm more likely to learn to levitate elephants. The problem is you don't want to be enlightened, you want free stuff and to be unburdened of your personal responsibility.

**** you. If anyone needed evidence you're an asshole, and a liar, you've provided it.;

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Mussolini was a socialist in his early years, but had a falling out with them. He became a Conservative.
Benito Mussolini - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Reagan switched parties, remember?

ROFLMNAO! That is ADORABLE!

Reagan switched parties... not ideas. Reagan didn't trade in his ideas, DUMBASS... he learned through hard won experience that Leftists are liars, thieves and murderers. He learned this as the head of the Actor's guild, wherein he was responsible for Union Contracts and when the head of the Unions refused reasonable offers, demanded vastly more than they were worth within the scope of the operation, and when they repeatedly lied and demanded that he cover for their lies and when he refused and they tried to kill him, he figured out where the problem is, and changed political parties.

ROFL... But I love your reasoning... 'Mussolini had a falling out with the Italian socialist party, and because of that, he naturally set aside his socialist beliefs, which had defined him his entire life, ideas for which he had fought and for which he had gone to prison... and just became a conservative.'

LMAO!


Mussolini figured out that the Socialist Party was never going to BE what they had promised to BE... that they were never going to be able to acquire the power they needed to BE such and that to BE such, they needed to stop trying to ERASE Italy and instead, BECOME ITALY.

Ya see genius, Mussolini figured out that if Socialist BECAME ITALY, at that point, Italy would become socialist.

LOL! You truly are just about as sharp as a bag of hair.

Folks they actually believe this crap... and the best part is: THEY LACK THE INTELLECTUAL MEANS TO KNOW ANY BETTER. And THAT is why Democracy, has never and can never: work.

 

[thanatos144]

What a shallow snob you are. So is it any wonder you would equate, Hitler, fascism and the right wing as being one and the same.

Actually, I don't equate them...perhaps if you read the thread first?

Hitler is one example of fascism. Fascism is simply one variation of extremist right-wing politics. There are many others.

btw, What does it tell us about you, that you consider reading to be snobbery?

Fascism was established by one Benito Mussolini, a life long socialist. There is NOTHING 'Right-Wing' about it, except that in its advancement of socialist ideas, it initially allows for the respect of the traditions and heritage of whatever nation it happens to be infecting. This differing from international socialism, which otherwise rejects all national traditions and heritage.

There simply is no other aspects of national socialism which differs from socialism.

Absent National Socialism, OKA: Progressivism, AKA: "A Mixed Economic Model", which nearly every Leftist on this and every other message board on the web, which is even remotely relevant to US politics claims to prefer....

Now the less foolish Leftists will note that National Socialism is 'to the right' of International Socialism such as the respective Marxist Brands... But that such is 'to the right' as Stalinism, does not make it "Rightwing".

But your claims that it does, LOL! are Hysterical!

Mussolini was a socialist in his early years, but had a falling out with them. He became a Conservative.
Benito Mussolini - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Reagan switched parties, remember?

Again with the wikis. Hey moron do you even know what the Latin means that Mussolini got the word from? I already posted it but maybe you will learn something by looking it up. I doubt it though since you use Wikipedia to learn.

Tapatalk

 

[Wry Catcher]

... the Left's argument always ends with: 'There has never been an true implementation of Socialism, all socialist experiments to date have all been corrupted by the right... '

ROFLMNAO! I say it ^^ here ^^

And it comes out >> THERE>>

... Communism never existed except in theory and of course between the ears of those who still need to look under their bed every night (find any dust bunnies last night CF?).

Of course using that perverse reasoning "Liberalism" never really existed, neither did Progressivism, or its European cousin, fascism.

And THAT is why all of the respective, synonymous terms keep getting set aside; "Communism went the way of Feudalism ... ", and a new term: "Socialism" comes along to re-brand it... as a softer, gentler way... when that played out, 'Progressive/Fascism' came along, which caused the old-schoolers to dust off the old shingle, to set them distinct from the "moderates", who eventually become old-school communist fundies... and the Leftist pot boils on and on... consistently churning Deceit and FRAUD as a means to influence the Ignorant.

You're really dumb. Really really dumb. I would call you a Sophist, but they weren't dumb. You are.

 

[boedicca]

Daniel Hannan knows the real history. Nazism is an authoritarian socialist scheme.

On 16 June 1941, as Hitler readied his forces for Operation Barbarossa, Josef Goebbels looked forward to the new order that the Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tsars. Rather, in the place of debased, Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver “der echte Sozialismus”: real socialism.

Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist. He understood Nazism to be a better and more plausible form of socialism than that propagated by Lenin. Instead of spreading itself across different nations, it would operate within the unit of the Volk.

So total is the cultural victory of the modern Left that the merely to recount this fact is jarring. But few at the time would have found it especially contentious. As George Watson put it in The Lost Literature of Socialism:

It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too.

The clue is in the name. Subsequent generations of Leftists have tried to explain away the awkward nomenclature of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party as either a cynical PR stunt or an embarrassing coincidence. In fact, the name meant what it said.

Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he had admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young man; but he felt that they had been talkers, not doers. “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun,” he boasted, adding that “the whole of National Socialism” was “based on Marx”.

Marx’s error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class war instead of national unity – to set workers against industrialists instead of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order. His aim, he told his economic adviser, Otto Wagener, was to “convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists” – by which he meant the bankers and factory owners who could, he thought, serve socialism better by generating revenue for the state. “What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish,” he told Wagener, “we shall be in a position to achieve.”...

Leftists become incandescent when reminded of the socialist roots of Nazism 8211 Telegraph Blogs

 

[Skylar]

You can be moral without being religious, but your morality living in the West is informed by Christian precepts whether you want to admit it or not.

Irrelevant. As one need not say, adopt the concept of the Trinity to recognize that killing is wrong.

Really?

Let's try it.

For the sake of this discussion, the two of us are 'society', in its entirety. In our scenario, there is only us, no God, and no law except what I say the law is. I am therefore solely responsible for you.

Sadly, for you, I say that you represent an inconvenience to me. Your very presence offends me...

Now because your exist, I feel that I may not fit into my prom dress, by virtue of the effect you have on my gravity.

Now, I've decided that you are not a viable life, that you can't live outside of me and I possess the power to destroy you with you being helpless to do anything to stop me.

In this scenario, you lack the means to communicate, to defend yourself in any way... I am the decider.

IF you could speak however, I'd be interested in knowing ANY REASON, within the boundaries of the above scenario, that may preclude me from exercising my supreme power over you, and removing the inconvenience that is YOU from this reality.

None of which has a thing to do with what you're responding to. You don't need to accept the Trinity, or the latest Avatar of Vishnu, or the Grace of Amaterasu, or the Tomato'y Wisdom of the Great Spagetti Monster, in order to recognize that killing is wrong.

Religion is merely a vehicle for moral codes. Its not even 'the' vehicle, merely one of many. And within the class of 'religion', there are a myriad of different religious beliefs, many of which contradict each other. And within a given religion, a myriad of interpretations, many of which contradict each other.

Demonstrating the superbly subjective element in any religion where 'God' or 'Gods' isn't immediately present to enforce such a moral codes.

 

[Pogo]

Daniel Hannan knows the real history. Nazism is an authoritarian socialist scheme.

On 16 June 1941, as Hitler readied his forces for Operation Barbarossa, Josef Goebbels looked forward to the new order that the Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tsars. Rather, in the place of debased, Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver “der echte Sozialismus”: real socialism.

Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist. He understood Nazism to be a better and more plausible form of socialism than that propagated by Lenin. Instead of spreading itself across different nations, it would operate within the unit of the Volk.

So total is the cultural victory of the modern Left that the merely to recount this fact is jarring. But few at the time would have found it especially contentious. As George Watson put it in The Lost Literature of Socialism:

It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too.

The clue is in the name. Subsequent generations of Leftists have tried to explain away the awkward nomenclature of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party as either a cynical PR stunt or an embarrassing coincidence. In fact, the name meant what it said.

Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he had admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young man; but he felt that they had been talkers, not doers. “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun,” he boasted, adding that “the whole of National Socialism” was “based on Marx”.

Marx’s error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class war instead of national unity – to set workers against industrialists instead of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order. His aim, he told his economic adviser, Otto Wagener, was to “convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists” – by which he meant the bankers and factory owners who could, he thought, serve socialism better by generating revenue for the state. “What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish,” he told Wagener, “we shall be in a position to achieve.”...

Leftists become incandescent when reminded of the socialist roots of Nazism 8211 Telegraph Blogs

That's been deconstructed many times over, Bo. "Socialist" didn't mean then what it means now, for one thing. It was a new, trendy and populist term at the time and it sold well. Hitler for his part objected to the term but he was only just joining the party at the time (1920 IIRC) and went along with it.

 

[Discombobulated]

Right wing is defined as ultra conservative and reactionary, there is no actual controversy about that. Over 2100 posts now and the people who want to overturn real history are no closer to substantiating their view.

 

[Political Junky]

Mussolini was a socialist in his early years, but had a falling out with them. He became a Conservative.
Benito Mussolini - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Reagan switched parties, remember?

ROFLMNAO! That is ADORABLE!

Reagan switched parties... not ideas. Reagan didn't trade in his ideas, DUMBASS... he learned through hard won experience that Leftists are liars, thieves and murderers. He learned this as the head of the Actor's guild, wherein he was responsible for Union Contracts and when the head of the Unions refused reasonable offers, demanded vastly more than they were worth within the scope of the operation, and when they repeatedly lied and demanded that he cover for their lies and when he refused and they tried to kill him, he figured out where the problem is, and changed political parties.

ROFL... But I love your reasoning... 'Mussolini had a falling out with the Italian socialist party, and because of that, he naturally set aside his socialist beliefs, which had defined him his entire life, ideas for which he had fought and for which he had gone to prison... and just became a conservative.'

LMAO!


Mussolini figured out that the Socialist Party was never going to BE what they had promised to BE... that they were never going to be able to acquire the power they needed to BE such and that to BE such, they needed to stop trying to ERASE Italy and instead, BECOME ITALY, which when that happened, Italy would become socialist.

You are just about as sharp as a bag of hair.

Folks they actually believe this crap... and the best part is: THEY LACK THE INTELLECTUAL MEANS TO KNOW ANY BETTER. And THAT is why Democracy, has never and can never: work.

You refuse facts and instead cite your opinion or the opinion of such luminaries as Jonah Goldberg.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... the Left's argument always ends with: 'There has never been an true implementation of Socialism, all socialist experiments to date have all been corrupted by the right... '

ROFLMNAO! I say it ^^ here ^^

And it comes out >> THERE>>

... Communism never existed except in theory and of course between the ears of those who still need to look under their bed every night (find any dust bunnies last night CF?).

Of course using that perverse reasoning "Liberalism" never really existed, neither did Progressivism, or its European cousin, fascism.

And THAT is why all of the respective, synonymous terms keep getting set aside; "Communism went the way of Feudalism ... ", and a new term: "Socialism" comes along to re-brand it... as a softer, gentler way... when that played out, 'Progressive/Fascism' came along, which caused the old-schoolers to dust off the old shingle, to set them distinct from the "moderates", who eventually become old-school communist fundies... and the Leftist pot boils on and on... consistently churning Deceit and FRAUD as a means to influence the Ignorant.

You're really dumb. Really really dumb. I would call you a Sophist, but they weren't dumb. You are.

ROFLMNAO!

Lemme guess, you 'feel' that sophistry is intrinsically fallacious? Am I right?

Tell me, Scamp... from where does the word 'Sophist' originate? What was the original work which described such?

And just to show ya that I'm fair... I'll give ya a clue. It's not in the dictionary where ya 'learned' that fascists are right-wingers.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Mussolini was a socialist in his early years, but had a falling out with them. He became a Conservative.
Benito Mussolini - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Reagan switched parties, remember?

ROFLMNAO! That is ADORABLE!

Reagan switched parties... not ideas. Reagan didn't trade in his ideas, DUMBASS... he learned through hard won experience that Leftists are liars, thieves and murderers. He learned this as the head of the Actor's guild, wherein he was responsible for Union Contracts and when the head of the Unions refused reasonable offers, demanded vastly more than they were worth within the scope of the operation, and when they repeatedly lied and demanded that he cover for their lies and when he refused and they tried to kill him, he figured out where the problem is, and changed political parties.

ROFL... But I love your reasoning... 'Mussolini had a falling out with the Italian socialist party, and because of that, he naturally set aside his socialist beliefs, which had defined him his entire life, ideas for which he had fought and for which he had gone to prison... and just became a conservative.'

LMAO!


Mussolini figured out that the Socialist Party was never going to BE what they had promised to BE... that they were never going to be able to acquire the power they needed to BE such and that to BE such, they needed to stop trying to ERASE Italy and instead, BECOME ITALY, which when that happened, Italy would become socialist.

You are just about as sharp as a bag of hair.

Folks they actually believe this crap... and the best part is: THEY LACK THE INTELLECTUAL MEANS TO KNOW ANY BETTER. And THAT is why Democracy, has never and can never: work.

You refuse facts and instead cite your opinion or the opinion of such luminaries as Jonah Goldberg.

And you... are still an imbecile.

 

[Skylar]

... the Left's argument always ends with: 'There has never been an true implementation of Socialism, all socialist experiments to date have all been corrupted by the right... '

ROFLMNAO! I say it ^^ here ^^

And it comes out >> THERE>>

... Communism never existed except in theory and of course between the ears of those who still need to look under their bed every night (find any dust bunnies last night CF?).

Of course using that perverse reasoning "Liberalism" never really existed, neither did Progressivism, or its European cousin, fascism.

And THAT is why all of the respective, synonymous terms keep getting set aside; "Communism went the way of Feudalism ... ", and a new term: "Socialism" comes along to re-brand it... as a softer, gentler way... when that played out, 'Progressive/Fascism' came along, which caused the old-schoolers to dust off the old shingle, to set them distinct from the "moderates", who eventually become old-school communist fundies... and the Leftist pot boils on and on... consistently churning Deceit and FRAUD as a means to influence the Ignorant.

You're really dumb. Really really dumb. I would call you a Sophist, but they weren't dumb. You are.

ROFLMNAO!

Lemme guess, you 'feel' that sophistry is intrinsically fallacious? Am I right?

Once again, you can neither refute nor even relevantly address anything you're responding to. And instead start attributing to me positions I've never taken regarding topics I've never addressed.

Do I even need to be here for this conversation you've having with yourself? You clearly can't refute my point.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... the Left's argument always ends with: 'There has never been an true implementation of Socialism, all socialist experiments to date have all been corrupted by the right... '

ROFLMNAO! I say it ^^ here ^^

And it comes out >> THERE>>

... Communism never existed except in theory and of course between the ears of those who still need to look under their bed every night (find any dust bunnies last night CF?).

Of course using that perverse reasoning "Liberalism" never really existed, neither did Progressivism, or its European cousin, fascism.

And THAT is why all of the respective, synonymous terms keep getting set aside; "Communism went the way of Feudalism ... ", and a new term: "Socialism" comes along to re-brand it... as a softer, gentler way... when that played out, 'Progressive/Fascism' came along, which caused the old-schoolers to dust off the old shingle, to set them distinct from the "moderates", who eventually become old-school communist fundies... and the Leftist pot boils on and on... consistently churning Deceit and FRAUD as a means to influence the Ignorant.

You're really dumb. Really really dumb. I would call you a Sophist, but they weren't dumb. You are.

ROFLMNAO!

Lemme guess, you 'feel' that sophistry is intrinsically fallacious? Am I right?

Once again, you can neither refute nor even relevantly address anything you're responding to. And instead start attributing to me positions I've never taken regarding topics I've never addressed.

Do I even need to be here for this conversation you've having with yourself? You clearly can't refute my point.

You'd be helping us out little collective IMMENSELY by learning how the quote system works.

As there is NOTHING in that which you've cited, that is so much as relevant to YOU!

Which provides a delightfully sweet irony, given your most recent absurd charge.

I would HOPE that you're speaking to the post wherein I challenged you to demonstrate morality, in the absence of God. But to do that, you first need to cite the RELEVANT exchange.

 

[Skylar]

... the Left's argument always ends with: 'There has never been an true implementation of Socialism, all socialist experiments to date have all been corrupted by the right... '

ROFLMNAO! I say it ^^ here ^^

And it comes out >> THERE>>

... Communism never existed except in theory and of course between the ears of those who still need to look under their bed every night (find any dust bunnies last night CF?).

Of course using that perverse reasoning "Liberalism" never really existed, neither did Progressivism, or its European cousin, fascism.

And THAT is why all of the respective, synonymous terms keep getting set aside; "Communism went the way of Feudalism ... ", and a new term: "Socialism" comes along to re-brand it... as a softer, gentler way... when that played out, 'Progressive/Fascism' came along, which caused the old-schoolers to dust off the old shingle, to set them distinct from the "moderates", who eventually become old-school communist fundies... and the Leftist pot boils on and on... consistently churning Deceit and FRAUD as a means to influence the Ignorant.

You're really dumb. Really really dumb. I would call you a Sophist, but they weren't dumb. You are.

ROFLMNAO!

Lemme guess, you 'feel' that sophistry is intrinsically fallacious? Am I right?

Once again, you can neither refute nor even relevantly address anything you're responding to. And instead start attributing to me positions I've never taken regarding topics I've never addressed.

Do I even need to be here for this conversation you've having with yourself? You clearly can't refute my point.

You'd be helping us out little collective IMMENSELY by learning how the quote system works.

As there is NOTHING in that which you've cited, that is so much as relevant to YOU!

Which provides a delightfully sweet irony, given your most recent absurd charge.

I would HOPE that you're speaking to the post wherein I challenged you to demonstrate morality, in the absence of God. But to do that, you first need to cite the RELEVANT exchange.

And now that you've failed miserably to refute any point I've made regarding how unnecessary religion is in being moral, you abandon the topic completely.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have needed to run. Try again.

 

[Steinlight]

You can be moral without being religious, but your morality living in the West is informed by Christian precepts whether you want to admit it or not.

Irrelevant. As one need not say, adopt the concept of the Trinity to recognize that killing is wrong. The acceptance or rejection of Christianity has no intrinsic connection to one's morality. The religion and the morality are separate. And you can absolutely partake of the latter while rejecting the former.

Even in your example, religion is nothing more than a vehicle for information. Once you've received the information, you don't need the vehicle.

Also, without religion, without a God, there is no good or evil objectively speaking and thus all is permissible if one can get away with it.

God is simply a Leviathan. An overarching authority. You can make the same claims in regard to 'Nature'. Or 'Moral Truth'. Or the 'Mandate of Heaven'. Or the 'Greater Good'. Or any other grand authority you wish to conceive of.

A god isn't particularly necessary for morality. An acceptance that there are transcendent truths is.

Worse, religion offers a fallacious veneer of objectivity. When in reality, its ridiculously, spectacularly, outrageously subjective. With the same religious texts justifying the actions of Grand Inquisitor Torquemada and Mother Teresa. Depending on which passages they emphasized, and how they interpreted them.

Without your Leviathan standing in person and perfect, immediate enforcement of said 'moral truths', you're left with the same standard of subjective interpretation that has always existed. Where we make our best judgment call based our understanding of moral truths.

Which history has demonstrated tend to vary wildly from people to people, civilization to civilization, and even era to era in the same civilization.

The point is, religion informs our conscience on issues like murder, whether it be the high priests in Ur who organized the first society, or Hammurabi and his Code of Laws, or Moses and the Ten Commandments, all were were based off religious belief in a deity who provides an objective moral code. They were all god fearing. You may no believe in God personally but like I said before your objective moral code(if you have one) is informed by theism. Without an overarching authority, or arbiter of justice eternally, there exists no objective morality, just opinions.

I am a theist, I used to be agnostic, one of the reasons is because I haven't heard a convincing take down of the cosmological argument. But beyond that, I think there is value in religion beyond whether God exists, for the exact reason you state. The so called "veneer" of objectivity. A world where there isn't an overarching arbiter of justice in the cosmic sense, where there is no difference objectively between Pope John Paul II inspiring the solidarity movement in Poland and Stalin putting millions in Gulags, no difference between Mother Theresa and the most wicked and brutal third world sweat shop owner, no difference between an honest a good family man and an adulterer, that it all ends up the same in the end, is a very depressing place. Also, a place without moral objectivity is logically a place with more moral excess(immorality) as there is no objective argument against. So not only is the secular outlook more depressing, its logical conclusion is a debased quality of living in my view

 

[Wry Catcher]

I am not for a "morality" police of any kind.

So you're against the Legal Code?

I have never caught an anarchist vibe from you. Are you sure you're against the enforcement of soundly reasoned morality?

Help a brother out here... will ya?

Now you are just being snarky and daft. You know what I mean by the term "morality police"(that means something like the religious police in Saudi Arabia or ISIS controlled territory that enforces religious edicts), obviously I am for a legal code. If only options are the extremes like being a morally nihilistic anarchist or being like the Taliban than you are an socially autistic person that cant understand the concept of degree.

OH! I see... I've just got this thing about the misnomer wherein the law can't be affiliated with morality due to the sacrosanct myth of 'separation of church and state'... (It's in the Constitution, somewhere... no one seems to know where, but I've been assured that it is.) So when I see 'morality and law' in a sentence where someone has stated a disregard for morality, in legal terms, I generally follow it up, with prejudice.

Rest assured, I mean you no malice.

“Compassion is the basis of morality.”
Arthur Schopenhauer

Callous Conservatives are both immoral and hypocritical.
Amen

 

[bripat9643]

Many ameican conservatives, and now even libertarians, dont believe in democracy

Have you noticed when you pull things out of your ass, they generally stink?

I'd like to see you back this up.

ever heard conservatives bleat out the saying "we're a republic not a democracy" now sometimes tacked on with "democracy = mob rule".....there is my evidence

Gasoline is great stuff for making your car go, but it sucks for drinking. Democracy is great when government has to make a decision, the problem is that all government decisions are imposed on us by force. government sucks, so we should keep it's control over our lives to the absolute minimum possible.

Liberals, on the other hand, think government should run everything. That's how we know they are all insane.

Liberals don't think government should run everything...who told you that?.....Rush, O'Reilly?...

I simply note their behavior.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

ROFLMNAO! I say it ^^ here ^^

And it comes out >> THERE>>

Of course using that perverse reasoning "Liberalism" never really existed, neither did Progressivism, or its European cousin, fascism.

And THAT is why all of the respective, synonymous terms keep getting set aside; "Communism went the way of Feudalism ... ", and a new term: "Socialism" comes along to re-brand it... as a softer, gentler way... when that played out, 'Progressive/Fascism' came along, which caused the old-schoolers to dust off the old shingle, to set them distinct from the "moderates", who eventually become old-school communist fundies... and the Leftist pot boils on and on... consistently churning Deceit and FRAUD as a means to influence the Ignorant.

You're really dumb. Really really dumb. I would call you a Sophist, but they weren't dumb. You are.

ROFLMNAO!

Lemme guess, you 'feel' that sophistry is intrinsically fallacious? Am I right?

Once again, you can neither refute nor even relevantly address anything you're responding to. And instead start attributing to me positions I've never taken regarding topics I've never addressed.

Do I even need to be here for this conversation you've having with yourself? You clearly can't refute my point.

You'd be helping us out little collective IMMENSELY by learning how the quote system works.

As there is NOTHING in that which you've cited, that is so much as relevant to YOU!

Which provides a delightfully sweet irony, given your most recent absurd charge.

I would HOPE that you're speaking to the post wherein I challenged you to demonstrate morality, in the absence of God. But to do that, you first need to cite the RELEVANT exchange.

And now that you've failed miserably to refute any point I've made regarding how unnecessary religion is in being moral, you abandon the topic completely.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have needed to run. Try again.

Your concession, through your failure to demonstrate a soundly reasoned, sustainable morality in the absence of God, is duly noted and summarily accepted.

For the readers edification, below is the challenge advanced to the above contributor who has now conceded to the standing points:

You can be moral without being religious, but your morality living in the West is informed by Christian precepts whether you want to admit it or not.

Irrelevant. As one need not say, adopt the concept of the Trinity to recognize that killing is wrong.

Really?

Let's try it.

For the sake of this discussion, the two of us are 'society', in its entirety. In our scenario, there is only us, no God, and no law except what I say the law is. I am therefore solely responsible for you.

Sadly, for you, I say that you represent an inconvenience to me. Your very presence offends me...

Now because you exist, I feel that I may not fit into my prom dress, by virtue of the effect you have on my gravity.

Now, I've decided that you are not a viable life, that you can't live outside of me and I possess the power to destroy you with you being helpless to do anything to stop me.

In this scenario, you lack the means to communicate, to defend yourself in any way... I am the decider.

IF you could speak however, I'd be interested in knowing ANY REASON, within the boundaries of the above scenario, that may preclude me from exercising my supreme power over you, and removing the inconvenience that is YOU from this reality.

.
.
.

Do you SEE how easy this is? The contributor was wholly incapable of even CITING THE CHALLENGE... let alone offering up a basis in reason, as to why her life should be spared... within the scope of her own narrow, hapless, unsustainable ideology.

Anyone can do it really... you merely allow the Leftist to speak, then challenge them to support what they've said.

It is a 100% certainty that they will fail.

It works with any of them... From Leftist College Profs, through Leftist former Speaker of the House and Senate majority Leaders, through to Leftist Presidents of the United States. And it would work if the sum of the entire Berkley Faculty were to try and do so collectively.

It works perfectly every single time it is tried. The Ideological Leftist is wholly incapable of sustaining a dam' thing they say.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I am not for a "morality" police of any kind.

So you're against the Legal Code?

I have never caught an anarchist vibe from you. Are you sure you're against the enforcement of soundly reasoned morality?

Help a brother out here... will ya?

Now you are just being snarky and daft. You know what I mean by the term "morality police"(that means something like the religious police in Saudi Arabia or ISIS controlled territory that enforces religious edicts), obviously I am for a legal code. If only options are the extremes like being a morally nihilistic anarchist or being like the Taliban than you are an socially autistic person that cant understand the concept of degree.

OH! I see... I've just got this thing about the misnomer wherein the law can't be affiliated with morality due to the sacrosanct myth of 'separation of church and state'... (It's in the Constitution, somewhere... no one seems to know where, but I've been assured that it is.) So when I see 'morality and law' in a sentence where someone has stated a disregard for morality, in legal terms, I generally follow it up, with prejudice.

Rest assured, I mean you no malice.

“Compassion is the basis of morality.”
Arthur Schopenhauer

Callous Conservatives are both immoral and hypocritical.
Amen

Wow... If there were only SOME potential correlation between that which you've cited and your would-be response. Wouldn't THAT be nice, for you?