What kind of "Christian values" do Conservatives want?

[rjhenn]

Yes we do because you are a Marxist, specifically a socialist. In your futile attempt to hide that fact, you absurdly deny that NAZI Germany was socialist. Unbelievable.


Yes they do. Try reading the Communist Manifesto. Marx' underlying assumption is that parents don't love their children and only seek to exploit them through forced labor until the day they die, ergo Marx demands that the State forcibly remove children from the home and from their parents, where the official State indoctrination is to be incorporated into the children's continuing government-controlled and monitored education until their labor can be exploited by the State instead of by their parents.

Read it.


Really? Name one such redefinition in the 1700's.


Yes, it's good to be king ... except that is not a redefinition of marriage.


Marriage has always been a public announcement that a particular woman belongs to a particular man. That does not differ between polygamy and monogamy.


.

So your concept of marriage is simply that the woman is the property of the man.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

The slave labor happened after 1939, from my understanding, but this graph I sent you is pre-1939.

I think, Nazis could've had a good gig, if they didn't go so mental.

As for mixed economies, they are the most successful.

Libertarians say look Communism fails, there's no Communist utopia.

Well, where's the Libertarian Utopia?

Every time they try, it collapses into what we've come to call a banana republic.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

Hilarious! I already answered this question and you were left hmm'ing and haww'ing. Instead of realizing that you are totally mistaken, you just waited a few days and repeated the same error. Way too funny.

You still know nothing about economics. Your posts are hilarious.

You appear to be the one who knows nothing about economics. Unrestrained capitalism always degrades into a shithole banana republic, where a few very rich families control a corrupt government and everyone else lives in poverty. Capitalism requires significant oversight to be economically successful.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[canceled.2021.3]

If you believe in evolution, then there's no need to be afraid of homosexuality. Assuming that there's a genetic component, suppressing homosexuals only leads them to procreate. If you allow them to be themselves, then evolution says that whatever genetic component there is will remove itself.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

not true, even if there is a genetic component and there isn't, you are assuming that it would be a dominant trait. That of course is not possible because they are less than 1% of the population. It would be most likely a recessive gene

It is a choice and an immoral one. Calling something what it is, is not fear of it.

It is a specious argument made by disingenuous people. Oh wait, look at who I am talking to

 

[canceled.2021.3]

Well, you make it obvious that you don't care for "Mother Erf".

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I care about the earth greatly. I am a conservationist. I am not an environmentalist. The two are very different. I would argue that I do more for the planet than all of the libtards here combined. I have a mountain retreat that is completely 100% sustainable and off grid. I supply my own electricity with hydro and solar. I burn wood for heat. Now I didn't do it to save Mother Erf. I just wanted to be free of the grid. It has the positive effect of making me use less than pompous assholes like you

Like all other things, environmentalism to you isn't about the planet but about controlling other people

 

[rjhenn]

Sent from

 

[rjhenn]

Let's see.

Would you support a fair flat tax, all people equal under the law paying the exact same percentage ... and support ditching the Marxist heavy graduated tax that we have today that comes right out of the Communist Manifesto as a step in the path towards Communism?

That would only be "fair" if everyone had roughly the same income. As it is, the rich could be taxed at 50% and they'd still have more than anyone else.

Would you support school choice giving all families the freedom and liberty to be responsible for guiding the education of their children ... and support ditching the compulsory Marxist government indoctrination of our children (unless the parents pay additionally for a private school)?

You mean "school choice" that would mean that only the children of the wealthy get a decent education. You want to turn the U.S. into Czarist Russia.

On that point, on what position do you disagree with the Black Lives Matter platform? BLM is a totally Marxist organization.

BLM should be called Only Black Lives Matter. More unarmed whites than unarmed blacks are killed by the police, yet all we ever hear about are the blacks. And blacks give the police plenty of reason to be extra on edge with black suspects. The real problem appears to be on the black side, not the blue side.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

I'm sure some of the Conservatards here will call me a Marxist for saying this, but Lenin actually did improve Russia a lot. He was a terrible person, but life in Leninist Russia was much better than life in Czarist Russia.

If Libertarianism ever did become mainstream, we'd probably end up with an economic Oligarchy. We'd have very "small government" but businesses would be making the laws. The laws would be open borders because that benefits the corporations. This is part of why Conservatism often leads to less freedom for the average person. The Right is about concentrated power, whether that's within the government or the 1%.

Exactly, but a reality that conservatives can't allow themselves to accept.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

not true, even if there is a genetic component and there isn't, you are assuming that it would be a dominant trait. That of course is not possible because they are less than 1% of the population. It would be most likely a recessive gene

It is a choice and an immoral one. Calling something what it is, is not fear of it.

It is a specious argument made by disingenuous people. Oh wait, look at who I am talking to

There isn't a direct genetic cause, but there might be a genetic predisposition, which is responsible for the uterine event that results in homosexuality. Even if it is a recessive, if they don't procreate it will become a smaller and smaller part of the gene pool. While forcing them to procreate only spreads the recessive. It doesn't appear to be a choice and, even if it is, how is it immoral? That judgment comes from fear. Talk about specious arguments!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

I care about the earth greatly. I am a conservationist. I am not an environmentalist. The two are very different. I would argue that I do more for the planet than all of the libtards here combined. I have a mountain retreat that is completely 100% sustainable and off grid. I supply my own electricity with hydro and solar. I burn wood for heat. Now I didn't do it to save Mother Erf. I just wanted to be free of the grid. It has the positive effect of making me use less than pompous assholes like you

Like all other things, environmentalism to you isn't about the planet but about controlling other people

So you're a survivalist. And you're probably here because you're lonely up there in your mountain retreat.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

It's even more basic. LGBTQIATIOAPP annoys the fúk out of me. But otherwise, yes, you could say that.


I disagree. Part of the problem here is your misuse of the word "homophobia." You need to be writing "homo-dislike" or "homo-disagree" ... but your application of "phobia" more or less blows your argument out of the water.

LGBTQIATIOAPP actively fúk with people who never fúkked with them. They have essentially become Christianphobic and HATE Christians who would otherwise support them. LGBTQIATIOAPP has some of the highest percentage of ashsoles of any organization save ANTIFA and BLM. Many are just shitty people. They actively work to get people to hate them.


I agree with the move. You've never served in the military. Ask me how I know.

This issue becomes a loser for you when you start talking about the military. You're fine talking about the DoD, but the military is completely different.


It's no excuse. Nobody has license to "go too far."


the issue is not "closing" the border. The issue is "controlling" the border. We need to control who enters. I don't want to prevent Guatemalans from entering the US. I want to be able to prevent certain specific Guatemalans, and I want to have basic information on all Guatemalans that enter, i.e. control the border. In fact, once the border is controlled, I can let in more than I did previously because I can streamline proedures and accelerate approvals.

Funny, the only place that "LGBTQIATIOAPP" exists is in this topic. So something else that you just made up?


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[canceled.2021.3]

There isn't a direct genetic cause, but there might be a genetic predisposition, which is responsible for the uterine event that results in homosexuality. Even if it is a recessive, if they don't procreate it will become a smaller and smaller part of the gene pool. While forcing them to procreate only spreads the recessive. It doesn't appear to be a choice and, even if it is, how is it immoral? That judgment comes from fear. Talk about specious arguments!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Who said anything about forcing them to procreate?

 

[canceled.2021.3]

So you're a survivalist. And you're probably here because you're lonely up there in your mountain retreat.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I don't live there exclusively. Hence the word "retreat". It started out as a place to go hunt and fish. I was fortunate enough to secure mineral rights and it has a small waterfall that is year round that provides my hydro. I use solar to heat water. Over time as I witnessed the lefts assault on our country, it grew into a bugout place that can sustain me and my family for a very long time. BLMTIFA will never come my way

 

[IBDaMann]

Just EVADING your question. Watch me not answer the question you asked and instead answer a question you did not ask. A fetus is a human being, but it isn't a person until it's born. Even the Bible says so.

So how about I ask my (three part) question again and you answer it this time? Notice that the word "person" does not occur in the question nor does the word "being." Notice that Part 1 is a simple "yes or no" question. Here it is one more time:


Part 1) Do you support the legality of killing a living human who has committed no crime and who has not expressed any desire to die? (yes or no)?
Part 2) How does your answer change if said killing mentioned in Part 1 would clearly make some other person's life more convenient?
Part 3) How does your answer change if said killed human's organs/tissue/cells/body parts could definitely benefit someone else, either biologically or financially?

"Living" is defined as per the medical definition, i.e. if there is a heartbeat then there is life.
"Human" is defined as being of the species "Homo Sapiens."

 

[IBDaMann]

Unrestrained capitalism always degrades into a shithole banana republic

Aaaah, the tired refrain of the Marxist cancer that thoroughly despises sound economics. The dead giveaway is the reference to a free market as "unrestrained capitalism." It sounds so ominous, doesn't it?

The answer is "no." All the best economies are the freest markets. Venezuela is the result of your type of market cluster-f'úk.

... where a few very rich families control a corrupt government and everyone else lives in poverty.

The result of your type of market cluster-f'úk results in one man controlling a totally corrupt and omnipotent government while everyone else slaves away while waiting to be executed.

Capitalism requires significant oversight to be economically successful.

Let's rewrite this into plain English: "Sound economics and individual freedom require strict government control to be successful." Hmmmm. No, I don't think so.

You're a lost cause.

 

[IBDaMann]

Funny, the only place that "LGBTQIATIOAPP" exists is in this topic. So something else that you just made up?

I admit to having the same difficulty keeping up with it as you do. Perhaps this one is more to your liking.

 

[IBDaMann]

Funny, you and most conservatives are very annoying for the same reasons.

Out of sheer enjoyment! Yes. I see that we agree.

 

[IBDaMann]

So your concept of marriage is simply that the woman is the property of the man.

No. Please learn to read.

Humans have been around for a long time ... assuming you accept Darwin's take on evolution. I am merely pointing out that for the vast majority of humanity's existence, "marriage" was literally a public proclamation by a man declaring a certain woman to be his. All humans, both men and women understood it this way and nobody was somehow confused.

Fast forward to today, the world is different, humans are more advanced in every area yet this customary ritual of marriage has survived, even the part about the father giving away the bride, even the part about the bride wearing a veil (from the earliest arranged marriages, the groom was not supposed to see who he got until the two were pronounced "married" and then the groom could open the veil, see who he got and could even kiss her).

When the topic comes up about what "marriage" is ... it has never been redefined ... it still carries the same traditional marriage of a man publicly claiming a woman. Yes, different cultures have different garb and different positions where people stand during different parts of the customary ritual ... but it's still the same basic fundamental thing.

I'm just waiting for someone to say "Hey, let's replace 'marriage' with [insert new term for new concept] and run it through the legislature." All I hear, however, are people insisting on "redefining" marriage which means nothing more than a warm-fuzzy rewording of the exact same public ritual of a man claiming a woman. LGBTQIATIOAPP simply wants to include public declarations of women claiming women and of men claiming men, but that is not redefining the customary ritual ... it is merely changing the wording of the local law governing the same customary ritual.

 

[StoneByStone]

I disagree. Part of the problem here is your misuse of the word "homophobia." You need to be writing "homo-dislike" or "homo-disagree" ... but your application of "phobia" more or less blows your argument out of the water.

Bigots usually disagree with the words used to describe them. I've lost track of how many times I saw an Alt-Righter say they're not sexist, they just think women are happier with less rights. So yeah, I'm not surprised that homophobic people don't like being called homophobic. I could use the term "homo-dislike" but I'm sure they'd find a way around that too. We've already seen religious people say they're "saving" gays by denying them rights, so they'd probably say they're not homo-dislikers too.

I agree with the move.

Why?

It's no excuse. Nobody has license to "go too far."

I know, I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense to single out LGBT people because activists in every category do this.

the issue is not "closing" the border. The issue is "controlling" the border. We need to control who enters. I don't want to prevent Guatemalans from entering the US. I want to be able to prevent certain specific Guatemalans, and I want to have basic information on all Guatemalans that enter, i.e. control the border. In fact, once the border is controlled, I can let in more than I did previously because I can streamline proedures and accelerate approvals.

The point is that we're able to believe in strict border control even though there are people like the El Paso shooter out there. So we can also support LGBT rights even though they have their terrible activists too.

 

[StoneByStone]

You are the one injecting the empty buzzword "Direct Democracy" into this. There is no requirement for this empty buzzword.

It's not a buzzword, it refers to decisions being made by a population. Socialists want anyone who works at a corporation to be able to vote on decisions instead of just leaving everything up to the owners and shareholders.

Marx was a firebrand preacher of a terrible religion based on a highly disfunctional economic model, i.e. one that can never work because it denies human nature in the same way that Catholicism denies human sexuality. Naturally the Manifesto will seem incoherent because everything in it is contradictory.

Das Kapital is more of the same. In fact it is three grinding volumes of the same gibberish, just expanded. If you'd like, you can pick your favorite paragraph or two from Das Kapital and I'll tell you what's wrong with it ... and I will likely be able to point to its basic mention in the Manifesto.

I'm not a fan of Marxism, Socialism, or Communism either. I just think that the words should be used correctly. If someone says modern China is a Socialist state, that's just objectively wrong, regardless of what we think of China or Socialism.
And there are parts of Marx's philosophy that aren't bad. Many of his criticisms of Capitalism are spot on. But abolition of private property isn't the right way to deal with Capitalism. I much rather redistribute wealth through generous welfare programs.

You did yourself a grave disservice. You rushed to Wikipedia and regurgitated what it told you to believe without first checking any authoritative sources or even performing a common sense check.

Capitalism, as it is used today, was coined by Karl Marx. Blanc coined the term, yes, but just to refer to dealing with material equity. Marx, on the other hand, took the term and ascribed to it the meaning of a slur of general economics principles. Marx made the term derogatory and used it to refer to simply doing business and to all of the machinery of an economy.

Yes, but you said Marx coined the term. I'm saying that he didn't, Blanc did. Marx got it from him.

When everyone pays the same flat percentage, those with greater incomes pay more. So why do you feel the need to make certain people unequal under the law? Why do you need to make thiings unfair for some people? Would you approve of a law that allows homeless people to steal your stuff because rich people like you should have to "pay more" and the homeless need your stuff more than you do so why are you complaining anyway you heartless greedy bastard! Well, you get my point. Why be unfair to people who you demonize just because they have more than you, but the law shouldn't be unfair to you in the same way?

It's not about fairness or unfairness, it's about taxing people who could spare the money and will themselves benefit from paying more. If we were to pay for universal healthcare with taxes from the 1%, the 1% would still be rich because that's how bad inequality is in America. However, the economy would be much better, because money would be flowing more instead of just sitting in a bank. And many poor people would be lifted out of poverty and go on to produce things that the rich could then enjoy. Basically, everyone wins. The only reason this isn't happening is because humans are short-sighted and can't think once they hear "higher taxes."

And obviously you can't compare that to raising taxes on working-class people, you big sillypants.

... and I suppose you determine what is objectively wrong? Would you send in social services if the parents, while homeschooling their children, should make a mistake?

This is something I really dislike about Conservatism. Truth is not determined by people. There are no "alternative facts." We have objective truth and we have opinion. If someone thinks the Earth is flat because that's part of their culture, sorry, schools should still teach that the Earth is round.
And of course social services shouldn't get involved for mistakes. The way it works is that homeschooled children have to pass tests to prove they're learning. If those tests prove that a child doesn't know basic math, then the parents should lose the right to homeschool.

Really, the reason Conservatives love homeschooling is because there are lots of facts they refuse to accept. Then they complain about schools being "liberal."

Yes it does. The NAZIs allowed people to retain their "ownership" of the businesses they nonetheless assumed full control. You keep trying to reach for the word "ownership" but the word "control" is what you need.

No shit, because the Nazis weren't Socialists.
Call it whatever you want, but the Nazis didn't control most of Germany's means of production. The vast majority was in the hands of citizens and was run privately.

The Marxist organization that currently calls itself Black Lives Matter has been around for a long time. It has simply rebranded itself relatively recently, leveraging a little political opportunism in Florida with the George Zimmerman controversy to pretend like they just sprang into existence over that event. There's a reason that BLM is 60%-70% caucasian.

An organization requires some kind of central leadership. BLM, Antifa, Neo-Nazis, the Tea Party, the Alt-Right, all of these are movements that have no central leadership or ownership. Absolutely anyone can march under the banner of any of those movements. And if you ask people at a BLM rally what they're there for, nine out of ten will say something along the lines of "racial justice," not Marxism.

Good, good ... we found some more common ground. Do you remember me explaining unfalsifiability in a previous post? There is no such thing as "systemic racism." I could tell BLM to prove to me that there is "systemic racism" and they can respond "Prove to us that it doesn't exist!"

And that's why if you believe most LGBT are as you describe, it would be on you to back your claim up.

They will complain that you "didn't go far enough" and that you didn't make it legal for them to adopt children ... because you are obviously homophobic

Um..... duh?

Why do people always do something homophobic, then be like, oh so I guess now I'm homophobic, right?!!!