Marblehead Posted November 11, 2014 (edited) While I do not directly disagree with what you have said I will speak to this: Conservatives look behind, not ahead,...and do not care about those Civil Liberties that conflict with their Faith Based agendas. I am a Conservative. Regretfully, the Republican party in the US is not representative of true "political, economic or social" conservativism. And that is because of what you spoke to. Edited November 11, 2014 by Marblehead Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vmarco Posted November 11, 2014 While I do not directly disagree with what you have said I will speak to this: I am a Conservative. Regretfully, the Republican party in the US is not representative of true "political, economic or social" conservativism. And that is because of what you spoke to. If your base-line of "true, political, economic or social conservatism" is Barry Goldwater,...I would agree. But that kind of Conservatism, on it's death bed in the 50's, 60's and 70's, died in the 80's. "Religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy." Barry Goldwater "The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' " - Barry Goldwater, September 16, 1981. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vmarco Posted November 11, 2014 (edited) While I do not directly disagree with what you have said I will speak to this: I am a Conservative. Regretfully, the Republican party in the US is not representative of true "political, economic or social" conservativism. Conservatives, like Gary Johnson,...are not even allowed into a debate. A true conservative would call Christians on their anti-American activities. Edited November 11, 2014 by Vmarco 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted November 11, 2014 If your base-line of "true, political, economic or social conservatism" is Barry Goldwater,...I would agree. But that kind of Conservatism, on it's death bed in the 50's, 60's and 70's, died in the 80's. But it still lives as an ideal of mine. Funny how Barry lost the election because he was portrayed as a war monger and then the "other party", after winning the election, took us directly to war. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted November 11, 2014 Conservatives, like Gary Johnson,...are not even allowed into a debate. A true conservative would call Christians on their anti-American activities. And that is a fact. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vmarco Posted November 11, 2014 (edited) But it still lives as an ideal of mine. Funny how Barry lost the election because he was portrayed as a war monger and then the "other party", after winning the election, took us directly to war. Goldwater said, that if Lyndon Johnson was not prepared to take the war to North Vietnam he should withdraw. It is a no brainer to say,...that if Goldwater became President, many thousands of young Americans would have lived beyond that war,...and many tens of thousands would not now have disabilities. Edited November 11, 2014 by Vmarco 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vmarco Posted November 11, 2014 (edited) Today,...neither a Barry Goldwater, nor Gary Johnson, could get 2% of the vote. And there within shines light on the disease of today's America. If you're seeking the presidency but no one notices, are you still seeking the presidency? http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politics/201111/gary-johnson-republican-candidate-debate-interview Edited November 11, 2014 by Vmarco Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted November 11, 2014 No, Gary wouldn't stand a chance (like that snowball in hell). Last major election I voted for Jill Stein as I had no other honest choice. There is talk about Jeb Bush on the Republican ticket in 2016 but I am still pissed off at him for fixing the vote so that his brother won Florida against "what's his name". Jeb did good for Florida while he was in office though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted November 11, 2014 Vmarco, your antichrist hatred clouds and overshadows everything you say. It is an unhealthy attachment to which you should devote considerable attention, in my opinion. I guess you are attempting to insult and anger me with your disjointed rants against Christians and Republicans but, being neither, I simply find your posts to be rather sad and pitiable. Not sure what this has to do with Apech's thread but, since you brought it up, I agree with you! Had a Progressive Democrat President not gotten the US into a major conflict in Vietnam and had the conservative Republican candidate won the next Presidential election instead of another Progressive Democrat, that war would not have been nearly so impactful. Instead, we had to wait for a semi-conservative Republican President to eventually bring it to a close. Not sure that really makes your point, though... In any event, that's not the topic of this thread! Those interested in why the Republicans now have the greatest representation of State & Federal government since before the Great Depression would be well-served to examine how the US Senators ousted last week voted on the Affordable Care Act four years ago. Also, pay attention to how many States passed some sort of liberal-leaning referendum last week which would have NOT passed had the voters been overwhelmingly bible-thumping right-wing nut-jobs as many dissemblers would like people to believe. As to "what happens next," we are already seeing strong indications that it is going to play out just as I predicted last week -- the Republicans has loudly announced that they will not use the power of the purse in the US House and that they will compromise on a laundry-list of things in order to avoid looking like bad guys. In the meantime, the President as announced that he is going to usurp Constitutionally mandated Congressional authority on immigration (in fact, he has already done so with his announcement in China this weekend), that he will nationalize the Internet in the US (for our own good, of course), that he has ramped up involvement in Iraq & Syria (without the mandatory Congressional involvement), and that he has been negotiating behind Congress's back (as well as the backs of America's allies on the issue) for an alliance with Iran. He has also announced that he considers last week's elections to be inconsequential because only 1/3 of eligible voters (and an unknown number of ineligible voters) turned out (which is fairly typical for a mid-term election) so he is going to listen, instead, to what he imagines to have been the voice of the 2/3 who didn't vote (who, not surprisingly, he believes support him whole-heartedly, apparently...) <sigh> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
soaring crane Posted November 11, 2014 we had to wait for a semi-conservative Republican President to eventually bring it to a close. Not sure that really makes your point, though... To whom dost thou refer? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vmarco Posted November 11, 2014 There is talk about Jeb Bush on the Republican ticket in 2016 but I am still pissed off at him for fixing the vote so that his brother won Florida against "what's his name". Jeb did good for Florida while he was in office though. But will Jeb Bush honor the 1st Amendment? His father didn't. The First Amendment to the Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." That is FREEDOM FROM RELIGION. Only second, to appease the religionists, does it say "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That is FREEDOM OF RELIGION. "I don't know that those who don't believe in God should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." George HW Bush, August 27, 1987 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vmarco Posted November 11, 2014 Vmarco, your antichrist hatred clouds and overshadows everything you say. It is an unhealthy attachment to which you should devote considerable attention, in my opinion. I guess you are attempting to insult and anger me with your disjointed rants against Christians and Republicans but, being neither, I simply find your posts to be rather sad and pitiable. Not sure what this has to do with Apech's thread but, since you brought it up, I agree with you!<sigh> No....I'm not "anti-Christ"....nor anti-Christian...people have the right to the delusion of their choice. The nice thing about OFF TOPIC....is that a dialogue can flow. Of course,...any discussion of politics in America must fully address the Christian meme http://www.christianitymeme.org/ Because since the 1950's, Christian revisionists have infiltrated every aspect of politics. Few Americans today realize that most of the Founding Fathers despised Christianity. "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Thomas Jefferson Or how about a Republican President.... "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." Abraham Lincoln "Mr. Lincoln was not a Christian." Mary Todd Lincoln Very few Americans are interested in the truth,...for example,...according to people such Herman C. Weber, DD, an expert in religious censuses and statistics, stated that few early Americans were members of a Christian church. In the 1933 Yearbook of American Churches, for instance, it says that just 6.9% of U.S. citizens belonged to a church in 1800. By 1850, religious membership had risen to 15.5%. By 1900, Christians had doubled their percentage to 37%. However, not until 1942 did Christian affiliation exceed 50% of the U.S. population. The problem is not that I am "antichrist"....the problem is that most citizens today are antiAmericans,...and not only put the faith based delusions before the Constitution,...but vehemently reject anyone shining light on their delusion. As Sam Harris correctly said, “Moderates do not want to kill anyone in the name of God, but they want us to keep using the word God as though we knew what we were talking about. They do not want anything too critical said about people who really believe in the god of their fathers because tolerance, perhaps above all else, is sacred. To speak plainly and truthfully about the state of our world—to say, for instance, that the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish—is antithetical to tolerance as moderates currently conceive it. However, we can no longer afford the luxury of such political correctness. We must finally recognize the price that we are paying to maintain the iconography of our ignorance.” Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vmarco Posted November 11, 2014 To whom dost thou refer? He is speaking of Richard Nixon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vmarco Posted November 11, 2014 As to "what happens next," we are already seeing strong indications that it is going to play out just as I predicted last week -- the Republicans has loudly announced that they will not use the power of the purse in the US House and that they will compromise on a laundry-list of things in order to avoid looking like bad guys. <sigh> That is a huge media-ted problem with Tea People,...who believe a government should be run as a private household,...the Ayn Rand household. I gravitate the other way,...more akin to Bucky Fuller. “We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.” Buckminister Fuller 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vmarco Posted November 11, 2014 "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Thomas Jefferson The only thing that will save America is for that day to come. The sooner the better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
soaring crane Posted November 11, 2014 He is speaking of Richard Nixon. Really? Must be another Richard Nixon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted November 11, 2014 But will Jeb Bush honor the 1st Amendment? His father didn't. I can't answer that. He is Southern Baptist so without doubt his religion will effect how he would govern. I can't recall it being a big deal here in Florida when he was Governor but then most of Florida is Southern Baptist so one should draw one's own conclusions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted November 11, 2014 Really? Must be another Richard Nixon. Funny. Hehehe. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
soaring crane Posted November 11, 2014 Funny. Hehehe. Well, not really so funny. The one I remember was a war-mongering, blood-thirsty psychopath. One who intentionally hobbled peace talks because they would have interfered with his presidential campaign (without a Viet Nam war, he couldn't pretend to campaign as an anti-war candidate, hence, more war) and one who was livid at not being permitted to firebomb civillians and illegally mine harbors (which he did anyway). One who broke so many laws no one yet has been able to compile a definitive list of his crimes. It isn't often that that Richard Nixon is referred to as a moderate who ended a war. And when he is referred to as such, well, my head spins and I make sarcastic comments in ye Olde English. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted November 11, 2014 And when he is referred to as such, well, my head spins and I make sarcastic comments ... Yes, I noticed that. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted November 11, 2014 Yeah, I used to think he was a monster, too, until I did my own research. With more complete information and the advantage of hindsight, the picture turns out to be quite complicated. (Funny how often that is the case with both heroes and villains.) 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
soaring crane Posted November 11, 2014 well, in my case, it was quite the opposite. And I struggle to see how someone as demonstrably intelligent and sensitive as you could possibly conclude that the man was anything but a psychopathic liar and cold-blooded war mongerer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vmarco Posted November 12, 2014 Really? Must be another Richard Nixon. The statement from Brian was, "we had to wait for a semi-conservative Republican President to eventually bring it to a close" Although President Duong Van Minh actually ended the war, Richard Nixon ended American involvement in the Vietnam War. Without US involvement, the war had to be brought to a close, through South Vietnam's surrender. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vmarco Posted November 12, 2014 One who broke so many laws no one yet has been able to compile a definitive list of his crimes. Now your talking about George W Bush,...the man who after Iraq was "softened up" through the death over 50 million, mostly children, between 1991 and 2003, illegally invaded that Country, which laid the hate for a whole new generation of terrorist in a Country that had no al qaeda before that. In fact,....few Americans today know about the real Iraq before Bush's invasion. One could include George W Bush on a list of the 50 most Evil Villains in history,...Nixon wouldn't show up in the first 1000. Before 2003, Iraqis under Saddam didn't pay any direct taxes, had minimum restrictions on starting businesses, free medical care from cradle to grave, no property taxes, no sales taxes, minimal zoning and planning laws, free college education (including women) with daily meals provided in the campus cafeteria. Iraqi's were encouraged to own guns, had virtually no crime, no homeless, (The Bedouin choose their nomadic lifestyle) Iraqis were free to travel, write, create, make art and worship their God of their choice. Nearly all US rhetoric at the time was bogus. US Suppressed Gas Charge Report by Allis Chalmers 16 September/ septembre 2002. Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) The repeated American propaganda weapon to rationalise the deaths of more than one million innocent Iraqis since 1991 through economic sanctions is that Saddam Hussein used poison gas against Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war and against Iraq's own Kurdish citizens. The accusation is now being invoked to launch a full-scale American assault on Iraq. This claim of Iraq gassing its own citizens at Halabjah is suspect. First, both Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons against each other during their war. Second, at the termination of the Iran-Iraq war, professors Stephen Pelletiere and Leif Rosenberger, and Lt Colonel Douglas Johnson of the US Army War College (USAWC) undertook a study of the use of chemical weapons by Iran and Iraq in order to better understand battlefield chemical warfare. They concluded that it was Iran and not Iraq that killed the Kurds. In the first report they wrote: "In September 1988 — a month after the war had ended...the state department abruptly, and in what many viewed as sensational manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemical weapons against its Kurdish population...with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred...Having looked at all the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the state department's claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with there were never any victims produced. International relief organisations who examined the Kurds — in Turkey where they had gone for asylum — failed to discover any. Nor were there any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee." Regarding the Halabjah incident where Iraqi soldiers were reported to have gassed their own Kurdish citizens, the USAWC investigators observed: "It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraq-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemical weapons in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds." [The Iranians thought the Kurds had fled Halabjah and that they were attacking occupying Iraqi forces. But the Iraqis had already vacated Halabjah and the Kurds had returned. Iran gassed the Kurds by accident] In March 1991 as the massive US-led attack on Iraq ended, I was visiting the USAWC to give a lecture on South Asian security and discussed this problem with professor Pelletiere at lunch. I recall Pelletiere telling me that the USAWC investigation showed that in the Iranian mass human wave battlefield strategy, Teheran used non-persistent poison gas against Iraqi soldiers so as to be able to attack and advance into the areas vacated by Iraqis. On the other hand, Baghdad used persistent gas to halt the Iranian human wave attacks. There was a certain consistency to this pattern. However, in the Halabjah incident, the USAWC investigators discovered that the gas used that killed hundreds of Kurds was the non-persistent gas, the chemical weapon of choice of the Iranians. Note it was the Iranians who arrived at the scene first, who reported the incident to UN observers, and who took pictures of the gassed Kurdish civilians. However, Saddam Hussein's Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait in August and the truth of the Halabjah incident became inconvenient. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vmarco Posted November 12, 2014 Who is the real George W Bush? The Toronto Star wrote,... "Bush is not an imbecile. He's not a puppet. I think that Bush is a sociopathic personality. I think he's incapable of empathy. He has an inordinate sense of his own entitlement, and he's a very skilled manipulator. And in all the snickering about his alleged idiocy, this is what a lot of people miss." For example,…in a Nashville speech, trying to strengthen his case against Saddam, Bush's script called for him to say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." But the words that came out of his mouth were, ""Fool me once, shame . . . shame on . . . you," followed by a long pause, then, "Fool me—can't get fooled again!" "What's revealing about this is that Bush could not say, 'Shame on me' to save his life. That's a completely alien idea to him. This is a guy who is absolutely proud of his own inflexibility and rectitude." Many have expressed, including George W. Bush himself, that he is annointed of God, and his policies, it would seem his mission is help set the clock up to closing time for this planet and its inhabitants. Who is the real George W Bush? Bush's childhood friend Terry Throckmorton: "'We were terrible to animals. A dip behind the Bush home turned into a small lake after a good rain, and thousands of frogs would come out. 'We would get BB guns and shoot them, or we'd put firecrackers in the frogs and throw them and blow them up.” Who is the real George W Bush? "I am fighting for the work of the lord", George W Bush April 11, 2002 "I am fighting for the work of the lord", Adolph Hitler, the Mein Kampf However,...Christian revisionists will write a different history,...much like they wrote out Thomas Paine as the Father of the American Revolution, and put their Samuel Adams in his place. "Washington's sword would have been yielded in vain had it not been supported by the pen of Paine" James Monroe Yet, in all of America, there are only 3 obscure (and recent) statues of Thomas Paine,...none of which are in Washington DC. Christianity is the single largest threat to America and its founding principles. Christianity's Ten Commandments are mostly in total opposition to the Bill of Rights. What do Christians think about that? "The inability or unwillingness to hate makes a person worthless. If we do not hate detestable things, the quality of our character is suspect. The Bible commands that we hate". H. A. (Buster) Dobbs, Church of Christ. "I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good . . . our goal is a Christian nation. We have the biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism..." Randall Terry, Director of Operation Rescue "Reason should be destroyed in all Christians." -- Martin Luther Share this post Link to post Share on other sites