When did people stop living unto they were 800 + years old?

[Openmind]

I think a good case could be made that the founding fathers of this country were liberals. It all depends on the definition.

I agree! But it seems that, in today's Right wing definition, the term "liberal" is nothing more than an insult toward anyone who doesn't agree with the rigid and extreme right conservative propaganda.

I disagree with this definition, and the INTENT to insult by assigning the "violence" and mass shootings that have occured in the US to "liberals" is not only wrong, it is ridiculous.

Here is one link to know a little more about mass shooting:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

and another one:

"I think we should ask the question why is America 30 percent white guys, and 70 percent of the shootings in the last many decades have been at the hands of white guys ... I do think it's interesting to note that had 70 percent of mass shooters been let's say Arab or African-American men, I think the conversation would be ... much uglier."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...Because-Majority-Of-Mass-Shooters-White-VIDEO#

 

[cashmcall]

This comment is highly offensive.
In fact, if you look at the "deranged" people who have committed crimes in the last 30 years, most of them were hyper religious crazies, and White supremacists. . .nothing to do with liberal.
Do you need a link that describe in details the mass murderers since 1967? And, by the way, "mass murder" is only recorded as such if 4 or more people died!

I would also like to see where "liberals" like me and like many others have EVER promoted "revolutions" or "death by fire arms" or any violence!
In fact, "liberals" are USUALLY against guns and violence.
You are losing a lot of your credibility by being so bias and offensive.

Just look back to the 60's...I would like to see where a true Christian (in the same time period) commeted these crimes, because a true christian would not...in my opinion most of the liberal agenda and I quote you" lead them to actions that are destructive in some way to the general public, AND obviously we should care!"
I am sure of one thing my credibility and my opinion will be just fine...

 

[Openmind]

Just look back to the 60's...I would like to see where a true Christian (in the same time period) commeted these crimes, because a true christian would not...in my opinion most of the liberal agenda and I quote you" lead them to actions that are destructive in some way to the general public, AND obviously we should care!"
I am sure of one thing my credibility and my opinion will be just fine...

See, this is dishonest. Because you are (an old trick, that many so called "Christians" use) adding the "TRUE" Christian to "Christian."
What is a "true Christian?" Who judges who is or isn't a "true Christian?

It seems that too many of you like to pretend that, anyone who doesn't act within the "accepted" rules of "Christianity," or anyone who suddenly does something that is reprehensible or deadly is suddenly tagged as NOT a TRUE CHRISTIAN!

This started with HITLER. . .whom today "CHRISTIANS" reject as being a "TRUE CHRISTIAN."

The fact is that, many of those mass murders are committed by people who think of themselves as "true Christian." And whether or not you agree that they should KEEP that "tag" after they commit a crime is immaterial. . .many killings and horrible deeds are committed by people who think of themselves as "true Christians," including killer of doctors who perform abortions, the Westboro crowd, and many Right Wing and White supremacist militias.

Why don't you go look at the list of mass murderers of crimes committed based on "ideologies," and you will have to admit that, more often than not, they are committed by
WHITE people
MALE
Christians
and MENTALLY UNSTABLE.

Show me any statistics that even comes close to profiling "liberals" as a high risk for committing mass murders or even killing in general.

By the way, I am NOT saying that Conservatives are more likely than anyone else to be mass murderers. . .I leave that kind of ridiculous generalization to you! But the fact is that MORE HYPER RELIGIOUS PEOPLE are conservatives, and that MANY CRIMES are committed by hyper religious "Christians."

and whether you call these "TRUE" Christians or not is a moot point. . . because for many, their "FAITH in GOD" is what drives them. . .with a good dose of mental illness.

And. . .it is a well known fact that a very common symptoms of people with mental illness (especially schizophrenia) is HYPER RELIGIOSITY, in fact, HYPER RELIGIOSITY is, in itself, recognized as a mental illness. . . the trick is to recognize at which point religiosity becomes HYPER religiosity, just as the trick is to recognize when feelings of depression and/or situational depression becomes major depression or bi-polar disorder.

 

[cashmcall]

I was never talking about mass murder..why don't you look at all murders..see if more are committed by liberals or consevatives...YOUR NOT GOING TO LIKE THE ANSWER!''I was talking about the dangers related to liberalism...

 

[cashmcall]

Read the wole post... I absolutely agree with you and others who say that many atrocious things have been done in the name of God, and even in the name of Christianity. However, these atrocities were not perpetrated by God, but by evil human beings. If we look at the history of democide (which includes genocide, politicide, and mass murder, but not war-dead) prior to the 20th century, we find that millions of people were killed by people groups who wanted the other people groups eliminated. Note that these numbers do not include those killed through wars.
TABLE 3.1
Selected Pre-20th Century Democide and Totals1
CasesYears2Democide3Religious?
China 221 B.C.-19 C. 33,519,0004 No
Mongols 14 C-15 C 29,927,000 No
Slavery of Africans 1451-1870 17,267,000 No
Amer-Indians 16 C-19 C 13,778,000 No
Thirty Years War 1618-1648 5,750,000 No
In India 13 C-1 9 C 4,511,0005 No
In Iran 5 C-19 C 2,000,0004,5 No
Ottoman Empire 12 C-19 C 2,000,0005 No
In Japan 1570-19 C 1,500,0005 No
In Russia 10 C-19 C 1,007,0005 No
Christian Crusades 1095-1272 1,000,000 Yes
Aztecs Centuries 1,000,0006 Yes
Spanish Inquisition 16 C-18 C 350,000 Yes
French Revolution 1793-1794 263,000 No
Albigensian Crusade 1208-1249 200,000 Yes
Witch Hunts 15 C-17 C 100,000 Yes
Total For All Cases pre-20 C 133,147,000 2,650,000
Hypothetical Total 30 C B.C.-19 C A.D. 625,716,0007
International war-related dead 30 C B.C.-19 C A.D. 40,457,0008
Plague dead (Black Death) 541 A.D.-1912 102,070,0009

1. Adopted from STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE.
2. Unless otherwise noted, years and centuries are A.D.
3. Unless otherwise noted, these are a best guess estimate in a low to high range.
4. Excludes democide in China by Mongols.
5. An absolute low.
6. A very speculative absolute low.
7. From STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE.. Calculated from the 20th century democide rate and the population for each century since 30 B.C.
8. From table STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE. Total undoubtedly inflated by democide.
9. A minimum: includes plague dead in circa 541-542 A.D.; 1346-1771 in Europe; 1771 in Moscow; 1894 in Hong Kong; and 1898-1912 in India. From Duplaix (1988, p. 677-678).

What percentage of these killings were due to religious democide? It is less than 3% of the totals. The surprising thing is that these killings occurred during a period of time when virtually all the peoples of the world were involved in some sort of religion. Here is the data for the 20th century:
TABLE 1.2
20th Century Democide1
REGIMESYEARSDEMOCIDE2Atheist?
U.S.S.R. 1917-87 61,911,000 Yes
China (PRC) 1949-87 35,236,000 Yes
Germany 1933-45 20,946,000 No
China (KMT) 1928-49 10,075,000 No
Japan 1936-45 5,964,000 No
China (Mao Soviets)3 1923-49 3,466,000 Yes
Cambodia 1975-79 2,035,000 Yes
Turkey (Armenian Genocide) 1909-18 1,883,000 No
Vietnam 1945-87 1,670,000 Yes
Poland 1945-48 1,585,000 Yes
Pakistan 1958-87 1,503,000 No
Yugoslavia (Tito) 1944-87 1,072,000 Yes
North Korea 1948-87 1,663,000 Yes
Mexico 1900-20 1,417,000 No
Russia 1900-17 1,066,000 Yes
China (Warlords) 1917-49 910,000 No
Turkey (Ataturk) 1919-23 878,000 No
United Kingdom 1900-87 816,000 No
Portugal (Dictatorship) 1926-82 741,000 No
Indonesia 1965-87 729,000 No
LESSER MURDERERS 1900-87 2,792,000 ?
WORLD TOTAL 1900-87 169,202,000 107,047,000

1. From STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE.
2. Includes genocide, politicide, and mass murder; excludes war-dead. These are probable mid-estimates in low to high ranges. Figures may not sum due to round off.
3. Guerrilla period.

Vox Day, in The Irrational Atheist

, lists 22 atheistic regimes that committed 153,368,610 murders in the 20th century alone:
Murders by Atheists (20th Century)

Country​

Dates​

Murders​

Afghanistan 1978-1992 1,750,000
Albania 1944-1985 100,000
Angola 1975-2002 125,000
Bulgaria 1944-1989 222,000
China/PRC 1923-2007 76,702,000
Cuba 1959-1992 73,000
Czechoslovakia 1948-1968 65,000
Ethiopia 1974-1991 1,343,610
France 1793-1794 40,000
Greece 1946-1949 20,000
Hungary 1948-1989 27,000
Kampuchea/Cambodia 1973-1991 2,627,000
Laos 1975-2007 93,000
Mongolia 1926-2007 100,000
Mozambique 1975-1990 118,000
North Korea 1948-2007 3,163,000
Poland 1945-1948 1,607,000
Romania 1948-1987 438,000
Spain (Republic) 1936-1939 102,000
U.S.S.R. 1917-1987 61,911,000
Vietnam 1945-2007 1,670,000
Yugoslavia 1944-1980 1,072,000

 

[GenSeneca]

In fact, "liberals" are USUALLY against guns and violence.

Guns and violence, maybe, but you're certainly not opposed to the use of force. Most of the public has accepted without question the claim that laws are the "civilized" way to initiate force against others. The problem is, there's nothing civilized about it. If one individual has a legal "right" to impose his will on others, those 'others' can also claim the legal "right" to impose their will on him. Resorting to the use of force is not how civilized people resolve their differences.

But you missed Cash's point entirely... he just wants to be left alone.

How does it make you feel when your will is imposed onto others by law?
How does it feel when the will of others is imposed onto you by law?
How would it make you feel to know that no matter what someone else believed, they could never legally impose their will on you in any way?

 

[Openmind]

I was never talking about mass murder..why don't you look at all murders..see if more are committed by liberals or consevatives...YOUR NOT GOING TO LIKE THE ANSWER!''I was talking about the dangers related to liberalism...

Why don't you look at all murders!
By the way, the ONLY difference between the 1960's and today is the power of the fire arms used, and the fact that the mental health system has been GUTTED by your hero, Ronald Reagan, first when, as governor of California, he opened the doors to mental institutions and developmental institutions (to save the state money), and let the patients in the street, WITHOUT providing a community system of mental health that could help those mentally and developmentally ill people survive in community settings.

The trend he started (and continued as President) has only increased over the last 10 years, and the mental health system is severely underfounded and a great number of mental hospitals continue to be closed, in spite of the obvious need for treatment, and without being replaced effectively (because of funding, once again) by community mental health support.

It has NOTHING to do with liberalism, and all to do with BUDGET CUTS. . .which, I believe you will be honest enough to admit, is very much a REPUBLICAN policy!

The continuous emptying of state psychiatric hospitals for the past half century has decimated the number of public psychiatric beds available for the treatment of acutely or chronically ill psychiatric patients in the United States.
Although they constitute a small subset of all persons diagnosed with mental illness, the most severely ill patients are in dire need of the specialized, intensive treatment that has been delivered since the early 1830s through state hospital systems. The elimination of these systems is producing significant public and personal consequences in communities nationwide.
http://www.tacreports.org/bedstudy

 

[cashmcall]

Hitler...Let's start by considering political party programmes or "platforms" of Hitler's day:

Hitler was most certainly a liberal..Take this description of a political programme:

A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists".

And this description of a political movement as having a 'revolutionary creative will'

And this policy manifesto:

9. All citizens of the State shall be equal as regards rights and duties.
10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good.Therefore we demand:
11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.
13. We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.
14. We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.
15. We demand extensive development of provision for old age.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
17. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.


So who put that manifesto forward and who was responsible for the quotes given before that? Was it the US Democrats, the British Labour Party, the Canadian Liberals, some European Social Democratic party? No. The manifesto is an extract from the (February 25th., 1920) 25 point plan of the National Socialist German Workers Party and was written by the leader of that party: Adolf Hitler. And the preceding summary quotes were also from him (

The rest of Hitler's manifesto was aimed mainly at the Jews but in Hitler's day it was verycommon for leftist to be antisemetic.. And the increasingly pervasive anti-Israel sentiment among the modern-day Left ... shows that modern-day liberals are not very different from Hitler in that regard. Modern-day anti-Israel protesters still seem to think that dead Jews are a good thing.

Lets look at his views on Unions

Who said this? A representative of the 21st century U.S. Democratic party, maybe?

"As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation's economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence".

It could well be any Leftist speaker of the present time but it is in fact a small excerpt fromchapter 12 of Mein Kampt, wherein Hitler goes to great lengths to stress the importance of unions. The association between unions and Leftism is of course historic and, as a Leftist, Hitler made great efforts to enlist unions as supporters of his party.

You brought it up..

 

[cashmcall]

Why don't you look at all murders!
By the way, the ONLY difference between the 1960's and today is the power of the fire arms used, and the fact that the mental health system has been GUTTED by your hero, Ronald Reagan, first when, as governor of California, he opened the doors to mental institutions and developmental institutions (to save the state money), and let the patients in the street, WITHOUT providing a community system of mental health that could help those mentally and developmentally ill people survive in community settings.

The trend he started (and continued as President) has only increased over the last 10 years, and the mental health system is severely underfounded and a great number of mental hospitals continue to be closed, in spite of the obvious need for treatment, and without being replaced effectively (because of funding, once again) by community mental health support.

It has NOTHING to do with liberalism, and all to do with BUDGET CUTS. . .which, I believe you will be honest enough to admit, is very much a REPUBLICAN policy!

This road we are heading down today..is scary..but what scares me even more is people like you who can't see it..I would love to provide for all, but I can't...And this country can't either..I give all I can afford, but next year I may not be able to deduct all of it..

 

[PLC1]

Why don't you look at all murders!
By the way, the ONLY difference between the 1960's and today is the power of the fire arms used, and the fact that the mental health system has been GUTTED by your hero, Ronald Reagan, first when, as governor of California, he opened the doors to mental institutions and developmental institutions (to save the state money), and let the patients in the street, WITHOUT providing a community system of mental health that could help those mentally and developmentally ill people survive in community settings.

The trend he started (and continued as President) has only increased over the last 10 years, and the mental health system is severely underfounded and a great number of mental hospitals continue to be closed, in spite of the obvious need for treatment, and without being replaced effectively (because of funding, once again) by community mental health support.

It has NOTHING to do with liberalism, and all to do with BUDGET CUTS. . .which, I believe you will be honest enough to admit, is very much a REPUBLICAN policy!

You're getting tripped up on definitions.

To the self described conservatives, and there are quite a few posting here, the term "liberal", "lib". "libtard", or "libby" means "anyone who disagrees with my point of view." When they use the term "liberal" or one of its derivatives, just substitute "someone who disagrees with my point of view," and their statements will all come clear.

Most of (insert any evil or unhappiness) is due to liberals (people who disagree with my point of view). Wars, massacres, school shootings, poverty, drug abuse, marital infidelity, out of wedlock births, out of control government spending, all of it is due to "liberals", as defined above, as the person making the statement is against all of those things.

Liberals (people who don't agree with my point of view) are against motherhood, apple pie, and the American flag.

It's quite a simplistic view of the world, but one that makes it easy to blame all bad things on one group of people: those who have another point of view.

 

[Openmind]

Guns and violence, maybe, but you're certainly not opposed to the use of force. Most of the public has accepted without question the claim that laws are the "civilized" way to initiate force against others. The problem is, there's nothing civilized about it. If one individual has a legal "right" to impose his will on others, those 'others' can also claim the legal "right" to impose their will on him. Resorting to the use of force is not how civilized people resolve their differences.

But you missed Cash's point entirely... he just wants to be left alone.

How does it make you feel when your will is imposed onto others by law?
How does it feel when the will of others is imposed onto you by law?
How would it make you feel to know that no matter what someone else believed, they could never legally impose their will on you in any way?

And LAWS are not made by liberals. . .at least they haven't been made by liberals for the last 10 to 15 years, and it is OBVIOUS that the "wealthy White Male" benefit a lot more from "laws" than minorities and female!

LIBERALS want to be left alone. . .LIBERALS are against government interventions in their bedrooms, their wombs, their spirituality. Liberals do not preconize invading more countries, and they do not want elections decided by big corporations.

I want to be left alone, and I want to stop being assaulted because I am one of the only liberals in this forum. I am tired of the free dirt throwing all of you guys feel comfortable in doing toward the liberal ideology, and of your way of changing subject any time you can't refute a statement (supported by links) that a "liberal" offers.

It would make me feel GREAT if Conservatives would STOP trying to impose their idea of "life" on women, and instead looked at "Life" as a whole, including the death penalty, wars, and health care.

It would make me feel great if "CHRISTIANS" could enjoy their faith and their beliefs without feeling they have to belittle and/or insult people who do not have as narrow of a view about "christianity" or have a more global understanding of what "faith in ONE GOD" across the universe means. It would feel great and respecful if "CHRISTIANS" would accept and respect the fact that some people can live a GOOD, MORAL life without the imposition of MAN MADE DOGMAS.

 

[Openmind]

You're getting tripped up on definitions.

To the self described conservatives, and there are quite a few posting here, the term "liberal", "lib". "libtard", or "libby" means "anyone who disagrees with my point of view." When they use the term "liberal" or one of its derivatives, just substitute "someone who disagrees with my point of view," and their statements will all come clear.

Most of (insert any evil or unhappiness) is due to liberals (people who disagree with my point of view). Wars, massacres, school shootings, poverty, drug abuse, marital infidelity, out of wedlock births, out of control government spending, all of it is due to "liberals", as defined above, as the person making the statement is against all of those things.

Liberals (people who don't agree with my point of view) are against motherhood, apple pie, and the American flag.

It's quite a simplistic view of the world, but one that makes it easy to blame all bad things on one group of people: those who have another point of view.

Thank you for the clarification. I guess I was giving too much credit to the posters in this forum. I actually thought they had a better understanding of both themselves and others!

 

[GenSeneca]

When they use the term "liberal" or one of its derivatives, just substitute "someone who disagrees with my point of view," and their statements will all come clear.

So... The exact same way "liberals" use the word "conservative".

It's quite a simplistic view of the world, but one that makes it easy to blame all bad things on one group of people: those who have another point of view.

Abusing the power of government is the only real threat.

 

[Openmind]

Hitler...Let's start by considering political party programmes or "platforms" of Hitler's day:
You brought it up..

You are so full of it!

Rewriting history seems to be a very strong interest of too many conservatives. Fortunately, enough people KNOW the reality of the fascist regime and Hitler to do much more than laugh at this "version" of history!

Hitler and his regime were EXTREME RIGHT, and self described CHRISTIANS.
This is ONE reason why the Catholic church was at first fooled by Hitler's intentions.

In fact, it is the destruction of the SOCIALIST party (LEFT) in Germany by Hitler that led to his extreme right, fascist regime.

Fascism: Left Wing or Right Wing?

by Antifascist
A very popular argument by the Right is say that the Nazis were Leftwing, when in fact they were Rightwing in both Germany and the United States.

The Nazis were pro-Christian, anti-communist, certainly anti-Marxist, imprisoned atheist and labor leaders--that sounds right-wing to me! So since the Nazis embraced the Catholic Church (and the Church embraced Hitler), should we call Christianity fascist? And why did the Nazis view "liberals" as their enemy?

In America, German Fascism dazzled many American leaders of capitalist industry. (follow the link for the complete article)
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/whitepapers/defining/leftwing_or_rightwing.htm

Another link gives both the option of Hitler being "right" or "left" wing. . . but obviously the facts totally point to Hitler being EXTREME RIGHT.

Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist or the Nazi party represented extreme Right wing politics. One has to look no further than the fact that some of the first actions Hitler took were to get rid of the Leftist Socialists & Trade Unions, to the modern day Right Wing Neo-Nazis. However it is important to remember that we really can`t tie the Nazis to either wing of American politics.
Hitler in 1919 attended his first socialist German Workers Party (GWP) meeting, the subject of the talk being given was the "How and by what means is Socialism to be destroyed?"

He shortly joined the GWP thereafter, very quickly becoming their leader and renaming it the National Socialist German Workers Party or Nazi party to try & appeal to socialists.

In 1920 he co-wrote the party's "eternal" and "unalterable" manifesto. This included totalitarian or right wing ideology. Other typical right wing policies included: "removal" of health services for the mentally and physically ill, nationalisation of industry, expropriation of land by the state without compensation, forced employment and idealogical education

In terms of world politics, his ideas were also Right wing. His views and the views of Joseph Stalin are remarkably similar, including a tight control of the media, mass genocide, and extremely powerful government. Hitler disliked Communism & Marixism because he believed that there was "Jewish influence" on Communism, due to the fact that Karl Marx the author of the "Communist Manifesto" and the creator of Communism in general was Jewish. However, his policies were indeed similar to the 20th century Communist policies, which are extreme right winged regimes.

Hitler was indeed right wing, his totalitarian policies were designed to remove all class structure. His policies were plutocratic, totalatarian and antiliberal, exemplified by his "Volksgemeinschaft" doctrine or "people's community". Hitler and the Nazis campaigned as Socialists. They also believed in Nationalism. To believe in both Socialism and Nationalism is not mutually exclusive. Certainly to believe in Nationalism does not automatically make you right wing. e.g. Stalin ruled as a Nationalist referring to his "Mother Russia". The BNP are also often mistakenly labelled left wing by people that don`t understand socialism has both Right & left wing ideologies as do any form of governance.

A further example of how right wing Hitler and the Nazis were, can be found in Hitler's book Mein Kampf, where he talks about his marketing strategy to target like minded Socialist and Communists, by using their own imagery and symbols to do so. An example is the Nazi use of the Socialist colour red in their Nazi swastika flag; a black swastika, inside a a white disk in a sea of red: "We chose red for our posters after particular & careful deliberation....so as to arouse their attention & tempt them to come to our meetings...so that in this way we got a chance of talking to the people". "In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the nationalistic, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for victory of the Aryan man."
https://www.google.com/search?q=hit...&sugexp=chrome,mod=7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Please see the most complete and unbiased historical facts on the next post.

 

[cashmcall]

You are so full of it!

Rewriting history seems to be a very strong interest of too many conservatives. Fortunately, enough people KNOW the reality of the fascist regime and Hitler to do much more than laugh at this "version" of history!

Hitler and his regime were EXTREME RIGHT, and self described CHRISTIANS.
This is ONE reason why the Catholic church was at first fooled by Hitler's intentions.

In fact, it is the destruction of the SOCIALIST party (LEFT) in Germany by Hitler that led to his extreme right, fascist regime.



Another link gives both the option of Hitler being "right" or "left" wing. . . but obviously the facts totally point to Hitler being EXTREME RIGHT.



Please see the most complete and unbiased historical facts on the next post.

UN-REAL...I am glad it's obvious to you..I have read that many times..