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

[GenSeneca]

LIBERALS want to be left alone. . .

I wasn't addressing the nameless, faceless, stereotypical concept of what a "liberal" is, I don't even like the term because it's so horribly misused, I was specifically addressing you, as an individual.

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.

The only way that "GREAT" feeling could last would be if you also agreed to give up your legal ability to do the same things to them. Is that something you'd consider?

 

[Openmind]

This is the most complete and non-biased explanation of Hitler's rise to power and his form of government. . .as well as his REMOVAL of all COMMUNIST and SOCIALISTS voice in his government, in order to reach his goal of complete fascism.

As chancellor, Hitler worked against attempts by the NSDAP's opponents to build a majority government.. . . ..
. . .. . .In addition to political campaigning, the NSDAP engaged in paramilitary violence and the spread of anti-communist propaganda in the days preceding the election. On election day, 6 March 1933, the NSDAP's share of the vote increased to 43.9%, and the party acquired the largest number of seats in parliament. However, Hitler's party failed to secure an absolute majority, necessitating another coalition with the DNVP.[147]
Day of Potsdam and the Enabling Act

​

Paul von Hindenburg and Adolf Hitler on the Day of Potsdam, 21 March 1933​

​

. . . .To achieve full political control despite not having an absolute majority in parliament, Hitler's government brought the Ermächtigungsgesetz (Enabling Act) to a vote in the newly elected Reichstag. The act gave Hitler's cabinet full legislative powers for a period of four years and (with certain exceptions) allowed deviations from the constitution.[150] The bill required a two-thirds majority to pass. Leaving nothing to chance, the Nazis used the provisions of the Reichstag Fire Decree to keep several Social Democratic deputies from attending; the Communists had already been banned.[151]
On 23 March, the Reichstag assembled at the Kroll Opera House under turbulent circumstances. Ranks of SA men served as guards inside the building, while large groups outside opposing the proposed legislation shouted slogans and threats toward the arriving members of parliament.[152] The position of the Centre Party, the third largest party in the Reichstag, turned out to be decisive. After Hitler verbally promised party leader Ludwig Kaasthat President von Hindenburg would retain his power of veto, Kaas announced the Centre Party would support the Enabling Act. Ultimately, the Enabling Act passed by a vote of 441–84, with all parties except the Social Democrats voting in favour. The Enabling Act, along with the Reichstag Fire Decree, transformed Hitler's government into a de facto legal dictatorship.[153]
Removal of remaining limits

​

Having achieved full control over the legislative and executive branches of government, Hitler and his political allies began to systematically suppress the remaining political opposition. The Social Democratic Party was banned and all its assets seized.[155] While many trade union delegates were in Berlin for May Day activities, SA stormtroopers demolished union offices around the country. On 2 May 1933 all trade unions were forced to dissolve and their leaders were arrested; some were sent to concentration camps.[156] . . . . On 14 July 1933, the NSDAP was declared the only legal political party in Germany.[157][155] The demands of the SA for more political and military power caused much anxiety among military, industrial, and political leaders. Hitler responded by purging the entire SA leadership in the Night of the Long Knives, which took place from 30 June to 2 July 1934.[158] Hitler targeted Ernst Röhm and other SA leaders who, along with a number of Hitler's political adversaries (such as Gregor Strasser and former chancellor Kurt von Schleicher), were rounded up, arrested, and shot.[159] While the international community and some Germans were shocked by the murders, many in Germany saw Hitler as restoring order.[160]
Having consolidated his political powers, Hitler suppressed or eliminated his opposition by a process termed Gleichschaltung ("bringing into line"). . . . . .[171]
Many of Hitler's decrees were based on the Reichstag Fire Decree, based on Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. It gave the president the power to take emergency measures to protect public safety and order. Thus, Hitler could now rule under a form of legal martial law. The Reichstag renewed the Enabling Act twice, a mere formality since all other parties had been banned.[172]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

 

[cashmcall]

I agree with you on this... Fortunately, enough people KNOW(or at least the ones who care to know the reality of the fascist regime and Hitler to do much more than laugh at your "version" of history!..Read it in his own words from my last post..that speech could have beern read by any liberal running for office

"True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?"
Have a look at the quote immediately above and say who wrote it. It is a typical Hitler rant, is it not? Give it to 100 people who know Hitler's speeches and 100 would identify it as something said by Adolf. The fierce German nationalism and territorial ambition is unmistakeable. And if there is any doubt, have a look at another quote from the same author:

This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedom.

That settles it, doesn't it? Who does not know of Hitler's glorification of military sacrifice and his aim to establish a "thousand-year Reich"?

But neither quote is in fact from Hitler. Both quotes were written by Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx's co-author.. So let that be an introduction to the idea that Hitler not only called himself a socialist but that he WAS in fact a socialist by the standards of his day. Ideas that are now condemned as Rightist were in Hitler's day perfectly normal ideas among Leftists. And if Friedrich Engels was not a Leftist, I do not know who would be.

But the most spectacular aspect of Nazism was surely its antisemitism. And that had a grounding in Marx himself. The following comments are from Marx but it could just as well have been from Hitler:

"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry".

Note that Marx wanted to "emancipate" (free) mankind from Jewry ("Judentum" in Marx's original German), just as Hitler did and that the title of Marx's essay in German was "Zur Judenfrage", which -- while not necessarily derogatory in itself -- is nonetheless exactly the same expression ("Jewish question") that Hitler used in his famous phrase "Endloesung der Judenfrage" ("Final solution of the Jewish question"). And when Marx speaks of the end of Jewry by saying that Jewish identity must necessarily "dissolve" itself, the word he uses in German is "aufloesen", which is a close relative of Hitler's word "Endloesung" ("final solution"). So all the most condemned features of Nazism can be traced back to Marx and Engels, right down to the language used.

"Everything must be different!" or "Alles muss anders sein!" was a slogan of the Nazi Party. It is also the heart's desire of every Leftist since Karl Marx. Nazism was a deeply revolutionary creed, a fact that is always denied by the Left; but it's true. Hitler and his criminal gang hated the rich, the capitalists, the Jews, the Christian Churches, and "the System"​

 

[Openmind]

I wasn't addressing the nameless, faceless, stereotypical concept of what a "liberal" is, I don't even like the term because it's so horribly misused, I was specifically addressing you, as an individual.


The only way that "GREAT" feeling could last would be if you also agreed to give up your legal ability to do the same things to them. Is that something you'd consider?

I do NOT force anyone NOT to believe in their manmade dogmas. I do NOT force pro-life people to have abortions. In fact, I do NOT push my beliefs on anyone. . .although I feel perfectly FREE to express my beliefs and my opinions.

And, are you saying that, you were not insulting ALL liberals, but specifically this one?

And all this time, I thought personal insults were against forum rules! Apparently Dogtowner prefers not to address this "break in the rules!"

 

[Openmind]

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

I have to admit that I didn't take the time to go through this very long list. But it is clear (and stated in the article itself, that all those numbers are VERY SPECULATIVE and are therefore cannot provide reliable statistics.

 

[Openmind]

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

I suggest that you read it again then, with an open mind, not with your mind already made up and refusing to look at the facts.

You stated that Hitler LOVED Unions. . .yet he destroyed all unions and killed or sent to concentration camps the Union leaders.
You stated that Hitler loved socialism, yet he Destroyed the socialist party and the ONLY Party left to resist Hitler (but wasn't strong enough to stop his rise) was the social democracy party.

The Left is the party of diversity and inclusion. . .and Hitler's goal was one ONE RACE.

You are demonstrating extremely poor will to learn and to analyze history through FACTS rather than through what "fits" your agenda.

 

[dogtowner]

I do NOT force anyone NOT to believe in their manmade dogmas. I do NOT force pro-life people to have abortions. In fact, I do NOT push my beliefs on anyone. . .although I feel perfectly FREE to express my beliefs and my opinions.

And, are you saying that, you were not insulting ALL liberals, but specifically this one?

And all this time, I thought personal insults were against forum rules! Apparently Dogtowner prefers not to address this "break in the rules!"

please define the attack. it seems you did not sense any attack at the time.

I've read the exchange between you two and all I see is him wanting to know what you personally think on a number of related questions. If you choose not to answer then don't answer and leave off the pointless tangent.

 

[Openmind]

please define the attack. it seems you did not sense any attack at the time.

I've read the exchange between you two and all I see is him wanting to know what you personally think on a number of related questions. If you choose not to answer then don't answer and leave off the pointless tangent.

I actually said I was offended by the attack on "liberals," and didn't at the time take it as a PERSONAL attack. However, as you have read. . .it seems that I SHOULD have taken it as a PERSONAL attack and be PERSONALLY OFFENDED, as per Genseneca!

And. . .did I report anything? I don't believe so! I rather not report anything to you, as I do not trust you to act in an unbiased fashion. . .and I guess I was correct since, in spite of "reading the exchange between the two of us" you didn't notice that Genseneca was proudly claiming that his offensive comment was a DIRECT ATTACK TO ME. . .not "all liberals!"

 

[dogtowner]

I actually said I was offended by the attack on "liberals," and didn't at the time take it as a PERSONAL attack. However, as you have read. . .it seems that I SHOULD have taken it as a PERSONAL attack and be PERSONALLY OFFENDED, as per Genseneca!

And. . .did I report anything? I don't believe so! I rather not report anything to you, as I do not trust you to act in an unbiased fashion. . .and I guess I was correct since, in spite of "reading the exchange between the two of us" you didn't notice that Genseneca was proudly claiming that his offensive comment was a DIRECT ATTACK TO ME. . .not "all liberals!"

when a post is reported it goes to a queue available to all moderators so the only way to report to me is to PM me.

I see this in advance of your claim

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?

so if this is not what you were referring to then what ? there is no attack here on anyone only questions for you.

 

[Openmind]

when a post is reported it goes to a queue available to all moderators so the only way to report to me is to PM me.

I see this in advance of your claim



so if this is not what you were referring to then what ? there is no attack here on anyone only questions for you.

I guess it has all been a comedy of error. The post that I found offensive was one written by Cashmcall. . .and he was addressing "most liberals."

Then, a little later, I read a post by Genseneca where he was saying "I do not mean liberals in general, but you specifically," and I made the mistake of thinking that genseneca was the poster who had made the offensive remark about "liberals," and was now saying it met that offensive comment specifically for me.

So, it was my mistake. . .I must admit that I don't often look at the name of the person who posts. . .I just address the post, and that led to my mistake.

So, I will apologize to Genseneca for relating his comment to a previous post that he didn't write.
I will apologize to Cashmcall for believing that he had met his offensive comment not as a generalization but as a direct insult to me,
and I will apologize to you for confusing you with all this.

But. . .in anyway, I didn't report anything to anyone.

 

[dogtowner]

I guess it has all been a comedy of error. The post that I found offensive was one written by Cashmcall. . .and he was addressing "most liberals."

Then, a little later, I read a post by Genseneca where he was saying "I do not mean liberals in general, but you specifically," and I made the mistake of thinking that genseneca was the poster who had made the offensive remark about "liberals," and was now saying it met that offensive comment specifically for me.

So, it was my mistake. . .I must admit that I don't often look at the name of the person who posts. . .I just address the post, and that led to my mistake.

So, I will apologize to Genseneca for relating his comment to a previous post that he didn't write.
I will apologize to Cashmcall for believing that he had met his offensive comment not as a generalization but as a direct insult to me,
and I will apologize to you for confusing you with all this.

But. . .in anyway, I didn't report anything to anyone.

ok good. alls well that ends well.

 

[PLC1]

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

Yes, exactly.

Abusing the power of government is the only real threat.

It is the biggest threat to liberty. There are other threats to peace and security however.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

You mean like evil Bush administration?

 

[GenSeneca]

So, I will apologize to Genseneca for relating his comment to a previous post that he didn't write.

Very gracious of you, thanks. I'd imagine my posts would read a little differently to someone who thought I was being insulting. We have agreed on many things, often that's surprised you, hopefully we can also agree that using the power of government to legally impose your will on others is always wrong.

Please read my posts knowing that I'm here as a trader, I'm not here to debate. If we have a discussion and I learn something, I win, if also you learn something, we both come away winners. That is a mutually beneficial exchange, no one needs to lose for the other to win, both of us can win - even when we disagree.

 

[Openmind]

Very gracious of you, thanks. I'd imagine my posts would read a little differently to someone who thought I was being insulting. We have agreed on many things, often that's surprised you, hopefully we can also agree that using the power of government to legally impose your will on others is always wrong.

Please read my posts knowing that I'm here as a trader, I'm not here to debate. If we have a discussion and I learn something, I win, if also you learn something, we both come away winners. That is a mutually beneficial exchange, no one needs to lose for the other to win, both of us can win - even when we disagree.

I will agree that it is much better to get a government that listen to the people and then act on what people want. However, in the last 12 years or so, the people of the United States have been so very divided, that the government is unable to "listen" to the people. . .since the sounds they hear are so diametrically opposed.

However, someone has to make a decision on what is best for the country. For 8 years, this was George W. Bush. . .and he did it based on a VERY small majority. . .and it was a disaster.
And for the last 4 years, it was President Obama, and he did on a larger, but not overwhelming majority, and he had to face the constant attacks of an extremely divided Congress, whose leaders didn't hesitate to state publicly that their FIRST PRIORITY was to make President Obama fail. . .at all cost.

Well, this is certainly NOT a good way to bring people together. . .and in November, the people have spoken (again, a majority, not a large one, but larger than any "majority" Bush ever had). It is clear that that majority will continue to be opposed by a very vicious and vitriolic minority (I believe the minority is actually shrinking, and will soon be reduced to the most extreme Right, as it is clear that, ever since the elections, President Obama's approval rating has INCREASED (Gallup 3 days running average from 12/20 through 12/23 shows approval rating for the President at 57%, disapprove 37%), while the "Congress" approval rating continues to be very low at 18% (far below the 33% average since Gallup has been keeping track in 2004)

If you agree that "something" needs to be done to allow the government (and our economy) to survive this divided country, who, in the current government, is currently FORCING their opinion on the majority of the people? I know what my answer (and that of a much larger majority than the one that voted for President Obama in November) is: it is the extreme right, led by the "dog waggers," Norquist and the tea party.

This is NOT the ideal situation. . .and I wish an even greater majority could rally around the President. But I don't think it is in the cards. AND we do not have the luxury to do NOTHING. HOWEVER, I am CERTAIN that the current minority will NOT become the majority in the foreseeable future (at least not in the next 2 years). So, why should the will of the majority bow to the (shrinking) minority?

This is my analysis of the current situation.