Pro_Life Violence

page: 38
1
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   
You do know that the KKK and Neo-Nazis are republican groups, republicans are Pro-Life, one of the main deals with republicans. And terrorists are also conservative, and also have banned abortion in their countries, and yet they fly planes into the WTC buildings, and maybe the Pentagon.]

REPLY: Geez. who taught you that crap-ola? Hitler was on the left; "Socialist" by it's very definition is on the left.

You're confusing religious/moral beliefs with things political. Do you have proof or links proving the ties of the groups you mention with Conservatism?




posted on May, 23 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Well I think he means that Walt Disney and Our Presidents Grand Father and several other rich Republicans gave millions to Hitler even after we declared war on him, but that doesn't mean the Party of Republicans support Hitler just some of it's more powerful members of the time. Nowadays I highly doubt a single Senator supports the Nazis, not even the KKK or other hate groups you mentioned.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Yumi: Hi!!! Well, the person I replied to should really look into the truth about who supports the Left, and the fact that "Nazi" stands for "national socialism", which is what the Left is all about. The Communist Party of America has voted left for the past 15 years of so, which should tell him/her something.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
and the fact that "Nazi" stands for "national socialism", which is what the Left is all about.


'National socialism' is another name for fascism, which is RIGHT wing, not left wing socialism/communism. The nazis were fighting communism, so they were fighting against there own social order?
The party we have in power now in the US is closer to 'national socialism' than the left is.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by zappafan1
and the fact that "Nazi" stands for "national socialism", which is what the Left is all about.


'National socialism' is another name for fascism, which is RIGHT wing, not left wing socialism/communism. The nazis were fighting communism, so they were fighting against there own social order?
The party we have in power now in the US is closer to 'national socialism' than the left is.


Ummm, Socialism and Marxism go hand in hand, and it's been the Left that is constantly pushing for Socialist programs, and did so while they were in power for 40 years, to the great detriment of Blacks and the inner cities all across America. Johnsons "Great Society" and Roosevelts programs come to mind.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Yes socialism and marxism go together somewhat, 'National socialism' and marxism don't. And not all socialist are marxists either.
Don't they teach you this stuff in school anymore?

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

BTW you have NEVER had or seen true socialism in the USA. Everything in the US is capitalist based, no matter what they try to tell you. Every system has some elements from other systems, or can be seen to have.



[edit on 11/6/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Everything in the US is capitalist based, no matter what they try to tell you.


Except for Social Security. Oh and welfare. Oh and charities/volunteer organizations. Oh and...

Wow, we really got off-topic on this thread.


[edit on 12-6-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Why is SS socialism? Or charities for that matter?

Socialism is the collective ownership to the means of production, whether it be by government or by a collective such as the workers of a factory.
Most socialists prefer the means of production to be owned by the workers involved in that production, so the profit goes to them directly instead of an 'owner'. (such as in Anarcho-Socialism)

Social security is just there so the gov doesn't have a bunch of disabled people starving on their streets. Charities have nothing to do with the countries means of production, or ownership of property. Even fascist states have charities.

Socialism came about as an alternative to ownership and control by the rich, which would benefit the majority of us. But unfortunately as per usual the rich have used their power to infiltrate socialist groups and discredit them. Especially in the US where ppl seem to completely miss the point of socialism altogether and see it as a great enemy. The only ppl who should fear socialism is the rich who control everything now.

I'm not surprised at the confusion though, if you all new what could really be....



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Why is SS socialism? Or charities for that matter?


Money goes into a pool and is redistributed to those in need to establish an "equal". Because the systems are both suffering, they're well below the "equal" mark, but "equal" would be the ideal condition, would it not? I noticed welfare was omitted from rebuttal.


Originally posted by ANOK
Socialism is the collective ownership to the means of production, whether it be by government or by a collective such as the workers of a factory.
Most socialists prefer the means of production to be owned by the workers involved in that production, so the profit goes to them directly instead of an 'owner'. (such as in Anarcho-Socialism)


With Social Security and charity, the product of production (money) is put into a pot and redistributed to those of lesser havings, yes?


Originally posted by ANOK
Social security is just there so the gov doesn't have a bunch of disabled people starving on their streets.


It's not capitalism. So what is it?


Originally posted by ANOK
Charities have nothing to do with the countries means of production, or ownership of property. Even fascist states have charities.


Just because fascist states have charities does not mean they're devoid of socialist programs. Most countries have a mix of capitalism and socialism, US and USSR (when they were a union) both have their mixes. We were on the capitalism end (with socialist programs) and USSR were on the socialist end (with capitalist programs). Feel free to correct my public education.


Originally posted by ANOK
Socialism came about as an alternative to ownership and control by the rich, which would benefit the majority of us. But unfortunately as per usual the rich have used their power to infiltrate socialist groups and discredit them. Especially in the US where ppl seem to completely miss the point of socialism altogether and see it as a great enemy.


I agree many do not know what socialism in the Marxist form is.


Originally posted by ANOK
The only ppl who should fear socialism is the rich who control everything now.


I'm not a big fan of fear when it comes to earthly things myself, but in addtion to those who are rich, I believe the people who fear losing identity and freedom would also fear socialism.


Originally posted by ANOK
I'm not surprised at the confusion though, if you all new what could really be....


All theories work on paper.

What does any of this have to do with Pro-Life Violence? Fascinating discussion and all, but I'm missing the point.

[edit on 13-6-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Well there wasn't a point other than corecting someones confusion of the word 'National Socialism'. You are the one who's now running with this OT discusion.

And you seem to miss the point. The poster thought we had socialism because of social security. I just pointed out that's not true.

And why would socialism take away our freedom? You think freedom only comes from a few being in control of the many? I think you have it backwards.

But after 50 yrs of American anti-socialist propaganda I'm not surprised


I wasn't really suporting socialism either, as I'm not a socialist per say, even though I think it would be better than what we have now. Problem is just like any kind of power given to men it will be abused. That's why we need collectives instead of government, where no one is given ultimate power. But this is for another topic, as what I said in my original post is fact, and I won't debate it further.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Well there wasn't a point other than corecting someones confusion of the word 'National Socialism'. You are the one who's now running with this OT discusion.


Very good then, I shall remained focused. So, about that Pro-life violence...


Originally posted by ANOK
And you seem to miss the point. The poster thought we had socialism because of social security. I just pointed out that's not true.


I had questions since it was brought up. But, seeing that they've gone unanswered thus far, I'm more than happy just to get back on track.



And why would socialism take away our freedom? You think freedom only comes from a few being in control of the many? I think you have it backwards.


I think you're doing the thinking (and speaking for that matter) for me. That's not what I said. What I stated was there are those who fear socialism will take away their freedom. I don't know if that fear is justified or not.



But after 50 yrs of American anti-socialist propaganda I'm not surprised


Thanks for the "sheeple" implication, with my username it should be apparent that I'm used to this comment by now.



I wasn't really suporting socialism either, as I'm not a socialist per say, even though I think it would be better than what we have now. Problem is just like any kind of power given to men it will be abused.


Amen.



That's why we need collectives instead of government, where no one is given ultimate power. But this is for another topic, as what I said in my original post is fact, and I won't debate it further.


Start a thread, I'll hop over. You've got knowledge no doubt, I'm just asking you to share so that I can see where you're coming from.

[edit on 13-6-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Well there wasn't a point other than corecting someones confusion of the word 'National Socialism'. You are the one who's now running with this OT discusion.

And you seem to miss the point. The poster thought we had socialism because of social security. I just pointed out that's not true.

And why would socialism take away our freedom? You think freedom only comes from a few being in control of the many? I think you have it backwards.

But after 50 yrs of American anti-socialist propaganda I'm not surprised


I wasn't really suporting socialism either, as I'm not a socialist per say, even though I think it would be better than what we have now. Problem is just like any kind of power given to men it will be abused. That's why we need collectives instead of government, where no one is given ultimate power. But this is for another topic, as what I said in my original post is fact, and I won't debate it further.


REPLY: It's hardly propaganda; history shows that Socialism doesn't work, 'nor does Marxism (which is what Social Security/Welfare/WIC/national health care, etc, is.) One only has to do the math to see it can never work.

You really should read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged".

Collectives? Awww, say it like it is; Communism. Yeah, that works, and only killed 100 million people in the last 100 years.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   
How many people have Christians killed? They've committed Genocide on several groups, so I guess Christianity doesn't work.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yumi
How many people have Christians killed?


If a Christian is one who follows Christ and Christ says, "love your enemy" (as well as love your neighbor) then the answer is that no Christian has intentionally killed anyone. If you want to say those who call themselves "Christians" then the story is different, but if I call myself a bird it doesn't make it so.


Originally posted by Yumi
They've committed Genocide on several groups,


Please bring forward supporting evidence.


Originally posted by Yumi
so I guess Christianity doesn't work.


Please establish a relationship between Pro-Life Violence and Christianity. Currently one does not exist. There are many threads to discuss Christianity on its own. I can suggest a dozen of them should you wish to do so. Here's a good one to start on: The Absolute Power of Christianity. Christianity does work...with no guessing involved.

[edit on 15-6-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   
You said Communism doesn't work because people have died under it.

Christians killed millions of
pagans
Blacks
Jews
Arabs
Natives
Each Other(Catholic vs Protestant vs Methodist vs the other 200+ branches of Christianity)
Women(Added)

So since people have died under Christianity, like Communism, it doesn't work.

[edit on 15-6-2006 by Yumi]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yumi
Christians killed millions of
pagans
Blacks
Jews
Arabs
Natives
Each Other(Catholic vs Protestant vs Methodist vs the other 200+ branches of Christianity)
Women(Added)

So since people have died under Christianity, like Communism, it doesn't work.


Okay, if you refuse to cite any sources, evidences and proofs then please name a single Christian (not to be confused with a person who merely called themselves "Christian" but one who followed Christ) who intentionally killed someone. I'm also very interested in this Protestant vs. Methodist (and the "other 200+ branches of Christianity") battle. When and where did this take place?

Finally, and again, how does Christianity relate to Pro Life Violence?

[edit on 15-6-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
How does Communism deal with Pro-Life Violence?

WHich Popes ordered the Crusades? The Inquisition?

The People fleeing the church because their branch of Christianity was being suppressed and went to Ameirca gave Small Pox to Indians on purpose.

And tell me which of your Presidents that ordered the slaughter of the Indians were Jewish or Buddist or Witches?

I don't believe it was the Roman Hindu Church who killed the Jews in Rome...

I don't think it was the Scientologists that held Witch Trials throughout Europe and America...

History is a strong point of mine, and the History of Christians killing millions is one of the many parts of World History.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yumi
How does Communism deal with Pro-Life Violence?


I don't know. I'll leave that to the one who brought it up.


Originally posted by Yumi
WHich Popes ordered the Crusades? The Inquisition?

The People fleeing the church because their branch of Christianity was being suppressed and went to Ameirca gave Small Pox to Indians on purpose.

And tell me which of your Presidents that ordered the slaughter of the Indians were Jewish or Buddist or Witches?

I don't believe it was the Roman Hindu Church who killed the Jews in Rome...

I don't think it was the Scientologists that held Witch Trials throughout Europe and America...


You've still not addressed my questions.


Originally posted by Yumi
History is a strong point of mine, and the History of Christians killing millions is one of the many parts of World History.


Again, please provide any proofs or evidence of Christians, those who follow the word of Christ, intentionally killing anyone. You say there were millions, surely there's SOMETHING you can provide.

[edit on 16-6-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   
So you're saying the Indians what, committed suicide, moved to Canada...

The Crusades, ordered by the CHURCH, the CHRISTAIN CHURCH, never happened? What, the Arabs all decided to move to Russia?

The women weren't burned at the stake by the Christians, burning yourself at the stake was just a fad, like witch craft...

The blacks, Jews, Gays, Arabs, Indians, Women everyone ever executed publically by the church weren't murdered they wanted to be beheaded, drowned, thrown off a cliff, crushed, stoned, drawn and quartered, and beated to death.

I knew Ameircans were ignorant but you make a new definition of it. Your public schools are nothing more then holding cells for children are they?



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yumi
So you're saying the Indians what, committed suicide, moved to Canada...


The imperialistic genocide of Native Americans (not Indians) was not caused by neither Christ nor those who practiced what he preached.


Originally posted by Yumi
The Crusades, ordered by the CHURCH, the CHRISTAIN CHURCH, never happened? What, the Arabs all decided to move to Russia?


The crusades were not caused by neither Christ nor those who practiced what he preached.


Originally posted by Yumi
The women weren't burned at the stake by the Christians, burning yourself at the stake was just a fad, like witch craft...


Salem "witch hunts" were not caused by neither Christ nor those who practiced what he preached.


Originally posted by Yumi
The blacks, Jews, Gays, Arabs, Indians, Women everyone ever executed publically by the church weren't murdered they wanted to be beheaded, drowned, thrown off a cliff, crushed, stoned, drawn and quartered, and beated to death.


The above were not caused by neither Christ nor those who practiced what he preached. Hopefully you're getting the trend here and I repeat my questions.


Originally posted by Yumi
I knew Ameircans were ignorant but you make a new definition of it.


Educate me.


Originally posted by Yumi
Your public schools are nothing more then holding cells for children are they?


I guess you would not know, would you? Who then is making ignorant claims?

[edit on 16-6-2006 by saint4God]





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join