Politics, Politics, Politics

Interracial marriage fits the "one man, one woman" thing.
Gay marriage makes the entire definition of marriage invalid.
"one man, one woman" ... I believe that refers to Christian law, doesn't it? You mentioned polygamy, and a lot of the biblical subjects had more than one wife; in fact, Solomon was said to have had over a 1,000 wives.
Still, you drag religion into this conversation even though I said several times not to mix Church marriage with civil union rights. Religion makes its case for "one man & one woman" ... civil union doesn't. You''re stuck with Adam & Eve, and religious recognitions. (Genesis 2:24, Leviticus 18:22, etc etc)
Times are ah-changing Bigwhit ... it wasn't all that long ago that marriage between 2 people of different races was illegal ... like 1967 or abouts. Just this week we're seeing the Confederate flag being challenged in all states that have honored it in the past ... its change. And just as you argue your point about marriage, those that came before you argued their points of marriage of different races, etc.
Gender should not be a factor in determining/commiting one's benefits and obligations to another person. The Church ... a whole different story.
 
"one man, one woman" ... I believe that refers to Christian law, doesn't it? You mentioned polygamy, and a lot of the biblical subjects had more than one wife; in fact, Solomon was said to have had over a 1,000 wives.
Still, you drag religion into this conversation even though I said several times not to mix Church marriage with civil union rights. Religion makes its case for "one man & one woman" ... civil union doesn't. You''re stuck with Adam & Eve, and religious recognitions. (Genesis 2:24, Leviticus 18:22, etc etc)
Times are ah-changing Bigwhit ... it wasn't all that long ago that marriage between 2 people of different races was illegal ... like 1967 or abouts. Just this week we're seeing the Confederate flag being challenged in all states that have honored it in the past ... its change. And just as you argue your point about marriage, those that came before you argued their points of marriage of different races, etc.
Gender should not be a factor in determining/commiting one's benefits and obligations to another person. The Church ... a whole different story.
On what you have posted here I would have to agree. A lot of people thump the bible but have never read it.
 
1) All you want to see is legitimate research- this is how mist Holocaust deniers phrase it. The more intelligent and polished of the ilk rarely come out and say that it never happened, they try to cloak what they are doing under the guise of "legitimate research. " Given all of the evidence that the Germans left behind I fail to see what more research needs to be done.

2) In terms of the death toll at Auschwitz, the total of "...a dazzling 4 million..." was put forth by the Soviet Union shortly after they liberated Auschwitz. That total was roundly rejected. At his trial in 1946, former Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoss testified that Adolf Eichmann informed him that 2.5 million Jews had been killed at Auschwitz. Gerald Reitlinger, in his book "The Final Solution" put the total at between 800,000 and 900,000, while preeminent Holocaust scholar Raul Hillberg, in his book "The Destruction of the European Jews" placed the total at 1 million. In the 1980's, French scholar George Wellers came up with a total based on 1.35 million using German documentary evidence of train transport data, while Franciszek Piper places the number at at least 960,000.

3) Actually, what I do know is that the US sentenced 49 soldiers to death during WWII, 48 sentences were commuted and only one, Eddie Slovik, was executed. Germany, whom you claim did not execute soldiers for desertion, in fact executed 15,000 Wehrmacht deserters. As a matter of fact, there are at least two monuments in Germany for WWII deserters:

http://sites-of-memory.de/main/ulmdeserters.html

I find very curious that a country that didn't execute deserters would have a monument to the 15,000 it didn't execute.

4) All these Israeli war crimes that you claim are skillful manipulations of the media. When you launch Katyusha rockets from a school yard, store arms in a hospital and attempt to smuggle weapons disguised as Red Cross shipments you can expect that the enemy you are firing at will target these locations and destroy them. But, I suppose you are one of those people who thinks that Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself. It says a lot that the world community reacts with condemnation whenever Israel has had enough and responds in kind, yet keeps silent when they are being attacked. If it happened to any other country in the world nobody would say a thing if the offended country responded, but somehow the rules are different when Israel is attacked. Fortunately for Hamas, there are "useful idiots" (Lenin's term, not mine) like yourself who will defend any action they take.

5) I wouldn't call you a terrorist for criticizing the US government and accusing it of committing war crimes, rather I would call you naive.

6) No, I'm not blaming you for Nazi foreign policy, just noting the irony of a German calling another country out for allegedly "stealing territory" when your country did precisely the same thing more than 70 years ago. Do you consider the loss of Konigsberg, Danzig, Breslau and other former German cities and provinces as "stolen" by the Poles and Russians?
Oh hi!

1. That however is looking at both sides with different measurements
I just simply think that..
If everything thats being said was true, why is everyone that denies it being cast out like a stray dog.
Also what can you tell me about jewish soap and lampshades. I am dying to hear your reply on that.

4. OH! So when the "enemy" says it, its skillfull manipulation, but when your guys do it, its not. Okay, Try to apply that terminology to races, see what happens.

Either way, yes I believe isreal has the right to defend itself, however I do not believe that it has a right to assassinate innoncents, see iranian scientists that worked on their nuclear program.
Have you forgotten the USS Liberty?
Or how about all the civilians in the Lavon Affair, did you forget that? I know those 2 are old, but still, its hilarious that you think that a country that has not cared about civilian or innocent casualties for ages would suddenly care and everyone that says differently is making ******* up(like you just said).
Cmon, you dont really believe that do you?


Have you researched a bit on your own? Why dont you read some of the interview some ex-IDF Soldiers have given how they treat palestinians, theyre not going for hamas, theyre going to destroy everything there in order to build more settlements, just as theyve done for the past 60years.
See here: http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/
The Interviews perfectly describe what I just said. And it makes oh so much more sense when you stop believing for one second that Isreal is only defending itself.
Fuck the rights of the palestinians right?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...iper-lying-defenceless-floor-earlier-hit.html
Oh *******.
Theres prob more. Examples are enough i believe.
Also "defending hamas" is cute, Im not, I am however criticizing Isreals actions, or would you please point out to me why they used white phosphorus on a refugee camp instead of the conventional way if they really just wanted to clean out the place, its refugees after all that are refugees because of them, or how about in 2009 were they shot white phosphorus over densely populated areas.
How about pictures: http://www.hrw.org/features/israelgaza-photographs-white-phosphorus-use
Dont worry, nothing graphic, but please do understand that 10% of burned skin = death, inhaling = very high chance of death.
Inbefore Smoke screen excuse, nope they had isreal produced smoke grenades/shells for that.
Get it yet? Isreal doesnt care about innocent/civilian casualties, and yet you claim theyre just defending themselves, you probably heard that from the 4 children on the beach that were killed by an israeli gunboat. You know, the one shooting at the Gaza Beach were everyone was having a nice time until the isreali gunboat showed up.
Or the 70% civilian death toll in Israels war(aka massacre) in Gaza.
All my sources are directly from manipulated media all around the world

5. Whats wrong with talking about US War Crimes?
Thats just Iraq:
Documented civilian deaths from violence
140,208 – 158,847
Total violent deaths including combatants
216,000

Oh those damn imaginary weapons of mass destruction!
Oh and those damn cambodians, gotta ******* 1.6 million of their civilians.
Such naive. I forgot why you even made 5, but I find it funny when people call others naive for laying out parallels between terrorists and the US killings of civilians. Kind of reminds me of Israel.

6. Yes, and that was 70 years ago, just like the Cambodia thing i just mentioned in 5 is 40-50years ago. However things like Iraq and its imaginary Weapons of mass Destruction are recent, so is Israels war on Gaza in 2014.
Who cares who does what, if Germany did something like the US or Israel, Id blame Germany.
Im actually currently disliking the EU as a whole, but thats a different story and has nothing to do with the killings of innocent people.


It should be. The figures I am familiar with are 6 million jews and 20 million by Stalin.
Oh, questioning stuff should be criminal. Where are you from my friend, Saudi Arabia? Do I have to walk around in a hijab when Im your house?
You must be one good troll my friend.
 
Last edited:
as a matter of fact if you read the bible you have more reasons to thump the self declared "sacred writings"...
I spent a significant amount of my free time over a period of around 4 decades reading and studying the religious texts of many different faiths. Christianity, Islam and Judaism share a significant amount of common scripture. I have also studies Tao, Hindu, and several other archaic and or defunct religions. I have been an atheists for some time now.
 
That's good news for people that have and do not have health insurance.
Yes it is, and even many Republicans were glad to see this happen. All the bluffing Republicans did about having a better alternative was just that, a bluff. Had the Supreme Court voted the other way, all the Republican run states, that declined to support ACA (which included most of the South), would have been facing hundreds of thousands of angry uninsureds in each state who had coverage before the decision. It could have resulted in their losing control of southern states. Thing is, all that fear mongering and votings in Congress (59 of them to be exact, at a cost of over $800,000 per voting event), and their time wasted focused solely on repealing it, and accomplishing nothing else for the people, was for nothing.
Read this latest Congressional Budget Office report on ACA ... very, very interesting.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/50252

And, even though the Tea Party Republicans were aware of this, they were still wanting to repeal ACA, more out of principle than anything.
 
I'm just wondering when Republicans are going to say "enough" with this idiot, junior senator??? He, by himself, has made a mockery of a once proud party.
pic_political-TedCruz03.jpg .....When is "ENOUGH is ENOUGH"?
 
Yes I don't get it either why would u go against your own self interest your right if the Supreme Court ruled against ACA the Republicans would be in a world of hurt.

Telling their constituents were not funding subsidies for ACA why there already on it. I think there breathing a sigh of relief.
 
Last edited:
I'm just wondering when Republicans are going to say "enough" with this idiot, junior senator??? He, by himself, has made a mockery of a once proud party.
View attachment 605907 .....When is "ENOUGH is ENOUGH"?

Please show proof of Cruz actually making those statements. The same statements, over a different background picture of Cruz were a hot Facebook topic in March of 2015. Politifact checked it. Their Nexis and online news search turned up no evidence of him ever making either statement. They rated the posting as "Pants on Fire"

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...ok-meme-says-ted-cruz-flip-flopper-president/

Also curious if you would have highlighted the status of the "junior senator" from New York in her 2008 presidential campaign?
 
Last edited:
Yes it is, and even many Republicans were glad to see this happen. All the bluffing Republicans did about having a better alternative was just that, a bluff. Had the Supreme Court voted the other way, all the Republican run states, that declined to support ACA (which included most of the South), would have been facing hundreds of thousands of angry uninsureds in each state who had coverage before the decision. It could have resulted in their losing control of southern states. Thing is, all that fear mongering and votings in Congress (59 of them to be exact, at a cost of over $800,000 per voting event), and their time wasted focused solely on repealing it, and accomplishing nothing else for the people, was for nothing.
Read this latest Congressional Budget Office report on ACA ... very, very interesting.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/50252

And, even though the Tea Party Republicans were aware of this, they were still wanting to repeal ACA, more out of principle than anything.
Please show proof of Cruz actually making those statements. The same statements, over a different background picture of Cruz were a hot Facebook topic in March of 2015. Politifact checked it. Their Nexis and online news search turned up no evidence of him ever making either statement. They rated the posting as "Pants on Fire"

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...ok-meme-says-ted-cruz-flip-flopper-president/

Also curious if you would have highlighted the status of the "junior senator" from New York in her 2008 presidential campaign?
There is just as much big money on the Republican side that want's ACA as there is on the Democratic side. The only real question is how they are going to pass the buck when people start understanding how fucked they are. Pretty much everything the Republicans did was just for show with no real substance.

Current projections are that some insurance companies are looking for rate increases around 16%. One of the things that has been loudly touted is that health care cost increases are slowing. True but not an accurate measure. If you look at the ratio between inflation and health care costs health care is still accelerating when measured against inflation

You really should list a disclaimer that you are a salesman in the insurance industry. You are hardly unbiased on the subject.

The costs and the subsidies are not sustainable. Costs are not going to come down they never do in any government program. When I negotiated my retirement package one of the things I talked them into was that they pay my health insurance as long as I live. I saw this coming from the start.
 
Everywhere in the world politicians are always consistent... O_O
Politicians are like little children. They like to play with things that they don't understand. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way to tell them no. One of the characteristics that's seems to be shared by nearly all politicians is that they tell enough people what they want to hear to get themselves re-elected. It has been said that diapers and politicians should be changed frequently, usually for the same reason
 
Politicians are like little children. They like to play with things that they don't understand. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way to tell them no. One of the characteristics that's seems to be shared by nearly all politicians is that they tell enough people what they want to hear to get themselves re-elected. It has been said that diapers and politicians should be changed frequently, usually for the same reason

Which is why Ive come to prefer dictators over democracies.
Obviously theres a lot of bad ******* like Saudi Arabia.
But also a lot of good, see Lybia before the US and NATO started to fuck it up. (Yes, fuck it up, I believe it was taken down cause for financial reasons(google gold dinar) another reason to believe it is the irrigation project, google that, why would the US bomb it?)
The literacy rate was at 90% when it was under Gaddafi when it was at 15% before him(I believe)
Lybia had the biggest growth rate economically as also in living standards, Id even say they had a better standard than a lot of western countries.
Could totaly go into this but this is easily googled.
Lybia used to be a fine example of a working dictatorship that outdid any western country in growth and personal wealth.

Of course theres bad examples like Saudi Arabia too.
However I dont believe that a democracy can ever be as successfull and be there for its people like a dictatorship can.
 
I agree with PwettyPony
I don't believe in democracy. I think countries with absolute government are better than so called democracies...
Lybia is a good example but we have Iraq, Serbia...all those countries were well ruled by their previous governments and now...they're just anarchy or at the very least puppets...
Of course there's no "perfect State" but I think democracy is one of the worst form of government that we have ever created in all our history.
Look at China or North Korea, they have powerful government and they have a low corruption index in politics because if you're a politician in those countries and you're corrupt you will face horrid time in jail and then death penalty.
If I think about my country, Australia, we have those disgusting politicians with their criminal associations called "political party", we have a fake Queen (because real Kings and Queens are unfortunately extinct...) with no power, decay and corruption everywhere, like all "democracies".
I guess we need a good military governement, harsh and powerful.
 
I agree with PwettyPony
I don't believe in democracy. I think countries with absolute government are better than so called democracies...
Lybia is a good example but we have Iraq, Serbia...all those countries were well ruled by their previous governments and now...they're just anarchy or at the very least puppets...
Of course there's no "perfect State" but I think democracy is one of the worst form of government that we have ever created in all our history.
Look at China or North Korea, they have powerful government and they have a low corruption index in politics because if you're a politician in those countries and you're corrupt you will face horrid time in jail and then death penalty.
If I think about my country, Australia, we have those disgusting politicians with their criminal associations called "political party", we have a fake Queen (because real Kings and Queens are unfortunately extinct...) with no power, decay and corruption everywhere, like all "democracies".
I guess we need a good military governement, harsh and powerful.
One of the problems is is accountability. A lot that the Nazi's did during WWII they did because they didn't think they would be held responsible. Stalin likely murdered more people than Hitler he was just better than hiding the bodies. There is a good argument for a benevolent dictatorship however the key word is benevolent. China and North Korea are very corrupt. Take a look at the little toad running North Korea and then look at a typical North Korean and tell me that he doesn't live a privileged life. Their only advantage is that they allow no opposition the cast their sins into the light. Freedoms that are lost in a democracy happen because the citizens get complacent and give their freedoms away. A lot of what is in the U.S. Bill of Rights has simply been ignored by the politicians and we just let them do it.

Google the Stanford Experiment and you will get a good insight into human nature. Years ago there was a TV series called "Perry Mason". At the beginning they make a comment that Democracy is a bad form of government but we should remember that all the others are so much worse. I still find this statement to be true.
 
Back
Top