JeffreyNotGeoffrey
Active Member
Yeah conservapedia is an extremely biased right wing creationist website. It actually seemed offensive and incredibly stupid the first minute I was on it. It proudly had an article against atheists that felt condecending to say the least. First there was "the question atheist fear/cannot answer" which turned out to be why doesn't god exist? I will assume he was referring specifically the Chrisian god and speaking only for myself say:
I find it hard to reconcil an all knowing, all being, all powerful god who actually loves me and everyone else with the conditions of life. Why does evil go unpunished and seem to thrive? It is cold comfort to a murder victim that his killer might be punished in hell unless he converts and is saved at the last moment that is. Also why if god is so powerful does he give a shit about my feelings toward him, and for that matter why get so spiteful about and send my soul to hell to actively suffer forever for being too bad? For that matter if he knows everything then doesn't he know how it will all happen which seems to negate free will?
Second the site confronted evolution with a Gish gallop that included a reference to the idea that people evolved from earthworms. If that is the level of scholarship there you may use that site as a reference at your own peril of being mocked and seeing just what biases you have.
I find it hard to reconcil an all knowing, all being, all powerful god who actually loves me and everyone else with the conditions of life. Why does evil go unpunished and seem to thrive? It is cold comfort to a murder victim that his killer might be punished in hell unless he converts and is saved at the last moment that is. Also why if god is so powerful does he give a shit about my feelings toward him, and for that matter why get so spiteful about and send my soul to hell to actively suffer forever for being too bad? For that matter if he knows everything then doesn't he know how it will all happen which seems to negate free will?
Second the site confronted evolution with a Gish gallop that included a reference to the idea that people evolved from earthworms. If that is the level of scholarship there you may use that site as a reference at your own peril of being mocked and seeing just what biases you have.
J
Joe
Guest
Ok so im political hack
How many times have I used it ? Once . Do you think a better reference would be the son of a communist ? Maybe Media Matters is better ?
J
Joe
Guest
I do use wiki the most . But I like to use Key Wiki and other right wing sites just to stir the hornets nest around here . Now that I know Conservatipedia is a creationist site I might try that as well .
JeffreyNotGeoffrey
Active Member
Which son of which communist? I also did not give an evaluation of Media Matters. What does matter is that you cited a site full to the brim of bunk on an issue critical of some one. It just makes you look bad for using that tripe. YOU also implied it was as good as wikipedia when it is a pale shadow of the latter. On point the image still doesn't look any faker, and these sorts of accusations say more about the accuser than the accused.
I do use wiki the most . But I like to use Key Wiki and other right wing sites just to stir the hornets nest around here . Now that I know Conservatipedia is a creationist site I might try that as well .
Respectfully, I don't think that is a good strategy. You are basically declaring you are a troll and your posts lack credibility.
Cairenn
Senior Member.
His son does an excellent job in debunking the pedophile story. He references the BOOK and what some have twisted. His son is retired Air Force intelligence officer. It seems that the Air Force did not consider his father's activism to be a big problem. Not like you are doing.
J
Joe
Guest
No troll just opposite then many on this form . I disagree with many here sometimes but there are times where I dont . I am keeping a open mind , But as you can see Im all alone on this subject .
J
Joe
Guest
I didnt think I said any thing bad about him just that He would naturally try to defend his father . Just not credible to me . So what he was in the air force that doesnt make him a saint . Major Hassan was a Army psychiatrist .
J
Joe
Guest
So did Major Hassan pass backround checks as well as Snowden ? Im sure he is not a communist just his daddy .
J
Joe
Guest
Because he was Obama s mentor . Dreams from my Father and a close friend of his grandfather . My father called himself Social democrat I told him he just a commie
So i guess we can be opposite of our parents . Bernie sanders from vermont says he is a socialist which I have no problem with because at least he is honest about himself . I just hate liars which is what most Politicians are Dems and Rep .X lawyers .
this is From Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Marshall_Davis
Cairenn
Senior Member.
SO? A mentor is a teacher or adviser. That doesn't mean that you become them with only their beliefs. I have had many mentors over the years and I am not a clone of any of them.
A social democrat is not a communist, no more than those in the Tea Party are Nazis.
A social democrat is not a communist, no more than those in the Tea Party are Nazis.
mentor
men·tor
[men-tawr, -ter] Show IPA
noun
1.
a wise and trusted counselor or teacher.
2.
an influential senior sponsor or supporter.
J
Joe
Guest
Nazis = were leftist . National Socialism . Big government total control They were consider right in European politics not American . . Left = total control or Big Government right = Anarchy or no government . Our constitution puts us center right of the political spectrum . European politics are completely different from American .
Cairenn
Senior Member.
The Nazis were anti communist. They imprisoned and killed many communists.
In the Weimar Republic the left consisted of the Communists (KPD) and the Social Democrats (SPD). The Center consisted of the Democratic party (DDP), the Catholic Center Party (Z) and the People’s Party (DVP). The right consisted of the German Nationalist Party (DNVP) and the National Socialist Party (NSDAP-Nazi). Unlike American political parties, German political parties had narrower bases of support generally based on class, occupation and religion. They were therefore less inclined to compromise and more inclined to have programs based on clear sets of ideas (ideologies).
The parties on the left were strong supporters of progressive taxation, government social welfare programs, labor unions, equality and economic opportunity for women. They were less nationalistic, militaristic and antisemitic than the parties on the right. They favored greater government involvement in—and control of—business and industry, and were to varying degrees anti-religious. Still, there were strong differences and major conflicts between the two major leftist parties. The Social Democrats were strong supporters of the Republic and democracy while the Communists were opposed to both, favoring a Russian style communist dictatorship. The parties on the right were strongly nationalistic and supported large military. They were opposed to social welfare programs, labor unions and progressive taxation. They favored an economy directed by industrialists and landowners with large estates. They were antisemitic and favored traditional roles for women. The Nationalists were a more traditional Conservative Party, while the National Socialists were a radical party wanting revolutionary change. Both parties publicly supported the Churches and the role of religion in society but some elements in the Nazi Party harbored hostility to traditional religion.
...
German Nationalist People’s Party (DNVP)
The supporters of the German Nationalist People’s Party (DNVP) were generally Protestant and represented a mix of landowners and industrialists with crafts people and civil servants and farmers who followed the lead of the wealthy landowners. The party also attracted the more conservative elements among the white collar clerical and retail sales workers. It was militaristic, resistant to republican government, opposed to attempts to fulfill the terms of the Versailles treaty, and antisemitic.
...
National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP-Nazi)
The National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP-Nazi), founded in 1919 as the German Workers party, began its move toward prominence when Adolf Hitler emerged as its principal speaker and leader. The National Socialists initially attracted young men who had been in the military and had not been able to reintegrate themselves into the civilian society and economy. The party also drew support from members of the lower middle class, shopkeepers, artisans and white-collar workers. The party was unequivocally opposed to the Weimar Republic and in 1923 its members led by Hitler tried unsuccessfully to seize the government by force. After this failed attempt the party reverted to a strategy of gaining power through the electoral process without ever changing its fundamental opposition to democracy and republican government. Antisemitism and the threat that the Jews represented to Germany were at the core of the Nazi ideology.
During the later twenties, the base of National Socialist support expanded considerably. Although most of the top leaders of the party including Hitler were Catholic, and the party had begun in Catholic Munich, fewer Catholics proportionally voted for the party than did Protestants. This voting pattern was the result of the Catholic Church urging its members to avoid supporting the Nazis. This Catholic Church opposition to the Nazis would be dropped once Hitler achieved power. While the Nazis were slow to attract women supporters (program for women was summarized by “Children, the Kitchen and the Church”), women were the fastest growing group of supporters by the early 1930s. By 1932, the Nazis had become the most popular political party and they had the largest legislative delegation.
Funding for the Nazi Party
Money was a necessity for building and maintaining a large political organization. Hitler needed money to support paramilitary groups, stage rallies, publish newspapers, print posters and buy radio time. Historians have argued about how Hitler and the Nazis raised their money. Marxist historians starting with Franz Naumann in the 1940’s had argued that industrialists who hoped to manipulate him bought Hitler’s success because they feared communism. Even in the 1920s left wing critics of Hitler such as the artist John Heartfield had seen him as a creature of industrialists such as Hugo Stinnes. S. and J. Poole’s claim that it was Henry Ford who supplied the Nazis with funds. However most historians today take the position most clearly expressed by Henry Turner and dispute these claims. Turner argues that most industrialists and financiers supported more moderate political leaders such as Gustav Stresemann and only began to supply Hitler with money in the early 1930s when he looked like a winner and they saw the communist threat growing. Turner sees a generous party membership, often with very limited personal means, as the source of the major funding for the party during its growth period. Turner rejects the idea of any support for Hitler from Henry Ford.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/germany/nazibeliefsrev4.shtmlThe Nazi ideology:
Lebensraum - the need for 'living space' for the German nation to expand.
A strong Germany - the Treaty of Versailles should be abolished and all German-speaking people united in one country.
Führer - the idea that there should be a single leader with complete power rather than a democracy.
Social Darwinism - the idea that the Aryan race was superior and Jews were 'subhuman'.
Autarky - the idea that Germany should be economically self-sufficient.
Germany was in danger - from Communists and Jews, who had to be destroyed.
In the 1920s, the Nazis tried to be all things to all people. The 25-Point Programme had policies that were:
Socialist - eg farmers should be given their land; pensions should improve; and public industries such as electricity and water should be owned by the state.
Nationalist - all German-speaking people should be united in one country; the Treaty of Versailles should be abolished; and there should be special laws for foreigners.
Racist - Jews should not be German citizens and immigration should be stopped.
Fascist - a strong central government and control of the newspapers.
The Nazis did not appeal to:
working men who voted Communist
intellectuals such as students and university professors
They were popular with:
nationalists and racists
farmers
lower middle-class people such as plumbers and shopkeepers who were worried about the chaos Germany was in
rich people worried by the threat from Communism
AluminumTheory
Senior Member.
JeffreyNotGeoffrey
Active Member
I also don't get the whole more government is left and less is right. Tsarist Russia was an absolute monarchy and was a completely conservative rightist government. It had plenty of rules and even serfs into the later half of the 19th century. Introducing elected representatives to the Duma was a liberalization. One often is considered left if you push for more social change as opposed to being conservative or right if you resist change or want to repeal change. Communists/Soviets act as if they were changing man for the future as foretold by Marx, while Nazis strove for modernity by trying to achieve what had been lost from the past and resisting corrupt modern influences like swing music. The extremes at either end became roughly the same thing, crazy murderous totalitarian dictatorships. A continuum can also be made of social attitudes in which on the right are increasingly more rules regarding behavior, and to the left is fewer and eventually no rules regarding behavior (ie liberal parents who let their children do as they please).
AluminumTheory
Senior Member.
The political spectrum really isn't quite that simple. That would be more authoritarian with elements of social conservatism.
AluminumTheory
Senior Member.
Neither is authoritarianism, you can have authoritarian left and authoritarian right. More often than not, political ideologies depend more on the historical and regional context rather than what any one individual perceives as being liberal or or conservative.
Our founding fathers were considered extreme liberals during the revolution, today we refer to them as "classical liberals" which is basically what we know as Libertarian.
J
Joe
Guest
Sure in Europe they are right wing . Not in America . They were Socialist . Not exactly small government or limited government .
Last edited by a moderator:
J
Joe
Guest
watch
J
Joe
Guest
Media Matters explanation on the photoshop . Doesn't really answer the dark hand ? http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/04/a-brief-history-of-obama-photoshop-conspiracies/192509
AluminumTheory
Senior Member.
A similar matter was discussed in another thread regarding supposedly photoshopped pictures.
As Mick said, there are numerous pictures of Barack Obama and his family and if they were cropping someone out say a known communist, wouldn't it be easier to dispose of that picture.
Photoshopping pictures for the president or someone that you're grooming to become president is a weighty task. Don't you think they would have hired a professional as they would pay attention to details so as to not overlook anything that might be perceived as odd?
How are they so sure that 'hand' belongs to Frank Marshall Davis. Are hands really that distinguishable from one another.
Confirmation Bias on steroids. Find random and obscure oddities, ask a bunch of questions while only accepting one answer.
As Mick said, there are numerous pictures of Barack Obama and his family and if they were cropping someone out say a known communist, wouldn't it be easier to dispose of that picture.
Photoshopping pictures for the president or someone that you're grooming to become president is a weighty task. Don't you think they would have hired a professional as they would pay attention to details so as to not overlook anything that might be perceived as odd?
How are they so sure that 'hand' belongs to Frank Marshall Davis. Are hands really that distinguishable from one another.
Confirmation Bias on steroids. Find random and obscure oddities, ask a bunch of questions while only accepting one answer.
Last edited:
"
AluminumTheory
Senior Member.
JeffreyNotGeoffrey
Active Member
Agreed AlT. As said before Joe I am not sure who made tha BS spectrum, but they are wrong. Totalitarianism is neither left nor right. And rightists govs can still have LOTS of rules. Tsarist Russia was conservative to an extreme. Imperial Germany and imperial Japan were conservative. All three had plenty of laws. Law and state control are not the specific purview of the left. Not sure who told you that but they are biased and deeply wrong.
The bottom photo is clearly PSed. You can see where Obama's leg/knee is next to his Grandmother. The "floating" hand is not the same hand in both pictures. The top picture is just looks like his Grandfather is placing his arm around Obama but just hasn't finished. I'm not sure what is strange except it looks like someone PSed the bottom picture to fit their narrative.The other photo is Obama sitting between his grandparents, and, in the photo, the hand of Mr. Obama’s grandfather mysteriously appears to float over Mr. Obama’s shoulder.
Richard Terrell of Aftermath “de-photoshopped” the floating hand picture.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've started a thread on the Political Compass, where you can see where you stand on a more multi-dimensional scale.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/where-are-you-on-the-political-compass.2039/
I'd be interested to see where various debunker fall, and where the conspiracy theorist fall. Give it a go Joe
Last edited:
J
Joe
Guest
In your opinion it might be but for many like me its exactly what we believe .
J
Joe
Guest
I agree on that photo at least . Just found the one with the dark hand kinda strange weather it be the hand of a communist or not .
