For those who assume supporting a Trump presidency over a Biden one means being a MAGA Trumper....

[Politruk]

And the Nazis who escaped Germany and hid in the United States and used their ill-gotten money to found many of the book publishing companies that produced the education books and the books we use for history today, those companies didn't have a lot. Good to say about Nazis. You know why? If they said good things about the Nazis they'd give up the game. I wouldn't expect a socialist information site to say a lot of good about communists. That would give up the game. Of course they have negative things to say about communism and socialist regimes and everything else. If they said that socialist regimes and communist regimes are wonderful things that should be celebrated and pursued because this is what the world needs in order to overcome the evils of capitalism.... Everyone would know it was a communist site. Are you really that stupid?

Anything non-falsifiable is irrational.

What you present there is an epistemically closed argument -- any conceivable evidence that RationalWiki is not "socialist Wikipedia" can be twisted to show it is.

That is classic conspiracy-theory thinking -- as you can learn from RationalWiki.

 

[Politruk]

Anything non-falsifiable is irrational.

What you present there is an epistemically closed argument -- any conceivable evidence that RationalWiki is not "socialist Wikipedia" can be twisted to show it is.

That is classic conspiracy-theory thinking -- as you can learn from RationalWiki.

See here:

Conspiracy theories tend to be completely self-sealing. Any attempt to deny, debunk, or present evidence against the conspiracy will be viewed as an effort by the conspirators to "cover up the truth", and the lack of evidence in support of the conspiracy is viewed as proof that the cover-up is successful, as proof that "THEY" are trying to "conceal the truth". The flood of conspiracy theories results in more plausible theories getting lost in the noise of newsworthy but disingenuous ideas such as the New World Order or the Moon landing hoax. Not everyone involved in a conspiracy necessarily knows all the details; in fact, sometimes none do. Not that this troubles most conspiracy theorists, of course.

 

[JohnEngelman]

I said it was unconstitutional. The Constitution was never given or intended as an evolving document to be interpreted as whatever the current changing opinions wanted it to be. It is a fixed document with fixed meaning to be understood and interpreted as the founders and the founding principles gave. That is why they wrote so extensively on it. Any other interpretation is playing poker with rules that change based on the wants of the players; my mix matched shit hand becomes a Full House because I want it to.

Have you even read the Constitution? It is a fairly short document. Where does the Constitution say that wealth distribution is unconditional? Quote the exact words.

 

[Politruk]

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.

“Our very way of life is under siege,” said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. “It’s time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are.”

According to Mortensen—an otherwise mild-mannered husband, father, and small-business owner—the most serious threat to his fanciful version of the 222-year-old Constitution is the attempt by far-left “traitors” to strip it of its religious foundation.

“Right there in the preamble, the authors make their priorities clear: ‘one nation under God,’” said Mortensen, attributing to the Constitution a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, which itself did not include any reference to a deity until 1954. “Well, there’s a reason they put that right at the top.”

“Men like Madison and Jefferson were moved by the ideals of Christianity, and wanted the United States to reflect those values as a Christian nation,” continued Mortensen, referring to the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison, considered by many historians to be an atheist, and Thomas Jefferson, an Enlightenment-era thinker who rejected the divinity of Christ and was in France at the time the document was written. “The words on the page speak for themselves.”

According to sources who have read the nation’s charter, the U.S. Constitution and its 27 amendments do not contain the word “God” or “Christ.”

Mortensen said his admiration for the loose assemblage of vague half-notions he calls the Constitution has only grown over time. He believes that each detail he has pulled from thin air—from prohibitions on sodomy and flag-burning, to mandatory crackdowns on immigrants, to the right of citizens not to have their hard-earned income confiscated in the form of taxes—has contributed to making it the best framework for governance “since the Ten Commandments.”

“And let’s not forget that when the Constitution was ratified it brought freedom to every single American,” Mortensen said.

Mortensen’s passion for safeguarding the elaborate fantasy world in which his conception of the Constitution resides is greatly respected by his likeminded friends and relatives, many of whom have been known to repeat his unfounded assertions verbatim when angered. Still, some friends and family members remain critical.

“Dad’s great, but listening to all that talk radio has put some weird ideas into his head,” said daughter Samantha, a freshman at Reed College in Portland, OR. “He believes the Constitution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn’t even know that it guarantees universal health care.”

Mortensen told reporters that he’ll fight until the bitter end for what he roughly supposes the Constitution to be. He acknowledged, however, that it might already be too late to win the battle.

“The freedoms our Founding Fathers spilled their blood for are vanishing before our eyes,” Mortensen said. “In under a year, a fascist, socialist regime has turned a proud democracy into a totalitarian state that will soon control every facet of American life.”

“Don’t just take my word for it,” Mortensen added. “Try reading a newspaper or watching the news sometime.”

 

[Holy_Seduction]

I have listened on National public radio to you and your ilk celebrating the life of Fidel Castro. Your side celebrates Marxist and communist dictatorships because that's exactly what you worship. You worship government. You believe big government is a solution to all. You have no God so big government have replaced God because you have to have authority to enforce whatever twisted agenda you want to enforce. That's why you like Castro. And it's funny that you call Hitler a fascist and compare conservatives to him yet Hitler was a socialist. That was literally in the party's name. National socialist party. You're a hypocrite. You're a communist. And people like you are the reason why people who are sane are rejecting your worldview.

Not much to concur with Politruk, but that is a textbook illustration of subjective idealism.

You created a vision of the world in your own mind, and project that into another’s mind as an explanation of their subjective mental operations. The “your [Politruk] side” remark adopts an heretical Manichean vision, and casting that around labels like ‘communist’ is a form of ideological absolutism.

You seem to postulate and write on the supposition that this creates things, gives them breath, life and brings forth being. The possibility that people may not think as you indicate apparently does not exist for you.

The hackneyed line re: Hitler’s “socialism” and the Party name is unbelievably old. Is it not said repeatedly on every forum? Or did we forget that seizing power, socialists were the first people Hitler disposed?

Why do you think WWII occurred? If not to make the world safe for IG Farben, Siemens, Daimler-Benz and Deutsche Bank, then what?

The thing with plying the term ‘Marxist’ is that in time, you meet someone who knows something about Marx’ theory of value, the alienation of labor, the coerced extraction of surplus value, historical development, labor power, the tendency of profit to decline in proportion to Capital’s development, the three social classes under capitalist organization, irresolvable antagonisms arising from class contradictions and, etc.

Know, or accept them. Why then would such assertions as described be believed at all?

 

[Politruk]

Why do you think WWII occurred? If not to make the world safe for IG Farben, Siemens, Daimler-Benz and Deutsche Bank, then what?

To Hitler, the point of the war was to conquer Russia, exterminate the Russians, and resettle the territory with Germans. Then Germany would be a continental power on par with the United States. Everything else, even getting rid of the Jews, was secondary to that goal.

 

[Holy_Seduction]

To Hitler, the point of the war was to conquer Russia, exterminate the Russians, and resettle the territory with Germans. Then Germany would be a continental power on par with the United States. Everything else, even getting rid of the Jews, was secondary to that goal.

To Churchill, the point appeared to be to see Germans and Russians butcher each other. Arguably, FDR’s intention was to see Europe cripple or better, topple Soviet governance, an objective arguably served to this day via continual regime change operations followed by proxy wars on the RF.

Nice sparing JS the trouble to reply. Allies do stick together even if only ‘under the table.’

 

[Politruk]

To Churchill, the point appeared to be to see Germans and Russians butcher each other. Arguably, FDR’s intention was to see Europe cripple or better, topple Soviet governance, an objective arguably served to this day via continual regime change operations followed by proxy wars on the RF.

Nice sparing JS the trouble to reply. Allies do stick together even if only ‘under the table.’

Point is, Hitler was not a puppet of business interests. He had his own agenda, and it had nothing to do with IG Farben, Siemens, Daimler-Benz or Deutsche Bank.

 

[YDB95]

You created a vision of the world in your own mind, and project that into another’s mind as an explanation of their subjective mental operations. The “your [Politruk] side” remark adopts an heretical Manichean vision, and casting that around labels like ‘communist’ is a form of ideological absolutism.

That, in a nutshell, is what Jay always does. He has an incredibly elaborate view of how the other side thinks and believes, which has just about nothing in common with what we really do think and believe. Though totally inaccurate, it sure makes it easy for him to justify his own worldview as a matter of good vs. evil.

The hackneyed line re: Hitler’s “socialism” and the Party name is unbelievably old. Is it not said repeatedly on every forum? Or did we forget that seizing power, socialists were the first people Hitler disposed?

"We" didn't forget, so much as people like Jay never knew it in the first place. There's literally a cottage industry dedicated to convincing everyone who will listen that the Nazis were socialists. The people behind that effort undoubtedly are aware that their use of that word was simply a marketing ploy, but their target market probably has never had any idea.

 

[Politruk]

Have you even read the Constitution? It is a fairly short document. Where does the Constitution say that wealth distribution is unconditional? Quote the exact words.

I recall in one of the Federalist Papers Hamilton argued that the proposed constitution could never lead to wild populist schemes like "paper money" -- one could at least infer from that a general attitude among the FFs, I guess.

 

[Politruk]

Arguably, FDR’s intention was to see Europe cripple or better, topple Soviet governance, an objective arguably served to this day via continual regime change operations followed by proxy wars on the RF.

Bu, the RF is not Communist.

 

[JohnEngelman]

I recall in one of the Federalist Papers Hamilton argued that the proposed constitution could never lead to wild populist schemes like "paper money" -- one could at least infer from that a general attitude among the FFs, I guess.

I have read all of the Federalist Papers. I do not know if Hamilton said that or not. I do not care what he said.

I am a literalist regarding the United States Constitution. Unless the Constitution very specifically says something, I conclude that the Constitution leaves it up to the voters.

For example, for decades pro abortion militants talked about a "Constitutional right to an abortion." Nevertheless, the Constitution does not include the word "abortion." Maybe it should, but it does not. Consequently, it leaves it up to the voters. Anyway, this so called "Constitutional right to an abortion" does not exist anymore.

 

[JaySecrets]

What, this? It's toilet paper.

Except there are many in the Jewish AND the Germanic pagan circles who concur with the book, the book is heavily documented beyond reproach, is highly vetted, and most importantly here, you have not read it and therefore are not qualified to say that. I have actually read the book. But if it's not on Google, it's not true, right?

 

[JaySecrets]

You were wrong.

I am very right and the founders writings concur with me, not you. So unless you are fool enough to think you are wiser than the men who founded America and gave us the longest standing Constitution in the world, and a nation whose highest governor is a document not a man, you might want to stand down.

 

[JaySecrets]

Bu, the RF is not Communist.

Everything tied to the UN is to some degree Communist.

 

[JaySecrets]

That DNA thing sounds like intelligent-design theory. The Creation Museum is all about young-Earth creationism -- a completely different school of non-thought.

Both are actually very scientific, but that is another discussion for another day.

 

[Politruk]

Everything tied to the UN is to some degree Communist.

First, that is a damned stupid lie. Incredibly stupid.

Second, the RF is not tied to the UN, except by being a member state, just like the U.S. and every other country in the world.

 

[Politruk]

Except there are many in the Jewish AND the Germanic pagan circles who concur with the book, the book is heavily documented beyond reproach, is highly vetted, and most importantly here, you have not read it and therefore are not qualified to say that. I have actually read the book. But if it's not on Google, it's not true, right?

As an important ingredient of the argument, "Nazi Oaks" also demonstrates the anti-Christian bias of the environmental movement in America which paralleled the anti-Semitic bias in Germany during the 1800’s. “Nazi Oaks” describes why the holocaust is best understood as a modernized form of human sacrifice carried out under biological/ecological camouflage that is rooted in the sacrificial oak imagery of ancient paganism.

^^^^ That is very definitely toilet paper.

No, I haven't read it. I don't need to read anything by Texe Marrs or David Icke or Mark Dice or William Cooper to know it's toilet paper.

 

[Politruk]

I am very right and the founders writings concur with me, not you. So unless you are fool enough to think you are wiser than the men who founded America and gave us the longest standing Constitution in the world, and a nation whose highest governor is a document not a man, you might want to stand down.

See post #1,304.

 

[Politruk]

Both are actually very scientific, but that is another discussion for another day.

Intelligent design theory is unscientific because it is non-falsifiable. That is, it is impossible even to imagine data which, if discovered, would definitely disprove it.

Young-Earth creationism fails the most basic scientific test of rejection of authority. It is something nobody ignorant of the Biblical narrative ever would come up with from looking at the data.

 

[Politruk]

That, in a nutshell, is what Jay always does. He has an incredibly elaborate view of how the other side thinks and believes, which has just about nothing in common with what we really do think and believe. Though totally inaccurate, it sure makes it easy for him to justify his own worldview as a matter of good vs. evil.

See Manichaeism.

 

[JaySecrets]

Anything non-falsifiable is irrational.

What you present there is an epistemically closed argument -- any conceivable evidence that RationalWiki is not "socialist Wikipedia" can be twisted to show it is.

That is classic conspiracy-theory thinking -- as you can learn from RationalWiki.

You use the exact same level of logic when you label conservatives as racist of fascist. It is a case of a charge that any argument made to the contrary, because of bias, is impossible to disprove.... And you make the same argument against Creationism (and for evolution). You use the same logic for your atheism. Yet when it is applied to your Marxist-pedia, it's BAD logic?

 

[JaySecrets]

Have you even read the Constitution? It is a fairly short document. Where does the Constitution say that wealth distribution is unconditional? Quote the exact words.

All authority or actions NOT EXPRESSEDLY given to the federal government and Congress are UNDER NO UNCERTAIN TERMS left to the state government, local government, and individual citizen. The greatest emphasis on the individual's rights to do with his or her wealth and life what they will. On top of that, the roles of government, down to how much property it can own and control and why, are clearly defined as only what is needed to accomplish the ROLES OF THE GOVERNMENT AS LIMITED BY THE CONSTITUTION. This does not include conservation, welfare, healthcare, housing, or education. in other words, by the limits and shackles placed on the federal government by the constitution, wealth redistribution is rendered unconstitutional. Only one intent on REINTERPRETING the constitution in order to expand government beyond the constitutional limits, and one who ignores EVERY DAMN THING the founders wrote about the constitution and the role of federal government would argue otherwise.

 

[JaySecrets]

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.

“Our very way of life is under siege,” said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. “It’s time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are.”

According to Mortensen—an otherwise mild-mannered husband, father, and small-business owner—the most serious threat to his fanciful version of the 222-year-old Constitution is the attempt by far-left “traitors” to strip it of its religious foundation.

“Right there in the preamble, the authors make their priorities clear: ‘one nation under God,’” said Mortensen, attributing to the Constitution a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, which itself did not include any reference to a deity until 1954. “Well, there’s a reason they put that right at the top.”

“Men like Madison and Jefferson were moved by the ideals of Christianity, and wanted the United States to reflect those values as a Christian nation,” continued Mortensen, referring to the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison, considered by many historians to be an atheist, and Thomas Jefferson, an Enlightenment-era thinker who rejected the divinity of Christ and was in France at the time the document was written. “The words on the page speak for themselves.”

According to sources who have read the nation’s charter, the U.S. Constitution and its 27 amendments do not contain the word “God” or “Christ.”

Mortensen said his admiration for the loose assemblage of vague half-notions he calls the Constitution has only grown over time. He believes that each detail he has pulled from thin air—from prohibitions on sodomy and flag-burning, to mandatory crackdowns on immigrants, to the right of citizens not to have their hard-earned income confiscated in the form of taxes—has contributed to making it the best framework for governance “since the Ten Commandments.”

“And let’s not forget that when the Constitution was ratified it brought freedom to every single American,” Mortensen said.

Mortensen’s passion for safeguarding the elaborate fantasy world in which his conception of the Constitution resides is greatly respected by his likeminded friends and relatives, many of whom have been known to repeat his unfounded assertions verbatim when angered. Still, some friends and family members remain critical.

“Dad’s great, but listening to all that talk radio has put some weird ideas into his head,” said daughter Samantha, a freshman at Reed College in Portland, OR. “He believes the Constitution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn’t even know that it guarantees universal health care.”

Mortensen told reporters that he’ll fight until the bitter end for what he roughly supposes the Constitution to be. He acknowledged, however, that it might already be too late to win the battle.

“The freedoms our Founding Fathers spilled their blood for are vanishing before our eyes,” Mortensen said. “In under a year, a fascist, socialist regime has turned a proud democracy into a totalitarian state that will soon control every facet of American life.”

“Don’t just take my word for it,” Mortensen added. “Try reading a newspaper or watching the news sometime.”

The founders stated that they based the Constitution on two foundational documents: The Bible (particularly the principles of good government given in the Old Testament) and the legal writings of Blackwell (who, because of this, until recent history was required reding in law school). Blackwell's writings are packed with Scripture and read like a treatise on legal theory as applied through a Scriptural lens. SO the problem with this understanding of the Constitution, an ORIGANALIST view of it, is a problem why?

 

[Politruk]

The founders stated that they based the Constitution on two foundational documents: The Bible (particularly the principles of good government given in the Old Testament)

That is a lie.

and the legal writings of Blackwell

No such lawyer. Perhaps you mean Blackstone. But his Commentaries on the Laws of England do not "read like a treatise on legal theory as applied through a Scriptural lens."