How true these words are...

[Ozi]

[BBsq69]

I grew up in the '50's with German Jewish immigrants in my neighborhood. They had numbers tattooed on their wrists.

The Holocaust happened to them.

I believe them.

How can anybody doubt it? It is just beyond belief! I don't even understand the motive for wanting to deny it. It's like Joe says to Quagmire in FG: "Dude, why are you trying to make Hitler work?".

[Ozi]

How can anybody doubt it? It is just beyond belief! I don't even understand the motive for wanting to deny it. It's like Joe says to Quagmire in FG: "Dude, why are you trying to make Hitler work?".

Most Holocaust denial claims imply that the Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate conspiracy by Jews, to create sympathy and is generally considered to be an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.

There are also claims the figure of six million Jewish being intentionally murdered  is an exaggeration, that many of the  deaths in the concentration camps were the results of disease or starvation but not policy by the Nazis and that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery.

The reasons are varied including reducing the perceived public sympathy towards  Jews, undermining the legitimacy of the State of Israel, which some believe was created as compensation for Jewish suffering during the Holocaust, as well as planting the seeds of deception, making people believe that Jews are untrustworthy. 

[Guest]

If Jesus was black then he must be an ancestor of Sammy Davis Jr. I mean Mr Davis is the only other black Jew I know of.

This one guy happened to return back on earth from heaven. Of course everybody asked him if he saw God and wanted to know what God is like. The guy said: "Well, to start with - she is black."

[Guest]

As long as conservatives believe the only function of government should be to maintain a military with which to support the rule of despots around the world, killing our own children and blowing our deficit past the moon in the process, and to make sure we all conform to their way of acting and thinking (especially when sexual matters are involved), I will continue to hold them and their fake Christianity in contempt.

"Conservative Christian"?

PURE  :BS:

No such thing is possible. The ultimate in oxymoronic statements is to say you emulate someone who was more liberal than anyone else that ever walked the earth, the original Bleeding Heart, and then follow that by saying you're conservative.

I find the overwhelming majority of Ms. Scott's writing on Obama to be filled with unproven assertions (how does she know what his mother and grandparents taught him? was she there? does she stand at his side every moment of every day day to observe his actions and conversations? NO.  :BS:) and very often she accuses him of the very same tactics used by Rove & Co. since before Obama came into political prominence. Divisiveness and the politics of fear was the M.O. they created and perfected.

I love how she uses the word "we" so often, as though Obama is the only one that feels we have made catastrophic errors in the past support of dictators in the Middle East and around the world. Without our involvement in such tactics, we wouldn't be hated so deeply in that part of the world. [Think 1959. Iran.]

Hate? Malevolence? How about teaching our kids that they should blame and hate poor people for being poor, that we should tear down the same public education system that schooled the generations who fought WWII and sent a man to the moon for the benefit of private companies, and that we should restrict the rights of every citizen of the United States to vote (unless you're white and conservative)? She speaks of lack of restraint regarding Obama and forgets it was him who was the voice of reason when war hawks have wanted on numerous occasions to bomb bomb bomb [iran, Syria, Libya].

To be patriotic means more than just getting a lump in your throat over hearing a certain song. To see what is wrong with your country and not keep silent in spite of knowing you'll be attacked for pointing out our mistakes, then working to prevent such mistakes in the future, is every bit as patriotic as those of us who served in the military (Nam Era, myself). Do you see your child behaving badly and then smile as if nothing's wrong, not correcting that child? NO. You speak up and try to steer it to a better future. Blind patriotism is worthless drivel that can and will lead this country to total collapse, friendless around the entire world.

Ms. Scott's opinion piece is exactly that: opinion. Everyone has an opinion, just the same as everyone has an asshole. Hers is obviously full of shit.

Yes, how true your words are, indeed. Most of us may have noted that the General Discussion and Old Dudes Board are a playground for extreme conservatives, a contra-Obama tea party. Let us wait and see if you extremists can raise Donald "Joker" Trump to power - then we Europeans will really have fun in this forum (of a voyeur site, crazy!)

[Ozi]

Yeah, we've heard about this Donald 'Joker' Trump in Australia. I mean, who the hell does he think he is? Just because he's an accomplished athlete, with a university degree in economics and a self made billionaire, doesn't give him the right to mouth off. And now he wants to be President, what a nerve. How could you possibly have someone in that job prepared to speak his mind, state the truth as he sees it even if it offends people. What a wanker.

Wish we had just one like him over here. He might not win, but he'll certainly rattle a few cages, long overdue.

[Foamy T. Squirrel]

It appears that all Europeans and most Americans do not know what American Political Conservatism actually means.

To understand the term, you'll need to read the U.S. Constitution. Real "conservatives" use this for their principles, often combined with the background context of the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, and the works of John Locke. Pay attention to the 10th Amendment; it's important.

I am an American conservative, and therefore I am a registered Libertarian.

There are damn few of us left.

[Maturin]

As a European I'm confused as to why certain sections of the US quote and refer to the Constitution as if it is some kind of political bible that details the best way for society to organise itself. Surely a document written 100s of year ago should not be slavishly adhered to?  But then, as I understand it, that's what the various amendments are for, is that right?  The amendment process is a way of updating the document in order to keep it current, to better reflect the needs of a changing society?

My question is, why are these amendments taken to be incontestable rules, when they are actually just amendments that should be open to, well, amending?

For example:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This was written before the US had a well organized military and also how do today's gun ownership laws in the US equal a "well regulated militia"?  It seems to me that people who reference the constitution just pick the pieces they can use and ignore the rest, as in this one sentence - "A well regulated militia," - nah forget that bit, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," - yes that's the part I can use.

Just like the Bible it appears open to interpertation by either side and it was never intended to lay down the law for ever and ever amen - as the amendments themselves prove.

[Linked]

As a European I'm confused as to why certain sections of the US quote and refer to the Constitution as if it is some kind of political bible that details the best way for society to organise itself. Surely a document written 100s of year ago should not be slavishly adhered to?  But then, as I understand it, that's what the various amendments are for, is that right?  The amendment process is a way of updating the document in order to keep it current, to better reflect the needs of a changing society?

My question is, why are these amendments taken to be incontestable rules, when they are actually just amendments that should be open to, well, amending?

For example:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This was written before the US had a well organized military and also how do today's gun ownership laws in the US equal a "well regulated militia"?  It seems to me that people who reference the constitution just pick the pieces they can use and ignore the rest, as in this one sentence - "A well regulated militia," - nah forget that bit, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," - yes that's the part I can use.

Just like the Bible it appears open to interpertation by either side and it was never intended to lay down the law for ever and ever amen - as the amendments themselves prove.

Every male aged 18 yrs has to sign up for what is called the selective service.  It is so when our military has to start up the draft again, these are the people that get chosen from.  this means that every male aged 18 years and older are apart of a militia. they just do not train on a regular basis.  Also, the second amendment reads in total.

              A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now lets break this down piece by piece,  Well Regulated Militia= An entity comprised of all able bodied persons.

  being necessary to the security of a free State= Having a Militia is a state issue not a federal on.  This was written to protect the states from overreaching into state matters and taking away statehood rights.  The State in this actually means the States not Country.  If this wasn't the case this would have never been ratified by the states and we wouldn't have a constitution today.

   

    the right of the people to keep and bear Arms=  In order to have a Militia people will have to be able to bring their own arms to war if called up.  if you call up all on the selective service within your state there is no way that the powers that be can outfit every man with a weapon, so they will need to bring their own.

    shall not be infringed.= this means that the Federal Gov't cannot touch this Constitutional Amendment.

[Del_Austin]

Actually, the operative words are "a well regulated militia" a bunch of citizens running around with weapons doesn't meet that criteria. On the other hand the National Guard of each individual state does meet that criteria and was the intent of the founders.

[Linked]

The National Guard you say.  Do you know where the National Guard gets its funding?.  As a Member of the Army National Guard, I do.  We get 90% of our funding from the Federal Govn't. That is why when there is a Govn't shut down, I do not have drill because the Army cannot pay us.  Our weapon systems come from the Federal Govn't.  The states cannot just go out and by weapon systems for us, as this is regulated by the DoD.  So if the Federal Govn't wanted to take control of the states and become a totalitarian regime, the first thing they would do is defund the National Guard. Then what are the states going to do about their Militias.  It is imperative that those who are called to serve bring their own weapons if needed, and how can we do that if the jackpots in D.C. think that my AR-10 is unnecessary? 

[Maturin]

Thanks for breaking it down Linked. So if I understand correctly then the National Guard is not regarded as the 2nd amendment's militia because the majority of its funding comes from the federal government, is that right?

If that is the case, then where else is the organised militia that gives the right to bear arms? I can't see any other type of organisation that regulates statewide militias that can justify such an easy access to weapons in the US.  If the US government did become totalitarian then who and what would organise ordinary gun owners into a resistance movement - and what practicable use would handguns, sport rifles and shotguns be against the weight of the professional US Army?

I've got absolutely no problem with trained soldiers, regular, reserve or indeed a structured militia, having weapons in their homes in case of need but I fail to see how having guns so easily available to people like the high school murderers, gangs and other criminal elements is supposed to make people safer.

You've got an AR-10, you're a National Guardsmen, I'm fine with that.  My neighbour on the other hand is a batshit crazy (non-military) alcoholic and I think very soon him and I may come to blows - now if I was in the US I'd be worried about whether he has a battle rifle propped up behind the door when I knocked on it and if it would it be sensible for me to bring my firearm just in case he was drunk and didn't take too kindly to being told to clean his shit up. That potential to turn a neighbourly dispute into a potentially fatal firefight is insane.

Surely the 2nd amendment needs to be looked at to stop the batshit crazy people getting access to guns?