Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/8/02 08:38 AM, Slizor wrote:

You also falsely assume that those with money are necessarily on the political right. I don't think the Kennedy family is exactly "poor"...

Kennedy was not on the left.

He was a democrat, you know...

Anyhow, since you always seem to believe that it is human nature to be self-serving, then, rich people must be on the right, which is, totally, self-serving.

You also assume the right to be self serving which it is not. Conservatism isn't about greed, it's just not about big government. It's not the governments responsibility to help people, it's their responsibility to run and defend a nation. People need to help other people directly. Personal responsibility is what it's about, rather than leaving everything up to Big Brother and then complaining when nothing gets done.

The 200 election really brought out the worst of it. Some bias in the media documented here.

Isn't "FrontPageMag" where Horowitz writes?

Yes, but facts are facts nonetheless. Those stories were barely even heard during the election, how Gore took campaign money from China, how he was investigated, etc. They certainly reported even lesser things on Bush, though. Thirty years ago he got a DWI! What a major political issue!

Then they will and it will become an oppressive society, if the want is bad enough

But what right do the Majority have to rule the Minority?

There are more of them. Whatever is good for the majority is good for the most amount of people. You can attend to everybody so you have to satisfy as many as you can.

As Rush Limbaugh astutely pointed out the other day, 'What God?' They don't even specify a certain religion and God can have many personal connotations and meanings. We don't know what the Founding Father's meant. We can make an educated guess, but there is no implication that it is the Judeo-Christian God. They could have meant Allah, or Rama or Vishnu or Shiva or any mythological God.

They couldn't have meant Allah, for the simple reasonn that Allah is called Allah. They couldn't have mean Vishnu, Rama or Shiva(They're Hindu gods, right?) because they are called Vishnu, Rama or Shiva.

Yes, but god is a very general term. Are these not considered "gods" in their respected religions? And BTW, Allah is just Arabic for God.

One Third is not a proper majority.

There are no other larger groups and originally, I was talking about the US only. I don't know why you've expanded the focus to the entire world.

Millions of stances on Abortion/Suicide/etc/etc.

So you claim. A source?

At 7/7/02 07:08 AM, Slizor wrote:
Which is?

That you resort to petty name calling.

It's not a fabrication(I said seems). You don't just support Israel's right to exist, you support Israel. And it might have slipped your attention, but they do seem very intent on the eradication of the palestinians.

They seem very intent on not being mobbed to death by angry Arabs. They must invade Palestine because Palestine is intent on invading them.

Wow, way to misinterpret. I know that you niavely elieve in God, so I'll throw you a sales pitch. As poor, wee, mortal humans we can not possibly understand objective truths. We are not objective creatures we are relative creatures, therefore everything we think is percieved and different from what other people think. So your "truth" is not the same as mine.

Way to get completely off topic. I said that it is true that these are my beliefs. Can you disprove that what I intended to post was NOT what I believe?

How can you cut back the amount of tax dollars for them, yet still provide them?

It's not the government's job to "provide" for them. This needs to be shifted to private, non-profit organizations. Why should government become the "nanny" of society? You hand feed people long enough and they forget how to feed themselves.

Here's a thought, if we eliminate the income tax, that was never written into the constitution BTW, then people will have more money without the need for bureaucracy. Simple.

At 7/7/02 06:57 AM, Slizor wrote:
It doesn't matter what Journalists think, they aren't the editors, they don't control what gets put in the paper. Also I don't accept that there is a "vast leftist sentiment", this attempts to make it seem like all the journalists who come out of "college" are leftist.

You also falsely assume that those with money are necessarily on the political right. I don't think the Kennedy family is exactly "poor"...

The 200 election really brought out the worst of it. Some bias in the media documented here.

Also, have you heard of the incidents involving David Horowitz and other conservative speakers? They were repeatedly shouted down and attacked on college campuses across the nation. Liberal havens like Brown, Berkeley, etc. Horowitz ran a simple pamphlet entitled "Ten Reasons Why Reperations for Slavery are a Bad Idea." This political ad ran in several college newspapers across the nation and the outcry against him was tremendous. Students burned his papers and broke into campous offices to steal the papers before they could be distributed. They literally called it, "hate speech." IT gets scary when they start using Orwellian phrases. Just like something out of 1984. Read his "Hate Speech" here.

And look how they segment and divide people with their false "multi-culturalism"

A professor even offered a course about the "Politics of the Palestinian Resistance" with the warning that "conservatives should seek other choices."

What if the Majority wants these laws scrapped?

Then they will and it will become an oppressive society, if the want is bad enough. It is the government's duty to uphold the laws including equal basic rights.

The matter of the Pledge of Allegiance goes back to seperation of church and state, something that many falsely believe the Constitution guarantees. In fact, the Constitution guarantees nothing of the kind. It says that the state shall not establish a religion.

In the case of the Pledge of Allegiance, has the government established it's own church? No.

Has it forced people to adhere to a certain religion or system of belief? No. If you don't believe in God, then the phrase 'under God' should mean nothing to you. If you're truly an unrepentant atheist, then just chuckle to yourself about this religion delusion as everyone recites it, or just not say it.

As Rush Limbaugh astutely pointed out the other day, 'What God?' They don't even specify a certain religion and God can have many personal connotations and meanings. We don't know what the Founding Father's meant. We can make an educated guess, but there is no implication that it is the Judeo-Christian God. They could have meant Allah, or Rama or Vishnu or Shiva or any mythological God.

Firstly, can you show me where you got that statistic secondly, did you not read "same moral stance"?

Approximately 1.943 billion Christians worldwide. There are other 1 billion Roman Catholics alone.
Second is Islam with 1.164 billion worldwide.
(Source: The World Almanac 2000)

And yes, I did read "same moral stance."

1 dominant religion
1 God
1 sacred book
1 set of commandments

At 7/6/02 12:32 PM, Slizor wrote:
That isn't calling you a name, that is changing your name for comedy value. Calling you a "mother-fucking crackwhore-loving conservative wanker" that is with intent to insult and possily deflect you from the arguement. But changing your name, that is not covering anything up. Poor, poor example, especially with me, since I tend not to call people names.

Changing, distorting, reshaping meanings, all of the above. Don't argue over semantics to avoid the real idea.

Well you seem to support the elimination of all arabs. It could never be the Israelis!

Another fabrication. I've never said I supported the eradication of all Arabs, I simply support Israel's right to exist and not to be annihilated by their Arab neighbors.

What you think is true.

Wait a minute. I haven't even posted it yet and you already assume it to be false! Such bias.

So people see the truth? Like the "Lies of Socialism"?

That was my opinion, this is a statement of conservative beliefs. Agree if you want to, don't if you don't.

Okay, re-phrase, what do you consider is Governmental excess? Medi-Care?

Trim medicare and medicaid, social security, etc. This money and regulation should be shifted from the federal government to city and county organizations to help people locally. Gradually, these organizations should be transferred to non-governmental, non-profit control and use less and less tax dollars.

More than this, the country needs dramatic reshaping and a few Constitutional amendments. The government should be required to have a spending cap based on the GDP. This cap could only be surpassed for national defense in times of crisis or war. The government's duties will be timmed back to cover it's originally intended core duties, the postal system, national defense, international diplomacy and relations, national highways and transportation, etc.

As for international relations, we would return to the Monroe Doctrine. We don't concern ourelves with other countries as long as they don't bother us. We pull out any military support for other countries, (yes, even including Israel).

It won't be an easy or smooth transition and I would probably be voted out after one term.

At 7/6/02 10:37 PM, AnarchyPenguinNuqqa wrote:

At 7/6/02 03:02 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:

"Insecure" Buzz-word of the moment.

That moment being from The time of Freunds practice to now ?

No, I meant a more recent time frame, as in, the last few posts.

At 7/6/02 12:43 PM, Slizor wrote:

It's not as right as Marx, but it's certainly to the left.

That's the thing. I have seen/read/etc the American media, my observations tell me it is rightist. I also have a logical eplaination why.

You also ignore the vast leftist sentiment among journalism majors and on college campuses.

The minority should have equal rights, but not control. Their voice should be heard, but not be focused upon more than the majority. The minority should temper the majosity, not become a favored elite.

But what if the majority want to discriminate against minority groups?

That is why there are laws and people to enforce them.

"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
-Declaration of Independence, 1776

I would also like to dispute the fact that Christians, with the same moral stance, hold a proper majority.

There are several billion Christians in the world. No majority?

At 7/5/02 07:46 AM, Slizor wrote:

KKKomander, can you not give us rhetoric.

Ahh, look. Hypocrisy.

And when have I used rhetoric?

Just above. If you can't make a decent argument, you call names. When have I said I supported the KKK or racism in general? And what rhetoric? I made a statement that is true. What I intended to post neither accuses or attacks, it is merely a statement of core conservative beliefs that, in my opinion, are often misunderstood or distorted. What I intended to do was set the record straight.

First and formeost, trim governmental excesses.

Which means?

Exactly what it says.

Cloning an entire person would be wrong. Cloning select parts or organs for medical purposes would be great.

As for regulation, it would be nearly impossible. If you can't get it done in the US, then you'd just go to another country.

My question is why. Why would you want a clone of yourself? It's not you, it's just a genetically identical copy. It wouldn't have your memories or experiences or maybe even your personality. It would just be a newborn copy of yourself. Why would you pay massive amounts of money, (because it certainly won't be cheap), for such a thing? There is no use for full human clones that I can think of. Post a reason if you can think of it.

At 7/5/02 07:52 AM, Slizor wrote:
Is there such a thing as "wrong"?

Yes.

Is Homosexuality a "Matter of Choice"?

Dunno, not up of the science of it. It could be true that people are born gay, although I'm not properly suggesting it. It could also be that eperiences at a young age can cause someone to become gay, in which case, it's not a matter of choice.

Well, Commander seems very insecure with his sexuality, so it is very possile that he is a christian and a homosexual at the same time.

"Insecure" Buzz-word of the moment.

At 7/5/02 08:03 AM, Slizor wrote:
The Democrats are not left.

Have you even heard what they want? Nationalized healthcare, greater taxes for more social programs, more welfare and social security, less defense spending and increased government. This is leftist?

They are right/center(that is being kind). It goes by a simple theory on media, not by your generalisations. Now, follow the logic. The person/people who own/run a media company will be rich. Because they run it, they can decide what to show/ what not to show etc. Because they are rich(I know this is a generalisation, but one that holds quite true) they will be rightist. Therefore they slant the station/paper/etc to the right.

Standard leftist logic, based on abstract reasoning rather than observations. Have you actually seen or read some "mainstream" media? It's not as right as Marx, but it's certainly to the left.

Commonly held tradition. In democracy, the majority rules and in America, this means the traditional Christian concept of morality. This issue is coming up in the matter of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California stopping the Pledge of Allegiance. These atheists are the minority and they have no right to boss around the majority. If they don't like the words "under god", then they can just refuse to say them or cover their ears if it pains them so much.

So then the world should be run by the mob?

Define "mob." You're trying to add negative connotations to a majority run system.

And what gives the Majority the right to oss around the minority?

Because there are more of them. You can't please everybody, so you have to please as many as you can. This means the majority. If the government tried to satisfy and pander to every little special interest group, it would tear itself apart by trying to focus in many opposing directions.

The minority should have equal rights, but not control. Their voice should be heard, but not be focused upon more than the majority. The minority should temper the majosity, not become a favored elite.

Have tougher guns laws disarmed these criminals? No. If a criminal wants to find a gun, they will.

There's your problem, you say it as it will be as easy. It will get harder as more and more guns are seized.

And if there are no guns, then they will use knives and sticks and clubs. The only type of gun control I would support is a new technology capable of rendering guns obsolete, an "anti-gun" of sorts. If you've ever read Arthur C. Clarke & Michael P. Kube-McDowell's book, The Trigger, then you'll know what I'm talking about. Until we have a "Trigger" or an equivalent, then the only thing that can stand up to a gun is another gun. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

At 7/4/02 07:03 PM, P-Chan wrote:
Is it "right"?

In my opinion, no. Call me bigoted or ignorant but I believe it is wrong.

Is Homosexuality a "Matter of Choice"?

You can be what you want, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. However, although I will disagree, it is the person's choice. Just as Thomas Jefferson said about religion:

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

If it is or isn't, then how should society treat it?

Well, as a Christian society, we should look dwon upon the practice but we shouldn't discriminate either. love the sinner, hate the sin.

Can you be a Christian and a homosexual at the same time?

I would say no, since it is strongly condemned in all Christian churches/sects/faith/etc, but apparently there are some, notably in Roman Catholicism which is suprising.

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Romans 1:26-27

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13a

At 7/4/02 09:21 AM, Slizor wrote:
HAHAHAHAHAHA. No.

Explain to me how they are more right-slanted. When have they ever cast a good image of conservatives? They may not be as left as you, but they're as leftist the Democrats.

I got rid of the useless crap. I ask you this, who defines "morals"?

Commonly held tradition. In democracy, the majority rules and in America, this means the traditional Christian concept of morality. This issue is coming up in the matter of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California stopping the Pledge of Allegiance. These atheists are the minority and they have no right to boss around the majority. If they don't like the words "under god", then they can just refuse to say them or cover their ears if it pains them so much.

Weak. Knives have the ability to cut, you understand? They can cut things, this is useful. Guns have the ability to shoot. They can shoot things, other than shooting animals, which we don't really need to do(they call them tranquiliser guns, with the ability to tranquilise). Therefore, they serve no other purpose but to shoot other human beings.

I don't contest that they're mostly for shooting other people, but this is something that we can't change. What are we to do? Ban guns? The only people that would be disarmed are those who wish to defend themselves. Most the crimes today are committed with illegally held weapons. Have tougher guns laws disarmed these criminals? No. If a criminal wants to find a gun, they will. Maybe while they have a gun to your head robbing you, then you should remind them that there are tougher gun laws and that they shouldn't have a gun just like you don't. See how much they care.

It's not a nice thing, but if 911 doesn't work, try .357

At 7/4/02 09:26 AM, Slizor wrote:

Unlike many think, conservatism is not some backward political philosophy of the rich looking to maintain the status-wuo, nor is it one of ignorance, hatred or discrimination. What I intended to post outlined some of the reasons why conservatives believe as they do, a list of questions and answers, not an attack on liberalism.

KKKomander, can you not give us rhetoric.

Ahh, look. Hypocrisy.

So, if you became president of the United States of America(GOD BLESS THAT LOVELY COUNTRY, ahem) what would you do?

First and formeost, trim governmental excesses.

At 7/3/02 03:47 PM, Slizor wrote:

It needs to be kept in check in order to achieve virtue.

What is meant by virtue?

A second (and most popular) argument is that you're only free to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't bring harm to yourself or anyone else. And yes, yourself inclusive.. there's this idea of a state - a society, and we're part of it. As part of a social group, not only must you abide by its basic laws, but you yourself are basically property of that society. So bringing harm to yourself would mean bringing harm to the social group as a whole. Therefore, you're not allowed to cause harm to yourself - and this is why suicide is illegal.

But this doesn't nessicerily(sp) mean freedom. It could easily be viewed that right-wing papers(ie The entire American press:D) are harmful, and therefore would be banned.

Most of the American press is very leftist. And why are right wing views harmful. This is your opinion, exactly what you criticised me about.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom. A balance must be found between ultra-individualism (dangerous) and totalitarianism (dangerous). I would have answered this question in my Misconceptions about Conservatism topic if it had posted. I'll try that part here:

Question: Isn't conservatism essentially nostalgia for a past that never was and can't be restored?

Conservatism involves recognition that moral community is required for the coherence of individual and social life, and that a reasonably coherent way of life is a practical necessity. Current trends toward radical egalitarianism, individualism and hedonism destroy the possibility of moral community. Conservatives are therefore confident that in some fashion existing trends will be reversed and in important respects the moral and social future will resemble the past more than the present. In particular, the future will see less emphasis on individual autonomy and more on moral tradition and essentialist ties.

The timing and form of the necessary reversal is of course uncertain. It plainly can't be achieved through administrative techniques, the method most readily accepted as serious and realistic today, so conservatives' main political proposal is that aspects of the modern state that oppose the reversal be trimmed or abandoned. Those who consider modern trends beneficial and irreversible therefore accuse conservatives of simple obstructionism. In contrast, those who believe that current trends lead to catastrophe and that a reversal must take place expect that if conservatives aren't successful now their goals will be achieved in the future, but very likely with more conflict and destruction along the way.

Question: What's all this stuff about community and tradition? The groups that matter these days are groups like yuppies, gays, and senior citizens that people join as individuals based on interests and perspectives rather than tradition.

Can this be true in the long run? When times are good people imagine that they can define themselves as they choose, but a society will not long exist if the only thing its members have in common is a commitment to self-definition. The necessity for something beyond that becomes clearest when the times require sacrifice. Membership in a group with an identity developed and inculcated through tradition becomes far more relevant then than career path, life-style option, or stage of life.

Conservatism is neither about the tyranny of big government nor the anarchy of ultra-individualism. It is about the strength of community and moral tradition.

So if drugs are declared harmful, they are illegal. Not that I agree with that argument, but you can see now where it comes from.

Then, surely, in this society, guns would be banned?

Guns aren't harmful, they're merely tools. By your reasoning scissors, knives, sharp sticks and other such instruments should be banned as well. It's the people that use them that are dangerous. A gun can just as well be used for good.

At 7/3/02 06:44 AM, P-Chan wrote:
Man oh man.

"Misconceptions about Conservatism"
"A recommendation for Left Wingers"
"The Lies of Socialism"


This is sounding a little too much like an "us versus them" forum.

Remember folks to look BEYOND the black and white! There's more to an issue than just left vs. right. If you narrow yourself to just choosing between the two sides, you risk losing site of the real issues at hand...

What I intended to post here had nothing to do with "Us vs Them." It is exactly what it says it is, a clarification of some common mosperceptions about conservatism that I think deserve to be heard. Unlike many think, conservatism is not some backward political philosophy of the rich looking to maintain the status-wuo, nor is it one of ignorance, hatred or discrimination. What I intended to post outlined some of the reasons why conservatives believe as they do, a list of questions and answers, not an attack on liberalism.

At 7/2/02 08:30 PM, GameboyCC wrote:

At 6/29/02 04:23 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:

I guess that means there are no misconceptions about conservatism... okay, I'm scared.

It was the BBS' fault. Really! Please, you've gotta believe me!

At 6/28/02 03:22 PM, implodinggoat wrote:
They started off with very little and most of them are fairly young nations. The benefits of modern technology and Medicine haven't fully permiated in Africa yet. Blaming their state on Capitalism is Bull Shit.

Mainly because they were exploited by imperialist Europeans who used them as nothing more than resource bases for their empires rather than developing their industry and economy. When the Europeans powers left, they weren't left with musch to work with. As a bonus the Europeans, namely the British, drew up nice artificial boundaries with no regard to the inhabitants, that are still used today. This creates situations where opposing tribes and religions are lumped together and told to be a unified nation. It's just not going to happen! In Africa, most people's loyalties are to their family first, their tribe second, their religion third and then maybe whatever nation the Europeans stuck them in. This inevitably creates civil war as we have seen in Sudan, Somalia, Rwanda, etc.

On a side note, one of two free, uncolonized Afrcan nations, Liberia, was set up by the US as a refuge for freed slaves and blacks.

Niave View my Ass! If your a poor villager in China your gonna stay a poor villager and so are your children and their children and their children and so on. You at least have a chance in a capitalist nation.

That's right. In capitalism there is personal incentive and therefore progress. You try harder when you have a personal stake in things and you can keep what you earn.

you can create wealth through discovery of new rescources and technological advances.

Exactly.

At 6/28/02 11:38 AM, nocoins3 wrote:

I could go on for hours but I think i've made my main points.

I throw this controversial subject open to debate.

oh boy, this topic again.

well, first of all. There never was a "war on drugs" it has ALWAYS been a war on drug users.

Everyone likes to throw in their personal experiences and say, "I used this and that and nothing bad ever happened to me." Congrats, nothing bad has happened to you YET.

The "war on drugs" in the US is a joke, money should be spent on Treatment and Treatment facilities instead of jails. I dont agree at with the legalization of drugs, no good can come from that. Treatment is the answer, not prison.

I agree about the treatment centers. What does sending addicts to jail do? The only people that should be imprisoned are the dealers, or those that commited other crimes in addition to drug possession. For people busted on drug possession, there should be some smaller, medium security facilities where although they are in prison, they aren't mixed in with the general criminal population. They receive treatment and counseling on drugs and hopefully break the habit. Prisoners could in fact be given a choice, in case they don't want to be helped. They can either serve their full sentence at a normal prison or they can serve a reduced sentence at a treatment prison.

As for whether "recreational" drugs should be banned, I believe they should be. Personal health issues aside, they promote decay of society.

"It is certainly possible that the future of human thought is this: that it will be swamped under a flood of human silliness.... It is possible for clever cynical men to control (the many) by supplying them with drugs, by keeping them from reading good books or thinking original thoughts, changing them ultimately into idiots by giving them a good time."
-Gilbert Highet, Man's Unconquerable Mind, Columbia University, 1964

At 6/28/02 02:16 PM, FlattusMaximus wrote: http://vho.org/Links.html
Look through that. Read everything. There is no way you can still have a credible argument supporting the Holocaust if you read through some stuff there.
Oh, I noticed you stooped to calling me a Neo-Nazi. Typical Jewish tactic. Espically when they have no argument.

I no more called you a Neo-Nazi for being influenced by the revisionist, often Neo-Nazi run sources, than you called my a Jew for being influenced by the "Jewsmedia," as you put it. I don't think you are truly some sort of Neo-Nazi, but I think that you may have been misguided by some of the stuff they put out.

At 6/28/02 01:47 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:

This topic didn't post my text for some reason. Please don't reply to it.

At 6/28/02 04:02 AM, Commander-K25 wrote: If this post works then I'll try to submit the rest of the topic post.

Aaah! Not working again! I'll try anew with a fresh topic. Don't reply to this one.

If this post works then I'll try to submit the rest of the topic post.

At 6/27/02 08:34 PM, FlattusMaximus wrote: Gas chambers DID exist, But they were used for Zyklon B.

If they existed, then for what purpose if not execution?

Zyklon B is mostly harmless, and does not require an air-tight chamber. The few crematora that did exist were used to dispose of those who died of disease, starvation etc.

As far as the surviors, Most Non-Jewish inmates say they never saw anyone being murdered at Auchwitz.

They never "saw" anyone being murdered, they just saw lines of women and children and those too old or weak to work get filed into buildings and never come out again. Later they saw smoke. So I guess that most technically never "saw" anyone being murdered, they just saw their friends and family disappear never to be seen again except as a cloud of smoke.

Also, Many of those "gas chambers" were SHOWERS. Also, Auchwitz had a swimming pool, inmate singing classes, a movie theatre, a chapel, maternity wards, medical facilities, and even a merit system. When a prisioner worked long enough with no mis conduct, he was released from Auchwitz.

Right, that's why the Allies released all those emaciated, diseased and dying prisoners at the end of the war. They all were treated so well that it was more like an episode of Hogan's Heroes.

Now about Hoess' "confession" Hoess had his testicles crushed by British MPs, He had his chest burned with ciggarettes, was put on stretching racks, had thumb screws used on him, and probably many other forms of torutre that his Jewish captors thought up.

Evidence?

Hoess had many in-accuracies in his confession.

Such as what?

He said that his men went into the chambers with no gas masks while smoking ciggarettes. Zyklon B is very flammable.

Once again, why did they need gas chambers if they weren't mass murdering people? For executing criminals, a hanging would have, and often did, suffice.

Do you believe everything that the Jewsmedia tells you?

No, I just don't believe everything that the Neo-Nazi media tells me.

Even without Hoess, what about Eichmann and his subordinants, Himmler and his staff, Heydrich, etc.

Before his capture bu the Israelis, Eichmann told his entire story to a reporter who found his in Argentina. He admitted to planning a methodical extermination of the Jews and administrating it's execution.

At 6/27/02 12:41 AM, Paul138 wrote:

At 6/25/02 10:06 AM, Reaper-n wrote:

I personally wonder what evolution has for us next, will we evolve to higher beings or will we just become better at being stuck in our circle of existence?

If we continue to advance technologically but don't evolve into a better intellict, that circle of existence may cease to be. So that's, like, 20 returns of Christ and 150 World Wars off, huh?

We'll probably just find another way to kill ourselves along the way besides doomsday devices.

The cyclic nature of history is what fascinates me. Technology mardhes forward but the nature of human society changes and re-occurs in cycles. Babylon rose and then fell. Egypt rose and then fell. Greece rose and then fell. So did Rome, the Catholic Church/Holy Roman Empire, the colonial powers of Europe, Persia, the Chinese Empire, and Imperial Japan. America too will follow this course, it is inevitable. It's just a matter of time.

When one views history as one long continuous whole, this becomes more and more apparent. Even though the technology changes, the recurrence of common themes and patterns in human society are constant. An empire forged with spears and swords or with tanks and planes or with spaceships and lasers, is an empire nonetheless. Whether it be democratic or oppressive, it will rise, enter a "Golden Age" and then eventually fall. This convinces me more than ever of the existence of human nature. I agree with the German psychiatrist, Carl Jung that although we accumulate individual memories that make us individually unique, the fact that we are human means that we were born with certain collective sub-conscious memories and urges in our brain, a sort of "template" of humanity upon which the individual is built. This template is timeless, containing not specific memories or information but the most basic essences of humanity and it's motivations. Certain motivations can be sharpened or dulled by personal experience, like greed for instance, but they are still there influencing our actions and choices. Taken on a global scale, this sub-conscious template drives human society. It is be cylic because there is balance between the opposing forces of our psyche, good and evil. Neither one is more powerful and neither can win. More good might seem to be in the world at a time of peace, but evil is not defeated, this is merely part of the cycle and evil will return to dominate one more, only to be displaced again by good.

One might argue that by changing certain key events in history, via a "time machine" if you wish, one could change this cyclic history. This may change thing in the short term after an event, but the change will be smoothed out in history. For example, if I had gone back and killed Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito before they ever had any influence on the world, this might change the course of the next few centuries, but another madman will eventually be born and come to power and this will be the result of changing that key event. History will smooth itself back out. You could change some of the details of history, but the cycles cannot be broken.

In physics terms this is like any object. If you view it at an atomic level, it is quite disjointed and incongrous, looking like it is very different from one place to the next, but if you zoom outward to a normal perspective, the disjointed, vibrating atoms become a single tangible object. If you changed the position of one or two molecules or atoms, it would change the localized view, but not the bigger picture.

You're are seriously deluded if you believe that the Holocaust was a myth.

First of all, what about all the survivors? Are you misguided enough to believe in some "worldwide Zionist conspiracy" to fabricate the deaths of 6 million? I recently listened to a Holocaust survivor tell his story and it was horrifying beyond belief. Nobody would make up a story like that, it woulnd't be believable enough. They would tone it down to a level of credibility. The sheer scale of what went on assures that it is not a lie. This man was taken to the camps as a young teenager and watched his father starve to death within sight of a warehouse of food, except it was food for the Germans. His work at the camp was to go around pulling out teeth and cutting off fingers for gold fillings and rings of the gassing victims that lay in the hundreds and thousands when the gas chamber was finished. The horrors that he and millions of others experienced is unimaginable.

Second, why did the Nazis even confess to it? Most Nazi leaders after the war denied, but their subordinates sold them out. As Adolf Eichmann, the planner of much of the Holocaust said, "I shall jump into my grave laughing, for the fact that I have the murder of millions on my hands is of the greatest satisfaction to me."

Third, where did these 6 million people go? If they weren't killed, then where are they? They all had families, friends and associates that survived and have proof of their existence. Where are they?

Fourth, Jews were not allowed to leave, they were purposely and deliberately forced into ghettos to await shipment to the camps.

Fifth, gassing and cremation are effective weapons of mass killing. They used gasses like Zyklon B beacuse it was so effective. It was used originally as a rat poison. As for disposing of the bodies, sometimes they were simply put into one big mass grave, or burned in a pit or cremated via the oven-filled buildings.

Sixth, if Auschwitz and other camps were simply, "detention centers" for criminals, then why did they have gas chambers and crematories? You can't deny they existed, some are still there, you can go and see them. There are also pages and pages of plans and documents referring to these facilities and to the "Final Solution."

Browse a few of these links:

A Paper on the Effects of Zyklon B

Nazis' Statements on the Holocaust

Of course, not all were buried...

An analysis of crematorium capacity

If there were no gas chambers, then why these orders...

Blueprints of the chambers

"Some of the first Americans to enter the camp vomited as their eyes beheld what their minds could not absorb -- bodies stacked in obscene anonymity, the barely living whimpering among the corpses, bunks full of shaven-headed, emaciated creatures who had wizened into skeletal apparitions. American soldiers put on film the scenes in rooms full of naked, unburied corpses, piled ten feet high."

Bodies at the Bergen-Belsen camp:

At 6/26/02 01:06 AM, FlattusMaximus wrote: OK, but let us focus on the point of: Why does Isreal deserve a country? What did they do to deserve one?

It's not something they did, it's something people did to them. Anti-semitism was wideapread, not just in Germany but across Europe and the world. When many Jews tried to flee Europe before WWII, most countries refused to take them because they didn't want Jews. They saw the creation of Israel as a haven where they could finally be free of the centuries old persecution and genocide that had been wrought upon them by a world that didn't want them and outright hated them. All they asked for was a sliver of desert...

And, for that matter, What did Palestine do to get kicked out of their country?

That is the great myth of this whole issue. They never were kicked out of their home. The areas that the Jews originally settled was desert, nothing, nada, wasteland. They cultivated it so well though that there is actually a visible "green-line" between the Jewish settled land in Israel and the Muslim controlled land of Syria.

Jews claim they have suffered more than any other race, which is simply not true. Take my example of the Celts.

The Celts fought off and on with the English over cernturies. The Jews lost over 6 million in 6 years. On some days at Auschwitz, over 10,000 would be killed in less than 24 hours. Gassed, shot, hung, burned alive in big pits or crematories. It was brutality on a scale unmatched in history.

They Fought for their country. What Isreal (Or should I say Isreal using our stuff) did wasn't fighting at all.

Define "fighting." They fought for their land during the time of the British mandate.

So they didnt fight for their land, Now, before Isreal, that land switched hands between the Turks, Saracens, Crusaders and Byzantines. Isreal NEVER occupied it (At least, not in recorded history)

Never occupied it? That was the land that they originally owned and ruled. They is their homeland, where Judaism began. It was taken from them by the Romans and then the Muslims invaders, who were then conquered by the Crudsaders, who where then forced out again by the Muslims.

Now, Let's look at the Talmud for a while, shall we? Then we can learn the real reason for Jewish "persecution". Below I will list some verses from the Talmud (Which is, in case you dont know, the Jewish holy book)

Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

Libbre David 37: "To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly."

Libbre David 37: "If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Who ever will violate this order shall be put to death."

Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."

Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."

Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."

Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."

Hmm, And then the Jews wonder why Arabs hate them.
I could go even deeper, But you should really pick up a copy of the Talmud.

Ah, so the Arabs are justified in hating others not through their actions but through their holy books...

(Continued from above)

In 1993, Israel and the PLO signed an accord providing for joint recognition and for limited Palestinian self-rule in the Gaza Strip and Jericho. In 1995, Israel and the PLO agreed on a transition to Palestinian self-rule in most of the West Bank, although acts of terrorism continued to darken Israeli-Palestinian relations. In 1994 a treaty with Jordan ended the 46-year-old state of war between the two nations. In Nov., 1995, Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing Israeli extremist who opposed the West Bank peace accord with the PLO; Peres, who was foreign minister, became prime minister. In early 1996, Israel was hit by a series of suicide bombs, and Shi'ite Muslims launched rocket attacks into Israel from Lebanon. Retaliating, Israel blockaded the port of Beirut and launched a series of attacks on targets in S Lebanon. The 1996 elections, in which the prime minister was elected directly for the first time, resulted in a narrow victory for Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu, who opposed Labor's land-for-peace deals. In an attempt to allay fears about Israel's future policies, Netanyahu pledged to continue the peace process. After setbacks and delays, most of Hebron was handed over to Palestinian control in Jan., 1997, and, under an accord signed in 1998, Israel agreed to withdraw from additional West Bank territory, while the Palestinian Authority pledged to take stronger measures to fight terrorism. Further negotiations over territory, however, were essentially stalled. In the May, 1999, elections, Labor (renamed One Israel) returned to power under Ehud Barak, a former army chief of staff. He formed a broad-based coalition government, promising to ease tensions between secular and ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel, as well as to move the peace process forward. In September, Barak and Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, signed an agreement to finalize their borders and determine the status of Jerusalem within a year; Israel also began implementation of a plan to hand over additional West Bank territory, which was completed in Mar., 2000. Barak's coalition was weakened in May, 2000, when three right-of-center parties pulled out of the government. In the same month, Israeli forces withdrew from the buffer zone that had long been maintained in S Lebanon. In July, negotiations in the United States between Israel and the Palestinians ended without success. Israeli-Palestinian relations turned extremely acrimonious when a September visit by Ariel Sharon to the Haram esh-Sherif (the Temple Mount to Jews) in Jerusalem sparked riots that escalated into a new, ongoing cycle of violence in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Israel itself.

(All he did was make a visit and the Palestinians used it as an excuse to start a whole new wave of murder and terror.)

Barak resigned in Dec., 2000, in an attempt to reestablish a electoral mandate, but he was trounced in the Feb., 2001, election by Ariel Sharon, who formed a national unity government. Bibliography See J. Garcia-Granados, The Birth of Israel (1948); D. Ben-Gurion, Israel: Years of Challenge (1965); E. Orni and E. Efrat, Geography of Israel (3d ed. 1971); S. N. Eisenstadt, Israeli Society (1971); A. Perlmutter, Military and Politics in Israel (2d ed. 1977); H. M. Sachar, A History of Israel (1979); C. Herzog, The Arab-Israeli Wars (1982); S. McBride, ed., Israel in Lebanon (1983); A. Arian, Politics in Israel (1985); Y. Ben-Porath, ed., The Israeli Economy (1986); B. Kimmerling, ed., The Israeli State and Society (1988); B. Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 (1988); M. Mandelbaum, Israel and the Occupied Territories (1988); T. Parker, The Road to Camp David (1989); S. Segev, Crossing the Jordan: Israel's Hard Road to Peace (1998); B. Morris, Righteous Victims (1999).

From HistoryChannel.com

-------------------------------------------------------

Israel has been willing to talk peace time and time again, and has had many different leaders and policies, but there has been only one constant throughout the violence and destruction, Yassir Arafat and the PLO. Coincidence? I think not.