Conservatives in 1933

[PruneTracy]

If you guys care to recognize historical precedent, you'd notice that the conservatives have always been about beating down democracy.

How about Germany, when the Weimer government was in place, their first attempt at a new liberal reform, Hitler came in preaching conservatism, nationalism, and preserving their great state, sound familiar? Hitler even declared himself a right-winger, (Don't believe me ask and college history professor, and no, you're high school teacher who coaches football just won't do)

Look at the modern day situation, dispite our constitution saying "Separation of church and state" the conservatives preach their religious morals and try to push their "values" onto the rest of us, banning free speech, medical procedures, and forcing religion into our every day life, in direct opposition to our constitution, our freedoms, and the very idea of America itself.

If a Hitler-like character came to power in America today, it would be the Republicans doing his every bidding without question as they are with Bush now, and the Democrats would be the freedom fighters, and they are fighting right now, the Republicans are just too blind to see it.

Peace

[Proteas]

Oh, please remind me; just where exactly is the concept of of "Seperation of Church and State" as it stands today located in our Constitution?

[RedSkunk]

At 7/1/04 03:08 PM, PruneTracy wrote: and the Democrats would be the freedom fighters,

No they wouldn't. They'd follow the Republicans, like they do today. Prune, you just keep saying the same shit over and over again - it's boring.

[PruneTracy]

I don't see very many Democrats following Bush... oh yeah, and the constitution thing...

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

The election of Jefferson-America’s first Anti-Federalist President-elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.

[RedSkunk]

At 7/1/04 03:38 PM, PruneTracy wrote: I don't see very many Democrats following Bush...

Huh. You should look harder.

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

I'm getting really tired of sterotypes. Can we please move away from discrimination and labels? Hmmm.....wasn't that a whole big sticking issue with racism in the 60's?

*gasp*

Well Sherlock, here's something else too. The Soviet Union was leftist, anti capatalist. Stalin killed more people than Hitler ever would.

Conservatives are not white supremists, and liberals are not "freedom fighters"

Please, get your over idealistic head out of your ass.

[Proteas]

At 7/1/04 03:38 PM, PruneTracy wrote: I don't see very many Democrats following Bush...

I wonder why that is?

History of "church and state"

Wow, I'm impressed. Your actually showing an once of intelligence for a change.

But sadly, you still didn't answer my question;

At 7/1/04 03:20 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 7/1/04 03:08 PM, prunetruancy wrote: Look at the modern day situation, dispite our constitution saying "Separation of church and state"

Oh, please remind me; just where exactly is the concept of of "Seperation of Church and State" as it stands today located in our Constitution?

[PruneTracy]

Sorry, this sites a bit leftist, but it has the right quote.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/

That's the quote directly.

[Ozzmosis6]

At 7/1/04 03:20 PM, Proteas wrote: Oh, please remind me; just where exactly is the concept of of "Seperation of Church and State" as it stands today located in our Constitution?

that's a law forbidding the church to have any sort of power over the goverment, but that still doesn't mean that people can't voice their opinions on things because they feel something isn't right though.

[Proteas]

At 7/1/04 04:52 PM, Lknight wrote: that's a law forbidding the church to have any sort of power over the goverment, but that still doesn't mean that people can't voice their opinions on things because they feel something isn't right though.

O.k. I will make this absolutely clear, because you and PruneTruancy just don't seem to understand what I am asking.

Where in The United States Constitution, a historical document which is the basis for this country, is there located anything that presents the ideal for "Seperation of Church and State?"

[niffweed17]

At 7/1/04 04:52 PM, Lknight wrote:

At 7/1/04 03:20 PM, Proteas wrote: Oh, please remind me; just where exactly is the concept of of "Seperation of Church and State" as it stands today located in our Constitution?

that's a law forbidding the church to have any sort of power over the goverment, but that still doesn't mean that people can't voice their opinions on things because they feel something isn't right though.

when did anyone ever say this? absolutely you have freedom of opinions. the point is that the government is not allowed to force religion on anybody and the government should not be influenced by religion.

[gem1]

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

[AbstractVagabond]

At 7/1/04 03:20 PM, Proteas wrote: Oh, please remind me; just where exactly is the concept of of "Seperation of Church and State" as it stands today located in our Constitution?

Where does it say in the bible about there being exceptions to the rule of "thou shalt not kill"?

[Jlop985]

Just because something is not mentioned in the Constitution does not mean it is a valid concept. There are only 3 civil rights in the original document, all dealing with the rights of the accused.

[zachomis]

At 7/1/04 03:59 PM, EvilGovernmentAgents wrote: I'm getting really tired of sterotypes. Can we please move away from discrimination and labels?

I never say that conservatives are nazis and racists, its just that alot of the racists and nazis i know just so happen to be a conservative.

Well Sherlock, here's something else too. The Soviet Union was leftist, anti capatalist. Stalin killed more people than Hitler ever would.

You and many others make the mistake that there is a difference between extreme capitalism (corporations able to exploit workers, resources, and earth) and communism (complete government control). The reason i am against capitalism is because it is exploited by the rich and the powerful. I am also against communism for the same reasons. Socialism is the only way, it makes the most sense and country after country is prosperous with socialism.

But this administration is unlike any other. These "conservatives" are not even conservative. They are globalists. They want plutocracy. They want the world ruled by corporations. They want the wealthy to rule. In other words.... They are not true conservatives.

Conservatives are not white supremists, and liberals are not "freedom fighters"

You, and so are some liberals here, just

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 7/1/04 10:34 PM, zachomis wrote: But this administration is unlike any other. These "conservatives" are not even conservative. They are globalists. They want plutocracy. They want the world ruled by corporations. They want the wealthy to rule. In other words.... They are not true conservatives.

Conservatives are not white supremists, and liberals are not "freedom fighters"

Bingo. If you are looking for liberalism, you should not be looking in the Democratic Party.
If you are looking for conservatism, you should not be looking in the Republican Party.
Both of those parties have abandoned their core beliefs in order to pander to the increasing laziness, ignorance, and belligerence of Americans.

[PruneTracy]

Ok so you missed it but the link I gave showed the exact quote from the constitution... here it is again...

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/ A bit hard to read but the quote is there.

and Gem, that MYTH page was a religious one, of course they'd say that.

here's some more stuff http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/index.shtml

[Camarohusky]

At 7/1/04 05:10 PM, Proteas wrote: Where in The United States Constitution, a historical document which is the basis for this country, is there located anything that presents the ideal for "Seperation of Church and State?"

OK, I will provide some answer to this question. The separation of church and state is not explicitly stated in the constitution. But it is heavily implied. The freedom to excercise any religion is used to find this. The seperation of church and state stems from this in that any involvement of the church in the state is considered as the state proting a religion, that which is not unconstitutional. But by promoting a religion the government begins the interfere with freedom to exercise religion. This happens as the government has a large influence on the people's lives and when the government starts making religious bedbuddies (no this is not dirty, it's a clean word, ask webster) the people begin to be intimidated if they are not of that religion. This intimidation is a threat and a violation of the freedom of exercise clasue of the 1st amednment to the constitution.

This may not be the clearest explanation, but if you sift through it, you can at least see where the idea comes from.

But literally, there is nothing in the constitution that explicitly states seperation of cruch and state.

Hope that this was an adequate explanation.

[NoHitHair]

At 7/1/04 03:08 PM, PruneTracy wrote: If you guys care to recognize historical precedent, you'd notice that the conservatives have always been about beating down democracy.

One time at an NPDA (National Parliamentary Debate Association) tournament, the coordinator read to us some of the first debates that took place between the NPDA's beginnings: 1901-1903.

Surprisingly, they weren't much different than today's topics (with a few exceptions). One of the topics included deporting all ex-slave blacks back to Africa.

But as far as Conservatives standing against Democracy, there is one key thing you might want to consider: Democracy has been, throughout history, trounced upon by the greatest of philosophers, from Aristotle all the way to present-day Chomsky (he even has a blog - go figure). It's not the "conservative" view to despise Democracy; it's the view of the well-thought and educated. You should consider reading the Federalist papers to get an accurate view of what was debated by classic Conservatives and Liberals. Now, if you're saying Conservatives are against Democracy as of today, with less of a Republic and more of a Monarchy, you're right. But so are the Neo-Libs, so I think it's irrelevant.

[Proteas]

At 7/1/04 05:47 PM, Ovalshine wrote:

At 7/1/04 03:20 PM, Proteas wrote: Oh, please remind me; just where exactly is the concept of of "Seperation of Church and State" as it stands today located in our Constitution?

Where does it say in the bible about there being exceptions to the rule of "thou shalt not kill"?

The exeption for self defense;
"If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed." Exodus 22:2

The exception of War;
"When you go into battle in your own land against an enemy who is oppressing you, sound a blast on the trumpets. Then you will be remembered by the Lord your God and rescued from your enemies." Numbers 10:9

The exceptions of Capital Punishment;
"And for your lifeblood I will surerly deman an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from from each man, too. I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." Genesis 9:5-6

"Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surerly be put to death.
"Do not accept a ransom for anyone who has fled a city of refuge and so allow him to go back and live on his own land before the death of the high priest.
"Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonment cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it." Numbers 35:31-33

Anymore questions, bright boy?

At 7/2/04 02:32 AM, Camarohusky wrote: But literally, there is nothing in the constitution that explicitly states seperation of cruch and state.

Thank you.

[PruneTracy]

Any actual questions sh!thead?

[NoHitHair]

At 7/2/04 07:13 PM, PruneTracy wrote: Any actual questions sh!thead?

You're allowed to say "shit" on these messageboards. I know most BBS' don't, but the only regulations here at NG are to be tolerant of gays and blacks. Those who are offended by swearing have been deemed an unimportant and irrelevant aspect to NG. Remember: "tolerance" is a word invented by those who preach it for those to use it against whoever they feel like. It's the epitome of hypocrisy drilled into all our heads.

However, this is fortunate for me since I like to cuss.

[RedSkunk]

You can't even mention 'white people' on my animal porn site. Get use to it - they're private websites hithair.

[NoHitHair]

Simply because they're private websites doesn't eliminate them from being affected by societal whims.

[RedSkunk]

What's that got to do with anything? It's a private site and they can define profanity for themselves.

[NoHitHair]

My point is simple: these websites that are privately run aren't intrinsically different from each other. Simply because different individuals are running them, doesn't mean they won't be acting identically to the website next door.

In other words, "hate speech" on any given BBS, is far more likely to provoke punishment than cursing would be.

[BlueMax]

OK--

I'd like to begin by saying that politics are a spectrum, not a two category issue. Fascists like Old adolf and Mussolini are right wing radicals. Left wing radicals are generally anarchists and Communists who have taken the rights of the people well beyond anything that will actually work.

I'm a centrist republican who is personally unhappy with Bush and wants him fired (i'm no party loyalist) because he has no subtlety and must do everything with a sledgehammer. But I digress from the topic.

Conservatives in 1933 were initally happy with the fascists; but remember that at the time, FDR (probably the most left wing president since the time of Jefferson) was in office; modding the government with all kinds of agencies and eventually getting busted for trying to "pack" the supreme court.

Point is, the average conservative in 1933 thinks that the new deal is unconstitutional and illegal. I don't think that many in the USA, republicans included, want to be nazis. The Nazis have a party in the USA, but histroy has shown that fascist options are not that popular.

I believe that you have gravely overestimated the conservatism of the Republican Consevative.

[RedSkunk]

At 7/4/04 04:48 AM, NoHitHair wrote: In other words, "hate speech" on any given BBS, is far more likely to provoke punishment than cursing would be.

Ok, fine. I'll agree with your 'point', but I'm not sure why you're complaining.

[PruneTracy]

Ok guys, i'm about done with this one, I was just looking to stir up some emotion from the right and I did, not to be a jerk, just to see what the core feelings were, and who was well-read... (Max you get that prize)

It just seems to me that at the center of most debates in America, there are Republicans threatening civil liberties, may it be the late anti-civil rights poster-boy Strom Thurmond, or Trent Lott, there are many Republicans fighting to restrict freedoms.

Yes, Democrats voted for the Patriot Act because their voting public wanted that, that's their job, but John Ashcroft and Bush pushed it and it passed.

Whether restricting abortion, gay rights, or even just the rights of everyday people in the Patriot act, the Republicans seem to be manning the guns.... why? Keep in mind I know there are both Republican and Democratic acceptions, I'm talking about the overwhelming majority here.

[Professor-Burgees]

At 7/1/04 03:20 PM, Proteas wrote: Oh, please remind me; just where exactly is the concept of of "Seperation of Church and State" as it stands today located in our Constitution?

thats why most ppl moved to the States before Independance anyways...to escape Church-run governments. Its the original American spirit
Read this!!!