[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by ethan_hanus

Ouch, that didn't hurt a bit. So, assuming you follow what you just said, you must of killed a bunch of children by now. I highly doubt you believe that, despite it being in the bible.

I'm not sure how to answer "believe" here. I certainly don't follow it.... but I noticed you haven't answered it.

I'm skipping responding to you "Marx inspired Hitler" historical rewrite as others have already made my response redundant.

I know plenty about Marx, he was not a nice, people loving man.

He most certainly was.

"If we have chosen the position in life in which we can most of all work for mankind, no burdens can bow us down, because they are sacrifices for the benefit of all; then we shall experience no petty, limited, selfish joy, but our happiness will belong to millions, our deeds will live on quietly but perpetually at work, and over our ashes will be shed the hot tears of noble people." - Karl Marx

"History calls those men the greatest who have ennobled themselves by working for the common good; experience acclaims as happiest the man who has made the greatest number of people happy." - Karl marx

There's plenty more. Right or wrong, Marx's goal was certainly the betterment of society. He was an idealist.

I'm sick of people trying to directly relate things, and when you can't instantly disregard it as even possibly true, that it must be total gibberish if the two things do not directly influence each other. Since when does something have to be directly influenced for it to be influenced at all. It can be partially influenced, or the influence of it could have of influenced something else that influenced the event.

Well given that Europe and Russia were predominately Christian: you could have said that Christianity influenced Hitler and had a far better leg to stand on. I suspect that house painting influenced him as well.

It is, it displays the need for some authority to make life and death decisions based on what people believe, which in this case, if you don't believe in global warming, you should be killed. I don't feel like reading through a bunch of Marx's books but I do believe he talks about it.

The bolded section is a good part of your problem here. You have no idea what Marx stood for or who he was, and you know you've no direct eperience with his works (you don't appear to have even looked up "marxism" in a dictionary), and yet you toss around the word.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Rainer.

Yeah, you called the ad "pure Marxist" first, and the ad really has nothing to do with Marxism or the Communist Manifesto at all...

It's like saying Jesus ordered the Crusades.

or Jesus told me to invade Iraq...

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by ethan_hanus

Yes, and while none of these countries succeeded in making what Marx described, who said that these people wanted to make the perfect communist countries, mainly because you can't, because the human flaw always gets in the way, greed. But the Communist Manifesto does lay out good instruction to make a authoritarian government, which Russia, Nazi Germany, Communist China, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, ect choose to take pieces of this book and use it it to their own advantage.

I'm sick of people trying to directly relate things, and when you can't instantly disregard it as even possibly true, that it must be total gibberish if the two things do not directly influence each other. Since when does something have to be directly influenced for it to be influenced at all. It can be partially influenced, or the influence of it could have of influenced something else that influenced the event.

Yes, wild claims, but if you think about it, connect the dots, and use some common sense, everything leads back to an original source, which in this case, Communism and socialism lead back to Karl Marx weather you want to admit it or not, you can say that modern Communism is not the same as what Karl Marx talks about, just because modern communism is not exactly how Karl says it should be, but nevertheless, it was influenced by him.

How this relates to this thread is beyond me. Back on topic guy.

Naziism and Fascism rose in direct opposition to communism. Just saying. Marx and Engels are very far removed from Stalin, Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, etc. I noticed you left out fascist Italy, which is perhaps the single greatest example of fascism from the 20th century. The dots do not always go back to Marx. Such would be a ridiculous claim and a horrible rewrite of history. You can see why communism took hold in Russia if you read Tolstoy's War and Peace. Empires do not fall overnight, nor is a simple manifesto usually to blame.

Usually it starts with corruption within. Russia fell to the Bolsheiviks for various reasons. A weak (or compassionate) czar, interbreeding within European royalty leading to disease, oppression of the lower class, etc. Industrial revolution & ideological disillusionment with the church both seem to have a place at the table as well.

I am less familiar with the fall of china, but I would be willing to bet money that the reasons had to do with internal corruption. Empires rot from within.

One could make a better case for Wagner and Aryan mythology being the basis of Hitler's eugenic policies more than Marx. Unless you are counting fear and opposition to marxist ideology, Marx.

Jerry: How does a Commie-Maoist-Nazi not have his head explode from sheer contradiction?

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by thesteve

There should be a parallel to Godwin's law and involves general fascism and/or Communism.

thesteve's law? I like it.

[thesteve]

So I watched this today...and I laughed.

[Michael_rev]

Global Warming is a joke. Did you know that mars polar ice caps are melting as well and apparently according to NASA data one of the many moons orbiting Jupiter, its ice is starting to melt as well. Global Warming is a hoax, its just the sun. Its starting to heat up and its affecting all planets in our solar system. This new 10-10 video is just propoganda to try and pressure us into beleiving global warming, becuase they realize more and more ppl arent falling for it.

Justr remember Georgia Guidestone Rule #1

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by thesteve

So I watched this today...and I laughed.

I was thinking about this today while cutting out the guitar and what I found so patently offensive was the idea of thought being bad as opposed to simple conformity.

The ideal it gives is conformity=good, individuals, bad. That, very strongly reminds me of how a lot of things are going amongst some of the kids I worked with. It didn't matter the topic, there was a herd mentality and anyone who disagreed was wrong.

The idea of a herd, to me very closely mirrors the ideals of those who use the rhetoric of a global village. Herd mentalities are easy to manipulate and in history have lead to some serious dangers. I would list a few, but I know I would pretty much offend all sides of the aisle as I'd throw in some left, some right, some popular, populist, pseudo-theologians, and more.
I believe most popular level global warming is to rhetoric, what Ken Ham is to biblical scholarship on Genesis. It's pop-level, simplistic and misses a lot of key facts that are game changers.

[Rainer.]

Originally Posted by Michael_rev

Global Warming is a joke. Did you know that mars polar ice caps are melting as well and apparently according to NASA data one of the many moons orbiting Jupiter, its ice is starting to melt as well. Global Warming is a hoax, its just the sun. Its starting to heat up and its affecting all planets in our solar system. This new 10-10 video is just propoganda to try and pressure us into beleiving global warming, becuase they realize more and more ppl arent falling for it.

Justr remember Georgia Guidestone Rule #1

YouTube - Al Gore Global Warming in 10 min

you see michael_rev, as much "evidence" you can come up with that global warming is natural, other scientists can come up with its manmade. If you even took time to watch the video i just posted it would show you that countless professionals, most of whom i assume have college degrees , they agree tha tglobal warming is man made. So i dont care about the post you provided. If more than one scientist says its man made and a million say its natural, im going to beleive its man made. Im not taking any risks.

[Michael_rev]

Originally Posted by Rainer.

YouTube - Al Gore Global Warming in 10 min

you see michael_rev, as much "evidence" you can come up with that global warming is natural, other scientists can come up with its manmade. If you even took time to watch the video i just posted it would show you that countless professionals, most of whom i assume have college degrees , they agree tha tglobal warming is man made. So i dont care about the post you provided. If more than one scientist says its man made and a million say its natural, im going to beleive its man made. Im not taking any risks.

[Rainer.]

Originally Posted by Michael_rev

I'm assuming you're going to help reduce your carbon footprint in case global warming is man made now.

I mean, seriously, if you can't conclusively prove that it's natural, why are you willing to risk it, and not advocate for reducing carbon emissions?

[Michael_rev]

Originally Posted by Rainer.

I'm assuming you're going to help reduce your carbon footprint in case global warming is man made now.

actually i do it not to save the planet but to save money (im so selfish i know)

I ride my bike to work, im vegetarian, i use all organic foods, high efficient bulbs (saves electricity), recycle as much as i can, and i drive a hybrid (saves on gas).

But i dont do that becuase i want to save the planet, its just healthier and smarter.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

I was thinking about this today while cutting out the guitar and what I found so patently offensive was the idea of thought being bad as opposed to simple conformity.

The ideal it gives is conformity=good, individuals, bad. That, very strongly reminds me of how a lot of things are going amongst some of the kids I worked with. It didn't matter the topic, there was a herd mentality and anyone who disagreed was wrong.

The idea of a herd, to me very closely mirrors the ideals of those who use the rhetoric of a global village. Herd mentalities are easy to manipulate and in history have lead to some serious dangers. I would list a few, but I know I would pretty much offend all sides of the aisle as I'd throw in some left, some right, some popular, populist, pseudo-theologians, and more.
I believe most popular level global warming is to rhetoric, what Ken Ham is to biblical scholarship on Genesis. It's pop-level, simplistic and misses a lot of key facts that are game changers.

I can get on board with that. I don't think that carbon footprint reduction is something that we should do to be part of the crowd or because it's hip, but because I think it's part of being a good steward and in at least a few of my cases it's fiscally responsible.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by thesteve

I can get on board with that. I don't think that carbon footprint reduction is something that we should do to be part of the crowd or because it's hip, but because I think it's part of being a good steward and in at least a few of my cases it's fiscally responsible.

At the moment, its something I am not interested in. I work at home and my wife walks to work. I eat mostly local grown foods if I can, mostly as a matter of preference. If you give me a plot of land, or I have it at my disposal I turn it green and put food bearing, greenhouse gas reducing plants on it.

I have actually by gun, artificially kept declining populations of animals alive at one point and would love to be active in conservationism again. That said, so much of global warming as presented today serves as a surrogate morality for a world that has rejected morals' existence.

In reality, I am very unconvinced global warming is in itself not a natural process without the help of man, and the current spike looks similar to several points in history past. I would like to see much more, cooler headed research based on more than the last 50 years personally, because when looking at a model, too small a sample of time can yield a false result, and I feel that is what most of the pop-level people support.

I feel that I would like to read more serious scholarship that accounts for the actual hotter periods in history. (Now is not the warmest point in the last few thousand years IIRC) Obviously, fossil fuel consumption was lower in the Roman empire than today.

I'd just like to see more honest research that takes the data we have with less politics.