The "death" of the Republican Party will "save" America.

[M.D. Rawlings]

A collectivist by nature cannot be bothered to regard the individual rights of others; he must necessarily disregard them as he jams everybody into his one-size-fits-all monstrosities. Hence, what lefty does is pretend that others are impeding the free exercise of his rights when, in fact, they're merely resisting the monetary or institutional impositions he exerts against the uninhibited exercise of their rights. We needn't fret over lefty's famously never-ending fits of outrage; his noise is that of the pickpocket who protests too much.

Horseshit.

Fact.

As for abortion, let us be exact: a women has had the right to murder here unborn child on demand in all states since 1973 as a result of the leftist Warren Court's discovering of the mysterious principle of privacy in a matter involving the life of another nearly two-hundred years after the ratification of the Constitution...

The "Leftist" Warren Court that made that decision was largely Republican appointees made by Nixon and Eisenhower. And all they were really doing was bowing to reality. Women were having abortions, doctors were performing them and the laws were not really being enforced. All they did was strike down laws everyone was ignoring to start with.

Liar. The Warren Court was the most leftist Court in American history. It's not even close. No serious person would deny that. Are you the only leftist in America who is ashamed of its legacy? LOL!

The Warren Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States between 1953 and 1969, when Earl Warren served as Chief Justice. Warren led a liberal majority that used judicial power in dramatic fashion, to the consternation of conservative opponents ( Warren Court - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).​

(FYI, while the years of the Warren Court proper were 1953 to 1969, conservative scholarship concentrates on the "Warren Judicial Era", which extended, roughly, to the mid or to the late 1970's in terms of impact, i.e., subsequent decisions premised on the ramifications of the ratio decidendi established by the Warren Court proper.)

Eisenhower famously stated that his appointments of Warren and Brennnan were among the worst mistakes of his presidency.

In any event, the facts regarding the pertinent players that alternately comprised the leftist majority that laid down the Era's ratio decidendi:

Douglas - Appointed by F.D.R.
Black - Appointed by F.D.R.
Reed - Appointed by F.D.R.
Jackson - Appointed by F.D.R.
Burton - Appointed by Truman
Clark - Appointed by Truman
Minton - Appointed by Truman
Warren - Appointed by Eisenhower
Brennan - Appointed by Eisenhower
Thurgood Marshall - Appointed by Johnson
Fortus - Appointed by Johnson
Blackmun - Appointed by Nixon

It's your contention that the Warren Court Era was not dominated by leftists and leftist decisions because three of the members of this faction were appointed by Republicans? Indeed, with perhaps the exception of Marshall and Black, Warren, Brennan and Blackmun were the most leftist justices of them all!

You're ridiculous. You're a liar or historically illiterate. Which is it?

As for the reality? More lies.

The laws were not being enforced in those states that prohibited abortion on demand? Abortions were being performed by doctors? As a matter of routine? Everyone was ignoring the law? Liar! I know the history. You're making all of this up. No. The only time abortions were rare was before Roe v. Wade. Not only that, Americans were overwhelmingly appalled by the decision. It took another twenty-some years for roughly half of the American population to come to accept, grudging, the so-called right, and the percentage of Americans supporting the leftist view has dropped in recent decades in the face of modern technology and the horror of late term abortions.

I think it was Heather has two Mommies, and what's wrong with teaching your kids not be hateful little fucks? It would be nice to teach them that at home, but until we can expunged your magic sky pixie from the body politic, we have to help where we can.

Angie, Heather, Roberta, Dorothy. Whatever. Teaching children that homosexual behavior is morally wrong means teaching kids to be "hateful little fucks". Liar. That kind of rhetoric, and terms like homophobe and bigot are your idea of love and tolerance? Expunged, eh? In any event, you admit that it is your intent to use the public education system as a means of imposing your morality in violation of natural and constitutional law, to violate the parental consent and authority of others.

As for "the magic sky pixie". Only pagans and atheists worship the things of nature or the fantasies of this world.

Aside from his debatable claim that the objection to abortion on demand is leveled against a legitimate human right (debatable considering that it involves the destruction of innocent human life for the sake of convenience), and the new claim that same-sex couples are entitled to an official approbation of their unions, in spite of the fact that they are free to "marry" or form whatever contract they please, lefty can point to no other instances in which the classical liberal seeks to impose anything on him whatsoever. .

JoeB: Aren't those two things enough[?]

Obviously, the caveats in my statement, which you blew past, demonstrate that your claims are bogus under natural and constitutional law. Your claims are the stuff of murder and degeneracy, involving approbations enforced by the state against the free exercise of fundamental rights.

JoeB: Hey, if you don't want abortion or gay marriage, no one is making you have them. . . .

What are you babbling about? Leftists are demanding taxpayer funded abortions and the like. Pay for your own trash or shut up.

But more to the point, abortion is murder. One doesn't stand by and watch such a thing, particularly late-term abortions or live-birth abortions and not fight it . . . unless one is a heartless sociopath like you. More on that later. . . .

I have no problem whatsoever with homosexuals forming whatever unions they please. Live and let live. It is you leftists, particularly the atheists among you, with your demands for the official approbation of such unions who viciously attack traditionalists, use ugly, divisive and hateful language to denigrate their values as a matter of routine.

Lefty does not persuade, he harangues and pushes and bullies his way around. He demands, and in every instance demands the the rest of the body politic pay in some form or another for his lifestyle choices.

Are you paying attention to this, Candycorn?

He talks about tolerance and freedom, but his politics and language are murderous, the stuff of marginalization and disenfranchisement . The ultimate point of the official approbation of homosexual marriage is to compel private concerns and institutions to accept homosexuality as normal and moral or else, accept it against the fundamental right of free association.

Pay attention, Candycorn.

Ultimately, the peaceful and just solution would be for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether or officially recognize homosexual marriage, howbeit, provide for universal school choice and not force private concerns and institutions to embrace homosexual couples against their will. That would be the recourse of the socio-political ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's moral system of thought from which Locke and, subsequently, the Founders derived their philosophy of government. (Which exposes the lie of the left regarding the political views of orthodox Christians in America.) But that's not what lefty is about at all. Homosexual marriage is just another wedge to use against the rights of the religionists who the statist hates, and would imprison and slaughter if he could.

This is not the stuff of Nirvana. Lefty is the decline, the instability and the collapse of the Union. Factions imposing upon factions, mob rule, the stuff of armed civil war. All along the way, I have shown you the way out, the answer to resolving are differences in peace and mutual liberty. But you reject it. You talk about expunging people and their beliefs. You place yourself above all time and authority, as if the widespread acceptance and practice of infanticide and sexual degeneracy where something new, as if these things were not disastrous for previous cultures ripped apart by atrocity and tyranny.

 

[JoeB131]

That's right, we should take a cue from the people who want them to continue generating $$ for Dem camaigns via baby killing, and just think of the as "vaginas".

I really wonder where all these women are being kidnapped off the street and having abortions forced on them...

Last time I checked, these women made a choice to get rid of the unwanted pregnancies, and that's their right.

But to a die-hard, abortion-supporting lefty, you think of women as chattel anyway, sex rings and human trafficking is just "choice" in action.

Seriously, you are using the debunked, proven to be fraudulent tapes by Bribart as evidence?

Now I know your case is weak.

 

[JoeB131]

More verbal Diarhea....

Angie, Heather, Roberta, Dorothy. Whatever. Teaching children that homosexual behavior is morally wrong means teaching kids to be "hateful little fucks". Liar. That kind of rhetoric, and terms like homophobe and bigot are your idea of love and tolerance? Expunged, eh? In any event, you admit that it is your intent to use the public education system as a means of imposing your morality in violation of natural and constitutional law, to violate the parental consent and authority of others.

Explain to me how homosexuality is morally wrong without mentioning your magic sky man in any way.

You magic sky man also said being rich and not giving to the poor was morally wrong, but you don't seem to have that high on your priority list.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

More verbal diarrhea. . .

Uh-huh. Another unwitting admission of being a closed-minded prig and of your inability to refute the damning truth of the charges.

Explain to me how homosexuality is morally wrong without mentioning your magic sky man in any way.

You magic sky man also said being rich and not giving to the poor was morally wrong, but you don't seem to have that high on your priority list.

No. I won't. The only authority that matters with regard to human conduct is that of God. Except for His special revelation (scripture), I could not know the full extent of the truths that reside beyond the fundamental rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, i.e., the operational aspects of His general revelation (creation), which tells us all that it's humanly inconceivable as to how two diametrically opposed ideas could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. Hence, we can know that either one of the ideas is true and the other false, or that they are both false. Acting as though they were both true is evil (Rom. 1:18-19).

Accordingly, the physiological and biological aspects of the matter are self-evident, seen by all, including you (Rom. 1:18-19). As for any apparent contradictions of nature, more at pathologies, and the spiritual and theological ramifications touching on human sexuality, well, the truth about these things is readily assessable for those whose hearts and minds are open to God. It's not my job to reach you, but Another's. I wouldn't presume. It's merely my responsibility to state the truth.

Thus far in your life you have chosen to resolve apparent contradictions apart from God, as if you possessed all the pertinent facts, as one standing above all authority and time. That's very foolish given that the extent of your experience is little more than a hiccup in the eternal ebb and flow. But that's your choice, I made another.

And so the issue before us is political.

Ultimately, it does not matter what I believe or why. It's only important that I not violate your life, liberty or property. And it's important for you to know that if you trample on my immediate, personal rights . . . I'm a sheep for the slaughter within reason. However, if you trample on my parental consent and authority and offend my children, as is lefty's wont, being that he is a bootlick statist and a thug, I'm a man with a loaded gun pointed at your head.

Bottom line, we both know that you have been lying about the leftist political agenda, that the Christian's objection to your monetary and institutional tyrannies does not constitute a violation of your rights, that you could not be talking about anything other than behavioral concerns which others are not morally or politically obliged to accommodate, that your allegations are false, that it is you who is guilty of trespassing, especially in the public schools. You know it in your heart of hearts: it's that contradiction niggling at your conscience; that irresolvable conflict of mutually exclusive ideas in your mind. The one I keep exposing, the one that keeps confronting you, however fleeting. The one you won't acknowledge on this board out loud, so to speak, presuming that "your foolish heart" hasn’t been irrevocably "darkened", but for God's merciful intervention (Rom 1:21).

Perhaps you are a sociopath and, therefore, a narcissist to boot.

As for your conceit, the rationalization you brandish as a justification to trample on others' fundamental rights, persons who faithfully follow Christ do not hate or fear homosexuals or wish them harm (LOL!), though it be none of the government's business in any way, shape or form, including the prerogatives of my parental authority, if I did, no more than your apparent hatred for religionists is any of the government's business.

One of my family members and a few of my friends are homosexuals; that is to say, they are inflicted with a genetic/environmental proclivity for homosexuality. While I love them, I don't tell them it's okay. Like any other pathology, it's not morally right or acceptable before God to act on it. I was born with a proclivity for addiction, but I chose to act on God's invitation of deliverance and no longer wallow in alcoholism . . . among other things.

But for the grace of God. . . .

As for the poor, how is it that conservatives in general and the orthodox Christians among them, especially, give considerably more of their personal time and wealth to charity on top of their governmentally redistributed income than leftists who supposedly care so much. . . .

*crickets chirping*

 

[JoeB131]

So all that babble and bullshit aside, what you've just admitted is that the only reason you hate gays is that religion has given you "permission" to be a homophobe.

Hey, guy, what if there really is no God?

I mean people used to believe in Dragons and Unicorns. They are even in the bible. Now we know pretty darned well there never were dragons or unicorns.

I need a little more proof for something other than "My regional sky pixie says it's wrong."

 

[Mac1958]

More verbal diarrhea. . .

Uh-huh. Another unwitting admission of being a closed-minded prig and of your inability to refute the damning truth of the charges.

Explain to me how homosexuality is morally wrong without mentioning your magic sky man in any way.

No. I won't...

Damn, I was looking forward to an answer, and all I got was even more long-winded political rhetoric.

Seemed like a reasonable question.

.

 

[Shelzin]

More verbal diarrhea. . .

Uh-huh. Another unwitting admission of being a closed-minded prig and of your inability to refute the damning truth of the charges.

Explain to me how homosexuality is morally wrong without mentioning your magic sky man in any way.

No. I won't...

Damn, I was looking forward to an answer, and all I got was even more long-winded political rhetoric.

Seemed like a reasonable question.

.

Can't rep this yet... I'll be back at it tomorrow.

 

[Mac1958]

Uh-huh. Another unwitting admission of being a closed-minded prig and of your inability to refute the damning truth of the charges.



No. I won't...

Damn, I was looking forward to an answer, and all I got was even more long-winded political rhetoric.

Seemed like a reasonable question.

.

Can't rep this yet... I'll be back at it tomorrow.

.

 

[JoeB131]

Uh-huh. Another unwitting admission of being a closed-minded prig and of your inability to refute the damning truth of the charges.



No. I won't...

Damn, I was looking forward to an answer, and all I got was even more long-winded political rhetoric.

Seemed like a reasonable question.

.

Can't rep this yet... I'll be back at it tomorrow.

I'll rep the both of you...

 

[freedombecki]

The "death" of the Republican Party That means their terrible and destructive policies will have to end.

So your message is just kill us all.

Like the Bolsheviks did?

Dead Czar family

Death to grownups, hm? That leaves who to be the adults?

 

[JoeB131]

The "death" of the Republican Party That means their terrible and destructive policies will have to end.

So your message is just kill us all.

Like the Bolsheviks did?

Dead Czar family

Death to grownups, hm? That leaves who to be the adults?

Why do you weep for the Romanovs? Yeah, I guess it's sad the kids got killed, but I'd weep more for the 10 million Russians who died for nothing in WWI....

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

So all that babble and bullshit aside, what you've just admitted is that the only reason you hate gays is that religion has given you "permission" to be a homophobe.

Hey, guy, what if there really is no God?

I mean people used to believe in Dragons and Unicorns. They are even in the bible. Now we know pretty darned well there never were dragons or unicorns.

I need a little more proof for something other than "My regional sky pixie says it's wrong."

It was your question that was unadulterated babble and bullshit.

Were you asking me why Judeo-Christianity teaches that homosexuality is immoral, so that you might properly understand the spiritual and theological ramifications of human sexuality according to that system of thought? You know, as a matter of academics.

No. Of course not.

Your question was rhetorical. A demand! An accusation! You even dictated the terms of the answer.

Right?

Look. I answered your question. The hardware and plumbing (the physiology and biology) of human sexuality is heterosexual, not homosexual. That is self-evident and indisputable.

Right?

And God said thou shall not misuse or abuse that.

As for the spiritual and theological purposes of God's design: I could explain those to you, but you don't give a damn about any of that. Your question was rhetorical. Right?

Why?

Because you say God doesn't exist in the first place.

So what's your point? This latest post of yours is just a paraphrase of the last one. Nothing new.

Further, I told you that I do not hate homosexuals, but you don't accept the truth of that statement either. Right?

In short, you're not interested in having an honest or informed discussion, a respectful exchange of ideas. You won't even allow that others are more complex than your boorish, politically correct clichés.

Right?

You demand proof, but what you're talking about is something empirical. Right?

Are you stupid or something?

By definition God is not an empirical being. LOL! Atheists are notoriously bad thinkers, bad philosophers. But as for the empirical, the evidences of His existence are all around you. Creation. And you have before you the empirical fact that the physiology and biology of human sexuality is not homosexual.

But you don't give a damn about any of these things; as you keep telling us over and over again, you don't believe that God exists in the first place. *Psst* Nitwit. We got that the first time.

Fine. That's your business. Live and let live.

Hence, given that your question is not a question at all, but a complaint, really, one that is not particularly interesting (pixies, dragons, unicorns . . . irrelevancies), all that remains is the political.

Right?

You're not very bright, are you? A bit slow on the uptake.

BTW, the Hebrew term re’em is translated unicorn . . . in the King James Version by a 15th-Century scholar. A better translation is ox or wild ox. There's absolutely nothing in the context of the original Hebrew that would suggest, let alone require, that the Hebrews actually believed in unicorns, especially since unicorns are the stuff of pagan mythology. LOL! We know this today for certain from archeological discoveries, coupled with the fact that in most instances the original context clearly alludes to a beast of burden. The Hebrew term tannin is variously rendered dragon, whale, serpent, sea-monster and the like in translations depending on the context. In other words, the Hebrew term typically refers to any number of large land or sea creatures that did actually exist. Occasionally, it is rendered dragon, which in biblical trans-hermeneutics is merely another word for serpent or snake, not for a winged, fire-breathing creature of legend, far removed from both the time and the culture of the Hebrews. Idiot. From drawings, linked to some of the scriptural passages, discovered in archeological digs, we know that in some instances the term was used to denote elephants or whales. We just don't know in every instance precisely what species the term denoted, and in other instances the term doesn't denote any actual earthly creature at all, but an idea. Metaphor.

Ye of little knowledge: open mouth, insert foot. What other unlearned foolishness are you walking around with in your head about the Bible? Shut up. You're not qualified.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

More verbal diarrhea. . .

Uh-huh. Another unwitting admission of being a closed-minded prig and of your inability to refute the damning truth of the charges.

Explain to me how homosexuality is morally wrong without mentioning your magic sky man in any way.

No. I won't...

Damn, I was looking forward to an answer, and all I got was even more long-winded political rhetoric.

Seemed like a reasonable question.

A reasonable question?! (See my response to JoeB.) There was nothing reasonable about it at all. It's an obviously silly, rhetorical question. A statement, a claim of sorts riddled with so many logical errors, including the fact that it begins by begging the question . . . where should I begin?

You're not very bright either, are you?

My response to JoeB just scratches the surface of its problems.

As for long-winded. No. You two pc space cadets are tragically short-minded, barely equipped with the attention span of a gnat. But to help you, I can make mince meat of your stupidities one chunk at a time, you know, those many stupidities inherent to JoeB's "question" that you aren't even aware of as I expose the purely sentimental emotionalism that comprises the reason for which you hold that homosexuality is not immoral or destructive. In the meantime, my authority is God.

LOL!

Dingbats.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Why do you weep for the Romanovs? Yeah, I guess it's sad the kids got killed, but I'd weep more for the 10 million Russians who died for nothing in WWI....

I weep for the 40 to 60 million (We don't know exactly.) murdered by Stalin without a war.

Sociopath.

 

[JoeB131]

[
It was your question that was unadulterated babble and bullshit.

Were you asking me why Judeo-Christianity teaches that homosexuality is immoral, so that you might properly understand the spiritual and theological ramifications of human sexuality according to that system of thought? You know, as a matter of academics.

No. Of course not.

No, of course I wasn't. I was asking if you had any reason to selectively get upset about THAT part of the bible when there are so many others you ignore. YOu aren't stoning your neighbors for working on Sunday, or calling them unclean for eating a pork and shrimp eggroll, or getting terribly upset wealthy people aren't sharing all their wealth with the poor. You've come to accept that the world is going to do these things, and gosh darn, you just aren't going to get upset about it.

But man, let gays try to live their lives, and you are breaking out the Fire and Brimstone, baby!

[
Look. I answered your question. The hardware and plumbing (the physiology and biology) of human sexuality is heterosexual, not homosexual. That is self-evident and indisputable.

Right?

And God said thou shall not misuse or abuse that.

Here's the problem with that theory. If you say that the "plumbing" is God's ordained plan, the fact is, everything gays do, straight folks, do to. Straights practice Cunnilingus, Fellatio, anal sex, and just about every other fetish out there. And heck, the Lesbians even have strap-ons so they can play at the whole pretend to have vaginal intercource bit.

So clearly, if the Great and Almighty Sky Pixie never meant for anything BUT that to be done, he shouldn't have designed the human body so that all those other things can be done, too.

[
As for the spiritual and theological purposes of God's design: I could explain those to you, but you don't give a damn about any of that. Your question was rhetorical. Right?

Why?

Because you say God doesn't exist in the first place.

So what is your point? This latest post of yours is just a paraphrase of the last one. Nothing new.

But you see, that's the point. All I have from you is that 1) There's a God (not proven) and that 2) oppossition to homoseuxality is part of his plan (not proven, either.) What I don't have from you is any reason WHY it's against is plan, other than gays have one less way to pleasure each other than straights do.

[
Further, I told you that I do not hate homosexuals, but you don't accept the truth of that statement either. Right?

In short, you are not interested in having an honest or informed discussion, a respectful exchange of ideas. You won't even allow that others are more complex than your characterizations, don't fit into your boorish clichés.

If you want to deny them fair and equal rights because a magic man in the sky said so, that's hate.

[

You demand proof, but what you're talking about is something empirical. Right?

Are you stupid or something?

By definition God is not an empirical being. LOL! Atheists are notoriously bad thinkers, bad philosophers. But as for the empirical, the evidences of His existence are all around you. Creation. And you have before you the empirical fact that the physiology and biology of human sexuality is not homosexual.

But you don't give a damn about any of these things; as you keep telling us over and over again, you don't believe that God exists in the first place. We got that the first time.

Fine. That's your business. Live and let live.

Creation might prove a Creator if you are like, ignorant of science and natural laws, but it does not prove the Abrahamic God is the Creator.

The BIble was written by people who didn't know what a germ was and didn't know where the sun went at night. Somehow, I don't think they had any more insight to the nature of the world that I do.

Hence, given that your question is not a question at all, but a complaint, really, one that is not particularly interesting (pixies, dragons, unicorns . . . irrelevancies), all that remains is the political.

Right?

You're not very bright, are you? A bit slow on the uptake.

BTW, the Hebrew term re’em is translated unicorn . . . in the King James Version by a 15th-Century scholar. A better translation is ox or wild ox. There's absolutely nothing in the context of the original Hebrew that would suggest, let alone require, that the Hebrews actually believed in unicorns, especially since unicorns are the stuff of pagan mythology. LOL! We know this today for certain from archeological discoveries, coupled with the fact that in most instances the original context clearly alludes to a beast of burden. The Hebrew term tannin is variously rendered dragon, whale, serpent, sea-monster and the like in translations depending on the context. In other words, the Hebrew term merely refers to any number of large land or sea creatures that did actually exist. From drawings linked to some of the scriptural passages discovered in archeological digs we know that in some instances the term was used to denote elephants or whales. We just don't know in every instance precisely what species the term referred to, and in other instances the term doesn't refer to any actual earthly creature at all, but an idea. Metaphor.

Ye of little knowledge: open mouth, insert foot. What other unlearned foolishness are you walking around with in your head about the Bible? Shut up. You're not qualified.

Here's the problem with that theory. I call it the "Guys who did the King James Version didn't know what the word meant, so they threw one in."

I think that the problem is, "Wild Ox" is a concept that a 16th century guy probably would have known, as would be "Whale". Not only that, but there was also the mention of Satyrs, but Biblical apologists will admit that they were really talking about Wild Goats.

The one you can't get around is Giants. The bible claims that there were giants walking around. No mistake on that one.

So again, if we can't trust that part of the translation, how can we trust any of it?

 

[JoeB131]

Why do you weep for the Romanovs? Yeah, I guess it's sad the kids got killed, but I'd weep more for the 10 million Russians who died for nothing in WWI....

I weep for the 40 to 60 million (We don't know exactly.) murdered by Stalin without a war.

Sociopath.

That' the point, guy, you don't know because all you've heard is bullshit Cold War Propaganda.

Funny thing is, they took a Survey of Russians recently, and they listed Stalin as the third greatest figure in their history. So I guess they aren't as upset about it as you are.

Of course, Stalin never would have come to power if the Romanovs weren't totally cool with most of their subjects living in abject poverty while they lived in palaces.

A lesson for those who think Car Elevators and Dressage Horses are perfectly seemly for a leader.

 

[JoeB131]

A reasonable question?! (See my response to JoeB.) There was nothing reasonable about it at all. It's an obviously silly, rhetorical question. A statement, a claim of sorts riddled with so many logical errors, including the fact that it begins by begging the question . . . where should I begin?

You're not very bright either, are you?

My response to JoeB just scratches the surface.

Let's say scientists develop a test to once and for all prove the existence of God. And all the Church leaders agree it's a valid test. And the big day comes, and the test is done. And Poof. No God. All the Churches close up shop and admit it was a big misunderstanding. Turn all the Churches into Starbucks or Community centers or something useful.

Oky-doke. If God has been disproven, explain to me why Homosexuality is bad, wrong or immoral.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why do you weep for the Romanovs? Yeah, I guess it's sad the kids got killed, but I'd weep more for the 10 million Russians who died for nothing in WWI....

I weep for the 40 to 60 million (We don't know exactly.) murdered by Stalin without a war.

Sociopath.

That' the point, guy, you don't know because all you've heard is bullshit Cold War Propaganda.

Funny thing is, they took a Survey of Russians recently, and they listed Stalin as the third greatest figure in their history. So I guess they aren't as upset about it as you are.

Of course, Stalin never would have come to power if the Romanovs weren't totally cool with most of their subjects living in abject poverty while they lived in palaces.

A lesson for those who think Car Elevators and Dressage Horses are perfectly seemly for a leader.

Funny thing is, they took a Survey of Russians recently, and they listed Stalin as the third greatest figure in their history. So I guess they aren't as upset about it as you are.

Stalin didn't poll as well amongst the tens of millions of his victims.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Why do you weep for the Romanovs? Yeah, I guess it's sad the kids got killed, but I'd weep more for the 10 million Russians who died for nothing in WWI....

I weep for the 40 to 60 million (We don't know exactly.) murdered by Stalin without a war.

Sociopath.

Why do you weep for the Romanovs? Yeah, I guess it's sad the kids got killed, but I'd weep more for the 10 million Russians who died for nothing in WWI....

I weep for the 40 to 60 million (We don't know exactly.) murdered by Stalin without a war.

Sociopath.

That' the point, guy, you don't know because all you've heard is bullshit Cold War Propaganda.

No. Do not change what I said. Do not tell me that my observation is based on what I've heard. Unlike you with your factual inaccuracies about the Warren Court and your unlearned prattle about the Bible, I don't do second-hand propaganda.

While, admittedly, I threw out the 40-60 million number as a rhetorical flourish, sarcasm, and because that estimate hovers in the middle, I have extensively studied the substance of the various estimates.

More seriously.

Over the years, he slaughtered, roughly, 15 to 20 million of his own people outright. His special reprisal group killed about two million German civilians outright after the war. The overwhelming majority of these were not party or government officials. These were systematic round ups and firing squad killings. Approximately 1 million German POWs died under horrid conditions during the years of 1945 and 1955 in prison camps after the War. And He systematically murdered roughly five million in the occupied Eastern-block countries over the years. The best solid estimate, in my opinion, hovers at about 27 million, but we know that there were many, many more. Also, this number does not include the hundreds of thousand or millions of political prisoners who died over the years in various gulags and the Siberian detention camps from starvation, exposure and disease. Hence, the 40 million estimate is not unreasonable, though its probably closer to 37 million actual, it's just very difficult to document or solidly account for the rest.

Of course, under Stalin, homosexuality was a crime. No orthodox Christian I know would stand still for such an outrage. Who knows how many persons were imprisoned or executed by Stalin because they were homosexual.

*crickets chirping*

The 60 to 100 million estimate is clearly exaggerated.

Holocaust deny much, JoeB?

 

[JoeB131]

No. Do not change what I said. Do not tell me that my observation is based on what I've heard. Unlike you with your factual inaccuracies about the Warren Court and your unlearned prattle about the Bible, I don't do second-hand propaganda.

While, admittedly, I threw out the 40-60 million number as a rhetorical flourish, sarcasm, and because that estimate hovers in the middle, I have extensively studied the substance of the various estimates.

More seriously.

Over the years, he slaughtered, roughly, 15 to 20 million of his own people outright. His special reprisal group killed about two million German civilians outright after the war. The overwhelming majority of these were not party or government officials. These were systematic round ups and firing squad killings. Approximately 1 million German POWs died under horrid conditions during the years of 1945 and 1955 in prison camps after the War. And He systematically murdered roughly five million in the occupied Eastern-block countries over the years. The best solid estimate, in my opinion, hovers at about 27 million, but we know that there were many, many more. Also, this number does not include the hundreds of thousand or millions of political prisoners who died over the years in various gulags and the Siberian detention camps from starvation, exposure and disease. Hence, the 40 million estimate is not unreasonable, though its probably closer to 37 million actual, it's just very difficult to document or solidly account for the rest.

Of course, under Stalin, homosexuality was a crime. No orthodox Christian I know would stand still for such an outrage. Who knows how many persons were imprisoned or executed by Stalin because they were homosexual.

*crickets chirping*

The 60 to 100 million estimate is clearly exaggerated.

Holocaust deny much, JoeB?

So what you have are horseshit numbers that are all over the feild, that a lot of people died in either the Russian Civil War or World War II.

It's war, dumbass. People die in wars.

And the real numbers, save those killed in WWII, which really were high, aren't anywhere near that.