I Support Nazis and the white nationalists

[Mr Person]

Same as the "I support the ANTIFA" thread.


My vote is obviously I do not.


Please vote and explain your position.

:shock:


You need people to explain to you why they don't support Nazis? Are you sure you wanted to post that?

 

[Mr Person]

The Constitution does NOT grant rights. I'm not talking about inalienable rights. I'm discussing unalienable Rights. There is a difference. The Constitution does not grant them.

The Bill of Rights more or less codified the language of the Declaration of Independence. A quick look at old court cases affirms this truth. Take the Right to Life. The Second Amendment acknowledges it. One example in an early court decision had this ruling:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.
A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v State 24 Tex.394, at 401-402 (1859)

The United States Supreme Court even weighed in on this principle:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

So, let's look at this objectively: The Right exists, but it is not granted by the government and it (the Right) is not dependent upon the government for its existence. The Constitution only guarantees those Rights you already had.

In order to obfuscate the facts, the courts began ruling on inalienable rights. The Declaration of Independence uses the term unalienable Rights to describe those Rights that are inherent and above the reach of government. The earliest courts acknowledged that some Rights were literally above the law and ruled accordingly.

The intent of the 14th Amendment was to reverse the concept of God given, unalienable Rights and replace them with another kind of right. And so, they began ruling on this new government created right - the inalienable right and then proceed to limit those. The courts could always claim, according to wordsmiths, that the words inalienable and unalienable mean the same thing. As a matter of fact, the 14th Amendment, in making us all "subjects" omits God given unalienable Rights.

The government is, of course, lying to you. The courts define their own words and IF they had overtly attacked unalienable Rights, those people attuned to the facts, might have rebelled. I would still rebel today if the government now told us that they control unalienable Rights. The people have been programmed to use that term inalienable not knowing that the courts have ruled that inalienable rights are government granted and not defined in the same manner as your unalienable Rights.

Objectively is it?


So which physical laws predict the existence of "inalienable rights"?

What scientific reproduceable experiements prove their existence?

And why on Earth would one expect "inalienable rights" to be floating around the universe, objectively real, for the 13,500,000,000 billion years of existence in which there weren't any humans to claim them?



I don't care what words on a page you can copy/paste. That isn't proof of anything other than someone else saying they exist. That's not how things are proven to be objectively real. (And in any case, they're only saying it because they believe in a God. Belief in God isn't proof of anything).

I could write down on a piece of paper right now "Santa clause exists and he's actually a venusian!" but that wouldn't make it so, not even if I claimed God told me, now would it?

 

[Mr Person]

The Constitution grants inalienable rights to mankind, not just to Americans. God given rights to everyone. The founders also believed that man was created equal. Think of women's suffrage which didn't happen until the 1920's, some 130 years after the Constitution was written.



Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

If the question is provable objective reality "God given" has no place anywhere. That's faith and faith is inherently irrational - it is not based on empirical proof.




I have to wonder why people are so worried about what happens if we just admit that the things we call "rights" are just things we have all agreed should be respected AND whose respect we are willing to enforce. Why?

If China invaded and won, these inalienable rights you claim are "God given" or objectively real wouldn't matter a damn. They'd do what they want if they won. For the very same reason, a pissed off lion doesn't give two ****s about your "inalienable rights."

That's because they aren't objectively real. They are very much alienable, as crime and war have proven throughout human history. And throughout that history, one thing has been proven: the only rights that have any effect do so because the people that want to enjoy them enforce them themselves.

 

[Dirt Sands]

:shock:


You need people to explain to you why they don't support Nazis? Are you sure you wanted to post that?

99.9 percent of people love this country. We just don't share the same idea of what that is. The Nazis will say they love this country too. Here's the hardest thing to say. The answer for radicalism is moderation. And I'm going to say it first. Forgiveness and love. That's the answer. Forgiveness and love.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

 

[Dirt Sands]

If the question is provable objective reality "God given" has no place anywhere. That's faith and faith is inherently irrational - it is not based on empirical proof.




I have to wonder why people are so worried about what happens if we just admit that the things we call "rights" are just things we have all agreed should be respected AND whose respect we are willing to enforce. Why?

If China invaded and won, these inalienable rights you claim are "God given" or objectively real wouldn't matter a damn. They'd do what they want if they won. For the very same reason, a pissed off lion doesn't give two ****s about your "inalienable rights."

That's because they aren't objectively real. They are very much alienable, as crime and war have proven throughout human history. And throughout that history, one thing has been proven: the only rights that have any effect do so because the people that want to enjoy them enforce them themselves.

After the resister schooled me, I give him credit he knows his ****. God given rights are in the Declaration of Indepence not the Constitution. They also made atheism a bad word. However, Christian or not, the Constitution and the Declation of Independence, as well as the Bill of Rights and the following amendments do not mention a single religion,. Can I be so bold, Jesus. That's because the framers were liberals. It's one the most liberal documents ever written by mankind and if he were walking the earth today he would be a liberal. There I said it

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

 

[The Resister]

Objectively is it?


So which physical laws predict the existence of "inalienable rights"?

What scientific reproduceable experiements prove their existence?

And why on Earth would one expect "inalienable rights" to be floating around the universe, objectively real, for the 13,500,000,000 billion years of existence in which there weren't any humans to claim them?



I don't care what words on a page you can copy/paste. That isn't proof of anything other than someone else saying they exist. That's not how things are proven to be objectively real. (And in any case, they're only saying it because they believe in a God. Belief in God isn't proof of anything).

I could write down on a piece of paper right now "Santa clause exists and he's actually a venusian!" but that wouldn't make it so, not even if I claimed God told me, now would it?

You are being silly because you feel someone offended you by mentioning God. Why don't you move to a country that rejects God and you won't have that problem?

 

[The Resister]

After the resister schooled me, I give him credit he knows his ****. God given rights are in the Declaration of Indepence not the Constitution. They also made atheism a bad word. However, Christian or not, the Constitution and the Declation of Independence, as well as the Bill of Rights and the following amendments do not mention a single religion,. Can I be so bold, Jesus. That's because the framers were liberals. It's one the most liberal documents ever written by mankind and if he were walking the earth today he would be a liberal. There I said it

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

Taking an opposing view:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=2556

 

[Tigerace117]

Visionworks is open tomorrow. I haven't voiced ANY opinion about segregated schools. Either you need new glasses or your reading skills need to be rechecked.

Congratulations, you clearly don't even read your own posts.

 

[The Resister]

99.9 percent of people love this country. We just don't share the same idea of what that is. The Nazis will say they love this country too. Here's the hardest thing to say. The answer for radicalism is moderation. And I'm going to say it first. Forgiveness and love. That's the answer. Forgiveness and love.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

The people that are opposing what you say want control of this country and they don't care about religion, forgiveness or love. They cannot even accept the fact that man inherently, in every civilized society instinctively understands a Right to Life. NONE of us feel that someone should be able to take it. That does not mean that someone cannot take it away; it means that everybody feels that the observation that we all feel that way means it came from somewhere.

Hebrews 10 : 16 has this to say:

"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, said the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;..."

Is this the explanation of how we know, instinctively, that people have a Right to Life? It did not take men getting together to decide that a Right to Life is unalienable. People believe it instinctively. The humanists among us might be chattering away about if you can't show them empirical evidence... blah, blah, blah, and that is their reality. There is no law that says we have to show empirical evidence or any other kind of evidence to hold a theory that is just as sound as Darwin's "theory of evolution."

Our forefathers banded together and agreed on First Principles. You don't have to believe in God in order to accept the principles, but barring a definitive source, we phrase those inherent Rights as unalienable and / or inherent rights aka God given rights.. Under the de jure / lawful / legal interpretation of our Constitution, we have agreed that those Rights exist and that our government will guarantee them.

 

[The Resister]

Congratulations, you clearly don't even read your own posts.

You have wailed every day about segregated schools and not provided one single, solitary sentence where I endorsed such. You should reread the posts and let it go. Keep jerking my chain and I might get motivated enough to try and figure out what you are whining about. Then you're going to look really silly. So, you got anything, just blowing smoke, or like to drop it?

 

[Hank Brankovic]

Whilst i am a so-called "Aryanist", i'm not a "Hitlerist". I'm a good ol' fashioned 'Merican Democrat.

 

[Dirt Sands]

Taking an opposing view:

Apologetics Press - Christianity is in the Constitution

I promise to read it and consider it thoughtfully. You will hear a response tomorrow. My commitment to this chatroom is to thonestly think about your post because it's important to u. Cool

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

 

[Dirt Sands]

I'm so agnostic. I don't feel it was meant to know. Who am I to make such a decision and does it really matter if I think more than that.
As it relates to extrememists, Nazis, and the others, I would rather they believe a moderate version that doesn't peddle hate.
All this separation from reality will radicalize even people. "Let's get to the point and role another joint".
Tom Petty

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

 

[Fishking]

Why is this so difficult for The President of The United States?

It isn't. You're repeating lies.

 

[Mr Person]

Objectively is it?


So which physical laws predict the existence of "inalienable rights"?

What scientific reproduceable experiements prove their existence?

And why on Earth would one expect "inalienable rights" to be floating around the universe, objectively real, for the 13,500,000,000 billion years of existence in which there weren't any humans to claim them?



I don't care what words on a page you can copy/paste. That isn't proof of anything other than someone else saying they exist. That's not how things are proven to be objectively real. (And in any case, they're only saying it because they believe in a God. Belief in God isn't proof of anything).

I could write down on a piece of paper right now "Santa clause exists and he's actually a venusian!" but that wouldn't make it so, not even if I claimed God told me, now would it?

You are being silly because you feel someone offended you by mentioning God. Why don't you move to a country that rejects God and you won't have that problem?

Oh now now. Try again. Actually respond to my points.

 

[The Resister]

Whilst i am a so-called "Aryanist", i'm not a "Hitlerist". I'm a good ol' fashioned 'Merican Democrat.

If that is another term for white nationalist, everybody can feel relieved. I'm not a Democrat either so it's beginning to look like I don't fit that stereotype either.

 

[The Resister]

Oh now now. Try again. Actually respond to my points.

No matter what I put on this board, it would not be sufficient enough for you. Your standards are designed to deliberately dismiss anything not within your previous way of thinking.

Humans are funny creatures:

You tend to believe most strongly that which you hear first

IF you change it will be most likely to that which you hear repeated many times

You tend to believe that which you want to believe or that which fits your already conceived ideas or notions

Finally, human beings are least likely to believe that which is logical and makes sense - especially if it contradicts what they hear the most.

While you demand empirical evidence, that would neither prove NOR disprove a proposition. A rationalist argument has just as much credibility and neither view can always be proven in any situation. The Declaration of Independence is predicated upon such a rationalist view - and science cannot explain the truths our forefathers observed.

That some behaviors are inherent and are sought after without people being trained to seek them is all the evidence I need. Since science does not deliver any modicum of accuracy, its standards are not enough to convince all people of their infallibility when their findings are many times proven false. Just as science is always being updated and old information discarded, the rationalist view can be defended the same way. Religionists may say that if prophecy doesn't work out the way they thought, it is due to a misinterpretation of the facts... just like your empirical evidence standard would.

Having said that, you can see the impasse we've arrived at without wasting bandwidth discussing an issue that is not a part of the original OP.

 

[Tigerace117]

You have wailed every day about segregated schools and not provided one single, solitary sentence where I endorsed such. You should reread the posts and let it go. Keep jerking my chain and I might get motivated enough to try and figure out what you are whining about. Then you're going to look really silly. So, you got anything, just blowing smoke, or like to drop it?

I provided your ****ing post, genius. If you can't even read your own posts there is no reason anyone should take them even slightly seriously.

And yet more laughable Internet tough guy posturing from you. I hate to break it to you, but you already look "really silly".

 

[Goshin]

Nope. I've known some, and even the milder ones are not my sort of people.


I am something of a mild nationalist, and hold our culture, history and etc in high regard (as in I think it is hard to find any nation that is in all ways better), but I don't tie it to being white. Anyone who comes here and embraces America as their nation, respects our political system and heritage and etc, is okay by me regardless of their skin color.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

:shock:


You need people to explain to you why they don't support Nazis? Are you sure you wanted to post that?

yes.

I don't support nazis because they are racist statist assholes.


Why is it so hard for you to answer?

 

[The Resister]

I provided your ****ing post, genius. If you can't even read your own posts there is no reason anyone should take them even slightly seriously.

And yet more laughable Internet tough guy posturing from you. I hate to break it to you, but you already look "really silly".

You have not provided ANY posting where I have, in any way, shape, fashion, or form endorsed segregated schools. If anyone looks silly it is you. You've claimed such, but you have not provided the post. In a single post I listed some of the "evils" that the left wanted to address and the whites addressed it.

While I listed it as one of their issues, I've made NO COMMENT as to any personal opinion one way or another. Now, you can either put up or shut up. As I recall, since I listed it, it was probably noted that the problem was resolved. Again, either show where I took a position either way or get off my back.

You don't have anything. Let's face it. You're trying that nonsensical strategy that if I'm not antifa, I must be a nazi or worse. If I were, I would not be hiding. I would tell you, straight up, but we've covered me personally far beyond what any other person as been analyzed on this board. You have not been able to wrap your head around the fact that I'm an individual that don't walk, lock step, with any of the organizations represented in this issue.

What you want to do is take cheap shots at me, hoping that between you and the other poster that tried the same thing, you can kill me via a thousand slashes. Now, I'm questioning YOUR integrity. Show me the sentence in ANY thread on this board where I gave a personal view about segregated schools or apologize. Otherwise, don't ever expect to engage me in a conversation. If you're going to lie, you can do it without my participation. And if you want to get personal with me, it's better done via PM.

I'm going to repeat a sentiment that I've stated many times. It does not give my personal opinion as to any individual thing; it merely demonstrates the reality of our situation.

Americans whites did not invent slavery, but they were the first to abolish it. Then the Americans made sure the blacks had the government granted "right" to vote. Congress illegally ratified the 14th Amendment, which was a feeble attempt by Congress to begin chipping away at our unalienable Rights. We eliminated segregated schools.

The liberal blacks thought that wasn't enough. We started a process of affirmative action, preferential hiring schemes, racial quotas and reverse discrimination to make sure the black people had the advantage in getting jobs. Americans tried busing and that didn't end the discontent. Liberals still complained. Black people were given the lion's share of high paying jobs in sports, tv and movie entertainment, and government jobs (relative to their numbers.) THAT didn't end the controversy. Then we started changing our street and road signs; the names of schools and other government buildings to erase white history. They are still not satisfied.

The IRS threatened churches that frowned on inter-racial dating and marriage. Said they'd take away their non - profit status unless they changed their tenets of faith. We began taking the white peoples face off the currency. Nope. That's not sufficient either. There was the fight over the Confederate flag. Still no satisfaction. The liberals still continued to wail. Then they attacked the monuments, memorials and statues. At that point, it became abundantly clear:

When the statue of Roger Taney was taken down, I figured out how far this is going to go. Taney had nothing to do with the Confederacy. His "crime" was his ruling in the Dred Scott v Sanford case. Instead of legislating from the bench; instead of trying to politicize the issue, he went to great lengths to interpret the law as per his responsibility under the Constitution. So thorough in his legal reasoning that Wikipedia states this on the Dred Scott case:

" Taney spent pages 407–421 of his decision chronicling the history of slave and negro law in the British colonies and American states to decide if federal law could recognize Scott as a citizen of any state within the meaning of Article III."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

Taney didn't write the freaking laws. He couldn't rule contrary to the will of the people - even if he had wanted to. Well, as the Supreme Court legislates from the bench, he "could," but the practice has ruined the Republic and ran afoul of the very words of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.

Continued

 

[The Resister]

Nope. I've known some, and even the milder ones are not my sort of people.


I am something of a mild nationalist, and hold our culture, history and etc in high regard (as in I think it is hard to find any nation that is in all ways better), but I don't tie it to being white. Anyone who comes here and embraces America as their nation, respects our political system and heritage and etc, is okay by me regardless of their skin color.

You're lying to yourself then. The reality is, and I have pointed this out many times, America was founded by white people. The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution were all written and signed by white men. In the War of Independence, more whites were killed than there were blacks that served. It's just as much a part of the white man's history as the Scottish kilt is to the Scottish American - especially when he tries to conjure up images of William Wallace.

This nutty idea that it is racist to acknowledge your history is preposterous. Those who expect us to bury our history while they impose theirs are the real racists. Having had some of the far left liberals try to force me to identify with one side or the other has shown me what the draw is for the real racists. The left expects that we must be forced to be on one side or the other. I'm not seeing how the antifa forces have any advantage over the nazis. If you have to be forced to take sides, it is the left wanting to wage a war of genocide.

 

[The Resister]

continuation of post # 96 - Did not post earlier for some reason

The only place left for liberal blacks to go now is the United States flag. It flew over the White House when the Dred Scott decision was decided. Then the final "reminder" (sic) of all those things the liberals don't like will be the white man himself. At this stage, the liberals demand you lick their boots, but even then they will NOT be satisfied:

SOME of their issues were legitimate. Others not so much. If we're going to live together, the liberals guiding the masses among black people have to accept the whites - their history and their past along with their own views. And having qualified my statements, it will not be enough. The white man must be eliminated, but it must be done so very subtly and the white man must be presented to the public as the one not being reasonable.

Now, THAT is silly and Tigerace117 owes me an apology, but you won't see it here. I have the gut feeling he represents an extremist position that is no different than the nazis, except it is in favor of another color.

 

[Cigar]

I support Peaceful Protesting ... for BOTH SIDES

Never once have I ever thought of bringing a Gun to express my ability to debate and protest.

I believe I'm more than capable of expressing my views without having to brandish a firearm and intimidate.

If EITHER SIDE is conducting VIOLENCE; we already have a word for that ... it's Called RIOTING :roll:

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I support Peaceful Protesting ... for BOTH SIDES

Never once have I ever thought of bringing a Gun to express my ability to debate and protest.

I believe I'm more than capable of expressing my views without having to brandish a firearm and intimidate.

If EITHER SIDE is conducting VIOLENCE; we already have a word for that ... it's Called RIOTING :roll:

YOu sound like trump.