HOME | DD

AtheosEmanon In reply to ??? [2013-11-05 14:02:12 +0000 UTC]

Sadly I think some Tea Party people would love a Christian theocracy for America

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AtheosEmanon In reply to Young-stoaty-chap [2013-07-15 20:41:24 +0000 UTC]

I made this as satire, but I agree wit. They say they are pro life but care nothing of the quality of lie. The vote to end abortions because they are pro life.... yet vote to cut school lunches for kids...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Young-stoaty-chap In reply to AtheosEmanon [2013-07-15 20:53:38 +0000 UTC]

They are "Pro-life" and support the death penalty.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Young-stoaty-chap [2013-07-15 21:10:03 +0000 UTC]

lmao, I have always said that they are just anti abortion.. once born they care not the quality of life

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AtheosEmanon In reply to namezong [2012-11-23 23:53:45 +0000 UTC]

I do apologize for the late response, I only check this site once or twice a day [sometimes more on weekends…sometimes not at all on weekends depending on my schedule, so I shall tackle your points and when you reply, I will try to address each point made when I see it.

Let us tackle your argument in pieces.

"Study history, NAZI got power democratically, not by coup"
The piece never said when or how they came to power, it said how the groups organized and came to be... it mentioned nothing about their rise to power, but okay if you wish for me to address this.. I shall..

In the 12-1924 elections the party lost 18 seats in Reichstag which bought them down to only 14 seats in the Reichstag... in the 1928 election, lost 2 more seats and went down to 12 seats in the Reichstag… in that election, as a total of the votes they managed to get less than 1% of all of the votes in that election.

In the 1929 presidential elections, the Nazi Party got just north of 280K votes, just over 1% but no where near enough to be the president and your representation that they came to power democratically, if by democratically you mean not being elected to the presidency…

In the 1930s parliament elections, or the Reichstag if you prefer that or the Bundestag as it is known as today….. the party got its biggest victory of just north of 100 seats, which was only 18% of the Reichstag .. not a clear democratic victory of control, the fact is, the nazi party in no election ever got a majority of the votes… so a bit unsure of your idea of “democratically”… while since Germany has about 5 or 6 Major parties, it did make it the second largest party but they never got a plurality or a majority of the votes..

It in 1931 there were many clashes between the Rotfrontkämpferbunds and the Nazi Party which left many dead on both sides, as you may know during this time you had the 1930s election, Hitler was the NAZI representative and Paul von Hindenburg was the Social Democratic Party representative...when the votes were counted, Hitler got 6.4M votes, Hindenburg got 8.6M votes, in the first round... In the final round, Hitler got 13.4M votes, but still lost to Hindenburg’s 19.3M votes… so once again I question your idea of “democratically came into power” when he and his party continuously lost the popular vote in each of their presidential attempts.

It was Chancellor Franz von Papen after the Nazis lost the 1932 election, who was forced to resign and who then was replace by Schleicher, who was appointed Chancellor but because the Nazi held a majority in the Reichstag … nothing was really getting done, think of American politics.. instead of President and those who have control of the house so very little getting done.. you had the Chancellor and the Reichstag and thus nothing was getting done.

Persuaded by Papen, Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as Chancellor [an appointment is not being democratically elected to a position]… Papen became vice Chancellor .

While hitler, as Chancellor was Head of Government, he was appointed, not democratically elected…. Hindenburg was still over Hitler, and democratically elected as president, as well as Head of State and held control of the Armed forces.

During his time as Chancellor, into what is now referred to as the Machtergreifung … is when Hitler solidified the power of the Nazi power in the government and many new rules was implemented regarding how the Reichstag operated, and pretty much made the Nazi Party even more powerful than it otherwise would have been.. but thus far, Hitler, as far as his position was not “democratically elected” into power…

After the death of the president in 1934, the Nazis pretty much seized complete control of the government and eventually the country, hitler himself was never elected, and while the Goring of the Nazi party was in line going by the order of precedence, which AFTER him would be Hitler… neither of which were ever elected to their positions of power by the people they were to rule…

Though by your premise of the Nazis, I never said in the piece that the Nazis were never elected to any positions in their parliament, yet towards the end or the two previously elections before the president died, the Nazis lost seats in both elections… and had it not been for Hitler’s order to marginalize and minimize other parties which without such may very well, as it was looking at before the Reichstag Fire and the Reichstag Fire Decree… which then allowed the Nazis to imprison any important political person who was a threat to their power… since they could be held without charge or trial… that made it even easier for them to solidify their power and made it easier to shut down the other parties, and imprison or kill their leaders.

While in 1934 the referendum making him head of state was passed, this is after over a year of purging other parties, it is a bit disingenuous, with due respect, sir to say they came to power democratically… if by democratically you mean they shut down all of their oppositional parties, and imprisoned or killed their leaders… if by democratically you mean they had already solidified their power in the government. While they had more seats than other parties in the parliament, as what normally happens when a president dies, an election is to take place where the party heads runs for office, that never took place, thus he was never actually elected to be leader in a real election, only a show election

The only election that the Nazis did run for national office, in a real election was the 1932 election, in which they were defeated .. badly.. even if you combined the votes of the Nazis and the communist party.. Hindenburg still got more votes than the two combined.. after that, there was no presidential election again until after Hitler was out of power, and there was a referendum election after the Nazis had already all but seize control of the country… so I would have trusted the validity of his power and the validity of the party, who held more seats than other parties, which gave them control of the parliament but who were far from a majority of the parliament and who had lost a few seats in previous elections... if he were not afraid of holding a presidential election and did not shut down all of his opposition…

“And all oppositional parties want to win and get power, it does not make them into nazi-likes.”
I never said being against something makes one nazi-like., I with this particular piece, merely showed the correlation of how the parties came to be… and as the very first line states, This is a partially a satire piece…. Satire, not to be taken completely serious…. But you did but okay.

“Ideology: “Far right nationalists” is as different from “right wing” as usa democrats are from revolutionary Maoists.”
Far right, thus right wing…. Lmao so the Democrat party formed in 1860… are “from” revolutionary Maoists.. Mao himself was not born until 1893… so please sir, tell me how can a party be “from” something that came over 30 years after they formed?


“all parties not currently in power blame those in power for all bad things happening. Also, you fail to mention that NSGWP fought violent street battles with their opponents, while Tea Party is non-violent.”
The party as a whole did not fight battles on street corners, just its militant wing, and this piece shows their similarities, there are several differences, thus it being something not to take too serious, thus partially satirical opening..

“Religious make-up: empty argument, majority of most parties in Germany of the time was Christian, just because majority of population was Christian.”
Yes, but a majority of those party did not say their opposition were godless and said that they were doing “god’s work” .. which Hitler has said in several speeches regarding many things from Jews to commies..

“ditto, Germany in those days Was white country, so whites comprised all the political parties.”
Though it says plainly that the tea party movement is not a racial one, and the idea of “ditto” which does not discount the concept of group majority, not national majority.

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

namezong In reply to AtheosEmanon [2012-11-25 17:56:50 +0000 UTC]

Hmm, you are an awesome researchy person might I say.
While being appointed to power is not being elected to it, it isn't a coup (like you claimed in the poster) either.
Perhaps it would be best to say that Nazi got into power with according to legal procedures (and by abusing them where they could).
It is similar to recent usa presedents legally granting themselves more and more dictatorial powers.

“Ideology: “Far right nationalists” is as different from “right wing” as usa democrats are from revolutionary Maoists.”
Far right, thus right wing…. Lmao so the Democrat party formed in 1860… are “from” revolutionary Maoists.. Mao himself was not born until 1893… so please sir, tell me how can a party be “from” something that came over 30 years after they formed?"
Ah, a mere misundersanding sir.
I wanted to say: A is as different from B as C is different from D
I shortened it to: A is as different from B as C is from D(implied: different from, not originating from)

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to namezong [2012-11-25 19:10:00 +0000 UTC]

Once again, I shall address your comment in parts so that you will know exactly to which I am replying to… shall we?

“While being appointed to power is not being elected to it, it isn't a coup (like you claimed in the poster) either.”
Did you read the “poster”? I hold some reservation that you even read it since I never said that they came to power in a coup, I said their main goal was to take over the government by a coup.. which Hitler did try and failed.. to which was the reason that he was imprisoned. Saying that their goal was to take over the government by a coup, does not say that is how they came to power.

Though that of course could be also stated since a coup is a seizure of power by a political faction from another faction through often violent and political means… How can you say imprisoning and killing your political rivals is not violence?

Certainly sir, you would not say that the Nazis came to power through pacifist means and killed no one to solidify their aims? The Nazis killed, imprisoned or exiled the vast majority of their political opposition, and when Night of the Long Knives happened.. surely sir you, or maybe you are saying that the Night of the Long Knives was not a violent action against the government or a violent means of a coup to solidify Nazi power?

What other reasons would one have to kill off their political opponents if not to solidify their own power? What other reason would one have to imprison their political rivals, not for anything they had done illegal since most of which [thanks to the Reichstag Fire Decree] were held without charges or trials for indefinite periods of times …many of which after the Nazis took over the entire country were sent to the camps and many of which died.

I see no other reason, other than to solidify their own power would one have to kill off their political rivals when it was known that the president was very sick and could die within a matter of weeks, since Hindenburg was out of “pocket” as they say, or because of his cancer, and him being bedridden the Nazis had taken this opportunity to solidify their power even further by… as previously stating, solidifying their power in the parliament and killing off their top political rivals, and imprisoning many of the secondary and under people of their political rivals…

By the time the president died, the Nazis had all but killed off their rivals and were quick to overtake the country, the Nazis NEVER allowed a presidential election as was customary when a president died that a year or so after that there would be an election held and the people would vote on their president.. instead the Nazis had turned the country into mostly a one party country, and after a year or so… they did the 1934 referendum. What did Hitler do after the death of the presidency? He abolished that office, making himself “Fuhrer” and solidifying the power of the party.

HE was NEVER elected democratically, as your first comment stated, or rather the Nazi Party were never elected into power democratically, they, while holding the most seats of any party, [since Germany has 5 or 6 major parties] they were no where near the majority of the parliament .. and then killing off his rivals, seizing power, and so starting his reign… I do not know where you get the claim from that they came to power democratically.

IF by Democratically you mean, good sir, that they killed off all of their rivals, shut down all other parties then asked what party in a one party system did the people want as truly democratic then I Would fear such an idea of democracy.

“Perhaps it would be best to say that Nazi got into power with according to legal procedures (and by abusing them where they could).”
Yes, but this is not democratic, sir. Especially since before such a seize of power by the Nazis, such matters of order of precedence and other bills would have to be passed by the parliament, the Nazis never passed such bills by the parliament, they merely seized the power. There were few referendum cases, where the people would be asked to vote on such measures, that also did not happen… thus the idea of “Democratically elected” to power is laughable as it is dangerous when one, with due respect, such as you charges democratically when all they did was seize power and kill off their opposition

“It is similar to recent usa presedents legally granting themselves more and more dictatorial powers.”
… has a president done such a thing? A president cannot “grant” himself such powers, there are certain presidential powers that the president may use at his disposal, but no one president merely granted themselves this power. This power was written within the context of the presidential powers in the constitution, as well as amended by the US congress over the several centuries… so I see no “similarity” of someone doing what the German constitution clearly said could not be done.. and someone, such as the US constitution changes have been in line with the congressional votes of which the US constitution allows. .. If Hitler had allowed a referendum on his changes, or allowed the Parliament to vote on them then his alterations would have been in line with their constitution at the time, he did not thus it was not.

“Ah, a mere misundersanding sir.
I wanted to say: A is as different from B as C is different from D
I shortened it to: A is as different from B as C is from D(implied: different from, not originating from)”


I never said that the tea party was a far right wing group, sir? I see no misunderstanding on my part, perhaps your part when I clearly said that both were conservative, yet specifically said that the Nazis were a far right wing group, whereas it merely says that the tea party is a right wing group.

Well, with due respect sir, even your “shortened” form would make very little sense as to say something is from something that came after it… Would be like me saying that the constitution is nothing but a Steve Jobs Apple document!!! .. since Steve Jobs, and Apple came after the constitution, it would be illogical, and absurd of a statement,… as was your statement of “usa democrats are from revolutionary Maoists” to say something is from anything that came after it, is rather absurd as it is illogical … though shows a good amount of hilarity but only in its absurdity.

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

AtheosEmanon In reply to Starlow-FTW [2012-01-17 04:38:29 +0000 UTC]

You showed several differences, which does not dispute the similarities shown in the piece.

“NSGWP: Supported a massive government led by a single leader who would have undisputed and total control over the populace.”
Not exactly. Look at Hitler’s rhetoric when running. He said the people would have more of a say because of the liberal government and the Jewish Bankers had made Germany weak both militarily and financially. It was not until he came into power that he dissolved other parties, unions, and so on.

“Tea Party: Supports a small government elected through democratic means which lacks any control over the people that is not supported by the constitution.”

A government that is small enough to dictate morality with abortion laws and gay marriage outlawing. Reforming a system is one thing, hell even wanting to outlaw a system is something yet not offering up a realistic alternative which will work theoretically much less in reality.


“NSGWP: Would later on go to kill any dark-skinned person. Period.”
The NSGWP killed more than “dark skinned people” they killed whites who were members of the communist party, several of the socialist parties, Jews of course, gays, people with disabilities and so on.

As well as there was a Muslim military group in the Nazi military, the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar, was vast majority Muslims… so killing “any” dark skinned people when …except when it aided them.

“Tea Party: Actually represents the racial makeup of the country; there are several people seen in it who actually minorities holding up just as many signs condemning illegal immigration. Illegals don't support the Tea Party, but many legal immigrants do, because, let's face it; immigrants hate watching illegals get to walk into the nation, get free stuff, and give the rest of them a bad name.”
Being against illegal immigration and being for realistic immigration reform are not exclusive to tea party.

Saying we will gather them all up and deport them is not realistic… yet that seems to be the main immigration view that many tea party members hold.

Which goes back to the as stated wishes to reform, vs abolishing with no real alternative.

“NSGWP: The first thing Hitler did was disarm the populace.”
… was not exactly the first thing he did…

“Tea Party: Occasionally brings shotguns just for the heck of it; tends to support the 2nd amendment and condemn anything and anyone who seeks to end it.”
Also, saying you are anti 2nd amendment and wanting realistic gun laws are not exclusive to the tea party. Saying you want something done about sellers who knowing sell to those without background checks to people who will use them for crimes is not the same as wanting to take away the gun from the people. If you looked in my gallery you will see that I very much favor people having guns.

“NSGWP: Supported strong, violent nationalism and absolute allegiance to the government.”
Actually they swore allegiance to Hitler himself, not the government as an entity.

Cleansing was a tool practiced by them to “pure” the impurity with use of propaganda.

“Tea Party: Is somewhat anti-current government and supports the 1st amendment, which the NSGWP would have banned outright.”
As opposed to what group you believe that does not support it? Once again, 1st amendment supporting is not exclusive to the tea party.

Banning of the first amendment and saying that you want this in certain places, with respect to the tea party and people who would speak against god or do something they feel wrong in their beliefs.

“NSGWP: Despite the myths spread about it, later on in the war, they tended to be anti-Christian. They spread anti-Christian propaganda, slaughtered Christians not holding "approved" Bibles, and placed the real Bible on the list of books to be burned.”
The Nazis were more anti churches than religion, they were very religious people as far as their beliefs went. They were not irreligious in general.

They slaughtered many people would not follow them… which was not exclusive to Christian faith.

“Tea Party: Has no official stance on religion or social issues, but tends to be pro freedom of religion.”
No official stance .. other than many of the tea party elected officials speaking of wanting to ban abortions and gay marriage. As well as according to many of the tea party owns polls shows they are for the banning of abortion and gay marriage..so I do not know where they have no official stance on social issues where the vast majority of them are quite clear in what they believe in as far as social issues.

“NSGWP: Was one united movement that managed to control the entire country.”
Well united as in … killed all opposition.

“Tea Party: Despite the lame stream media's lies, the Tea Party is not one single movement; it is a conglomeration of movements that shares the name and basic, conservative ideals; it is very far from total political domination.”
Who said the tea party was a single movement? .. lame stream media.. yeah no bias there. I have yet to see any “lame stream media” saying that the tea party is a single movement or did not have many different groups especially since the “lame stream media” has had the leaders of several tea party groups on their shows.

“I'd make one to compare OWS with the USSR,”
You can do that…

“but is that really going to be necessary? That'd make this reply way too long.”
…. If you believe it is necessary that of course is up to you…

“Don't take this with hostility,”
I did not find your post hostile.. other than the lame stream media talking point I saw no name calling in your piece

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

Starlow-FTW In reply to AtheosEmanon [2012-01-18 02:57:53 +0000 UTC]

I wasn't attempting to discredit what you said. I wanted to make this point; every single ideology anybody has will resemble some radical ideology out there. Of course conservatism in general will resemble Fascism in some way. Of course liberalism will resemble Communism. Of course libertarianism will resemble anarchism. It doesn't make them direct copies. However, there are plenty of differences as well. It's not important that National Socialism came from a recession (which isn't true; it was definitely a depression) as did the Tea Party. It's more important that the Tea Party outright condemns any form of racism while the Nazis slaughtered anyone not deemed the perfect race. (I'm a supporter of the Tea Party, if you couldn't tell already, lol)

As for the lame stream media, let's face it, we all know they're all like that, from FOX to MSNBC, they are all liars in some way.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Starlow-FTW [2012-01-18 03:18:59 +0000 UTC]

Well resemblance and counter make up are two different things. While the tea party are not advocating the genocide of all people they are not the complete opposite of the aforementioned group they were being compared to.

I fail to see how liberalism resembles communism since communism at its core is about the common ownership of all good by a strong central government, liberal does not advocate that regardless of what the right wing talking points try and say which is never backed up by empirical comparison given what they are trying to compare it to.

Libertarianism at its purest form does not deny its ability to be anarchical.

Nowhere did the piece nor the artist comment say they are in your words “direct copies” it showed similarities between the scape goats of one group and how that group is the same scape goats as this group, how they pretty much proposed similar things and … like the other group when they got their big win in 2010… did not deliver on the majority of their promises. It did not say the tea party is “just like” the Nazis.

National socialism is a misnomer, it was not socialistic in the least. Socialism, pure socialism dictates that the workers own the production, not government. Hitler got his views or rather his structure from a Mussolini-esque structure. If you look at Hitler, and read his book Hitler hated everything socialism stood for. Why would he choose socialism in his name? Because most of the workers belonged to the socialism political parties and without the workers he would never have been able to come into power.

The Nazis as already stated slaughtered those they believed to be imperfect, with the exception of their middle eastern allies. With the exception of those in several groups of subversives of several races that they thought could provide any halter to their plans.

Tea party supporter or not, to say generally the tea party does not take stances on social issues, when I am sure you know the majority of tea party are for outlawing abortion and gay marriage… which is a social issue.

If you wish to be a tea party person, great. I would wish from them that they stop advocating for Reaganomics which by pretty much all nonpartisan economists was said not to work… you do not build your nation by continuously cutting education, you do not make a strong nation when every infrastructure requests which is what kept us strong during our “golden period” is connected to some socialistic plot…

I am no conservative, I am a liberal, a progressive, and a Democratic socialist [think Bernie Sanders]

Though if Reagan ran today they would hate him and call him a socialist. He legalized abortion as governor and outlawed the carrying of loaded firearms as governor and later supporter several gun registration bills where he made public statements of his support. While the tea party are majority Republican they are no longer the party of Lincoln, they are no longer the party of Roosevelt [Theodore] they are no longer the party of Goldwater who warned against religion mixing with politics and they are certainly no longer the party of Eisenhower who said

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
-President Dwight D. Eisenhower, l954


…and yet that is exactly what they are advocating for, abolishing unemployment insurance, getting rid of labor laws [unions], privatizing social security which makes it less secure playing it on the stock market…

I would love the GOP to gain its ideals, of the people rather than of the corporations.

They are human so they lie. Yet both show their versions of the truth with their own conservative or liberal/progressive bias. Some of the actually believe what they are saying... even if it has been debunked over and over again.

Good day to you, sir.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AtheosEmanon In reply to EonOrteaShadowmaster [2011-08-16 16:04:44 +0000 UTC]

I must admit I did enjoy writing this piece, was very funny to do so. I cannot tell you when posted how many people wrote me with hate mail, was entertaining.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AtheosEmanon In reply to MissAlicja [2011-06-16 16:51:36 +0000 UTC]

Lmao, if she becomes president get ready for the dumbing down of America.... there will be no SS. no medicare, no medicaid, no public education ...anything that "evil" government will have a say in will be abolished

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AtheosEmanon In reply to Master-of-the-Boot [2011-04-06 14:29:30 +0000 UTC]

The tea party are empty minded people that work against their own ideas and ideals.... they are funded by multi-billionaires who want nothing more than to take their minimum wage, take their medicair/medicaid, take their forced regulations to reduce safety... yet they are not little puppets

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Master-of-the-Boot In reply to AtheosEmanon [2011-04-06 18:28:00 +0000 UTC]

It's like Mr. Burns convinced Homer Simpson that he was his best friend.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Master-of-the-Boot [2011-04-06 20:40:27 +0000 UTC]

Lmao, I miss the simpsons

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Master-of-the-Boot In reply to AtheosEmanon [2011-04-06 20:42:18 +0000 UTC]

For years and years they were a cornerstone of my life. I know how you feel.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Master-of-the-Boot [2011-04-06 21:03:12 +0000 UTC]

Lmao, I still watch them on youtube ..and family guy

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DeborahJean In reply to zane1193 [2011-03-19 23:14:27 +0000 UTC]

You've got quite a stalker there Emanon. Should turn out to be a good debate, I will be more than happy to follow.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to DeborahJean [2011-03-19 23:17:14 +0000 UTC]

Lmao, I am proud my stalkers wish to entertain me so much.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

OurHandOfSorrow In reply to zane1193 [2011-03-18 17:41:44 +0000 UTC]

Fail.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

zane1193 In reply to OurHandOfSorrow [2011-03-18 17:47:34 +0000 UTC]

NO. Read my other response,that SHOULD explain it to you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AtheosEmanon In reply to zane1193 [2011-03-18 17:40:03 +0000 UTC]

Yes, because everyone knows, that liberal commie propaganda is all about the tea party. I know you probably missed the whole, this is satire.. but great, we will jump on the tea party victim bandwagon.

Yes, because both being to the left meaning they are the same.

To counter your "we are nothing like communists" you do know that communists reject the idea of liberalism as being too soft and not doing enough right? But yes, comrade, it is all a conspiracy.

As per the artist comments "if you are going to take this to heart and start the whining in the comments, spare us both and just go do your own pic comparing liberals to communist… or atheist to eh whatever. "

So, I await your Communist Liberals pic, that will solve it all

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

zane1193 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2011-03-18 17:44:26 +0000 UTC]

Hmmm.Apparently you don't like complements on your work,and you have trouble recognizing humor/sarcasm as well.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to zane1193 [2011-03-18 17:49:32 +0000 UTC]

Yet, given your comments on other things that I have seen, let us not be coy of your intentions. Of your whole "true" Americans being those of rightist persuasion. Though, I do truly look forward to you posting something; please do.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

zane1193 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2011-03-18 17:53:32 +0000 UTC]

It's in the works,GLOBAL WHINING sorry,I mean GLOBAL WARMING will probably be the 1st I do a piece on.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to zane1193 [2011-03-18 17:58:31 +0000 UTC]

Sure man, so does this mean that I cannot expect you to make your own LIBERAL COMMUNISM piece ?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

zane1193 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2011-03-18 18:01:53 +0000 UTC]

I'm going more for a Liberal/Beastiality theme.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to zane1193 [2011-03-18 18:03:18 +0000 UTC]

Sure, whatever floats your boat, comrade. If you like the idea of progression to a state of bestial societal normality. I await to see your piece.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

zane1193 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2011-03-18 18:07:13 +0000 UTC]

As usual,you misunderstand.Right now,Liberals are working hard to legalized Gay Marriage,and arguing that it won't lead to other perversions,such as Legalized Beastiality.However,in some European Countries,it already has.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to zane1193 [2011-03-18 18:14:42 +0000 UTC]

Sure it has man...

So, when can we expect you to post your piece?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

zane1193 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2011-03-18 18:24:04 +0000 UTC]

ROTFLMAO!!!! It IS legal in DENMARK,you're on a computer,LOOK IT UP!!! Also,I found out it was legal from reading about it on a fellow DA members website.Look on it yourself her avatar is HUMON.She explained that PORN was legalized 1st in her country,then GAY MARRIAGE,and then BEASTIALITY.


Then next time you want to be a "Superior smart ass" check the FACTS first.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to zane1193 [2011-03-18 18:26:38 +0000 UTC]

Sure man, gay marriage is what led to it everything that is morally wrong in every country that is wondering about it...

So, I have asked several times, when can we expect you to post your piece?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

zane1193 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2011-03-18 18:33:53 +0000 UTC]

Typical LIBERAL response,when PROVEN wrong/uninformed,NEVER admit it or change the subject.


When I get around to it.So much has happened in the news lately exposing the LIBERAL AGENDA for what it really is that I'm torn as to what to parody 1st.However,Global Whining will most likely be the 1st,followed with a few photos of my friends latest hunting trip(they only shoot LIBERAL deer).

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to zane1193 [2011-03-18 18:36:51 +0000 UTC]

I changed no subject. I disagreed with your premise of gays being the cause. Because everyone knows, that homosexuality, sex between humans, eventually leads to sex with animals...

Sure, sure, if so much has happened then it should be rather easy for you to write something then.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

zane1193 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2011-03-18 18:45:39 +0000 UTC]

Hmmm.Didn't see the "or" in that sentence,did you? You can't ignore HISTORICAL FACTS,wait a minute....you're Liberal,of course you can!!! The progression of the laws in certain European Countries doesn't support your views on this.1st,Porn was legalized,then Gay Marriage,then Beastiality.Legally,I can see the connection,and it was argued successfully in Denmark.That's why you can screw a horse there,if you want to.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to zane1193 [2011-03-18 18:51:34 +0000 UTC]

Yes, I saw it. Since the subject was not changed, merely disagreed upon that makes the statement invalid.

You mean like the facts of several states here not having any laws against it? As with your mentioning of Denmark, if you look it up, they simply have no laws against it, which therefore technically makes it legally since it is not outlawed in the law..

So, once again, I shall await you to post your piece.

Going back and forth here will do nothing... so just post your piece and link it on here.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

zane1193 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2011-03-18 19:07:45 +0000 UTC]

Riiight.


Finally looked something up on the internet,congratulations!They've tried to outlaw it and lost.By the way,thanks for apologizing for doubting me earlier.


Please,hold your breath while you're waiting,just inhale deeply from the Bong and...


Hmmm.We're not in your LIBERAL-COMMUNIST-DICTATORSHIP-UTOPIA yet,so,NO I will not do as ordered and link it anywhere.However,WHEN I post it,I may let you know.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to zane1193 [2011-03-18 19:10:07 +0000 UTC]

So, since in these states where bestiality is legal, or rather, more appropriate, not illegal. Yet, in these states gay marriage is illegal.. then might I ask, how can you then stake the claim of gay marriage/rights leading to the legalization of bestiality?

Sure I apologized... *sarcasm*

How sweet, so are you against the teachings of classical liberalism? Or just when it no longer holds true to your ideals?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

zane1193 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2011-03-18 19:24:12 +0000 UTC]

No one in their right mind would want to have sex with farm animals,LIBERALS/DRUG ADDICTS/MENTALLY DERANGED excepted of course.It probably never occurred to law markers/public to make it illegal."stake the claim"? You meant "state the claim",right? Simple legal progression of civil rights,once Gays can marry,what about Bisexuals?Shouldn't their civil rights be taken into account?So then you have a 3 way legal union.Beastiality would be only a small step from there,and,as you've said it isn't illegal in many areas.



Liberals NEVER do.




I agree with MICHAEL SAVAGE,"LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER".

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to zane1193 [2011-03-18 19:32:33 +0000 UTC]

Yes, state not stake. Thanks.
Bisexuals is on the same boat. If they want to marry someone of the opposite gender, they can, if they want to marry the same gender, they cannot.

So, you are saying that bestiality is a small step to polygamy? Hm, I am sure religions with their history of plural marriages would love to hear that.

Though, you have not answered the question. Since in several of the states where bestiality is legal, and gay marriage/rights are not, how can you then say it leads to it? We are not speaking of future legalities of gay marriage, but modern or past laws on it.

So you are against small government? Individual liberties? free markets? I thought that is what you loved? You are the one who said look up something before speaking on it. Then may I advise you to look up what classical liberalism is. But okay comrade, I await to see whenever you do post your piece.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

zane1193 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2011-03-18 19:44:03 +0000 UTC]

1. true,so far.


2.Riiight. They weren't Homosexual plural marriages,were they?


3.Historically,in some Nations,Beastiality/Homosexuality was punishable by death.The practices were seen for the corrupting deviancy they were.The connection is there,you just don't want to see it.


4.Classical Liberalism and the Modern American Liberal Movement are 2 different things.I oppose the Modern Liberal Agenda,as you well know.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to zane1193 [2011-03-18 19:50:57 +0000 UTC]

Actually the idea of homosexuality being "morally" wrong is a new age concept. If you study Ancient Egypt, Ancient Roman, Ancient Greece, Ancient Japan, etc, you will see the free practice of homosexuality.

So, your premise of homosexuality leading to societal degradation does not hold true. Unless you will say the fall of these empires were because of homosexuality? If so I would rather enjoy hearing that argument.

Yes, and in some nations, homosexuality was accepted as a societal norm, and bestiality was not. So, that does not bolster your argument to say .. in this place it is wrong while in this place it was not.

Which is why I did not combine the two... you assumed I did. I asked simply, are you against the teachings of classical liberalism. Modern liberalism was not mentioned at all.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

zane1193 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2011-03-18 20:05:31 +0000 UTC]

1.Hmmm.I notice you didn't comment on the ISLAMIC/JUDEO-CHRISTAIN stance on Homosexuality,why?


2.Riiight.Ancient Rome fell for a number of Modern Liberal reasons,Homosexuality was but one of many factors.Can you explain something for me? Why are HIV infection rates continuing to rise faster among Homosexual Men than any other group in Developed Nations?


3.Thank you for pointing out that Perverts have existed throughout History.


4.One can be a Classical Liberal and still be opposed to Democracy.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1