"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"— that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.
I think calling someone a Nazi lands somewhere between lame and tasteless.
Help me out: how does pointing out that a symbol is an acronym comprised of other symbols, e.g. . .
. .
Well, every time you (and not just you, but a lot of conservative Christians) protest against the Left or Progressives or wish somebody go after Obama or Congress or the Feds for all the illegal shit they do (and I'm not saying they aren't doing it), you are not following the Lord's word to turn the other cheek.
Some principles of Biblical analysis are:
(a) take the whole counsel of God, that is, every principle you draw should be in harmony with the rest of it, and you shouldn't be cherry-picking lone bits, merely because they seem to make a convenient point,
(b) take every utterance in context, the full who/what/where/when/why/how.
And so (you) make a good point that running around being vengeful is not in keeping with much of any of the positive message of the Word.
Also not in keeping: being a doormat, or tolerating injustice.
Is your opinion of the Bible and its teachings so simplistic and bloody-minded that you think, as a logical consequence, it should render human beings as doormats?
Every week you give another example of where you ignore some of His' teachings in favor of others.
As someone who takes the Gospel more seriously than pretty much anything else, I have to ask for specifics on where you think I'm off course.
You are conveniently ignoring the fact that a political party - or a politician - can call itself whatever it wants.
Denying that the Nazis and Soviets claimed Socialism would be akin to rejecting Pres'ent Obama when he refers to "my Christian faith". I don't know precisely what he means by that formulation, to look at his record, but I have to own the fact that, by his words, at least his lips are "saved". I'm certainly lacking the divine database to evaluate the claim, and thus must take the Nazis, Soviets, and Obama at face value.
the common malcontent millennial armed with dozens of mod points around here, trained from birth to rail at every iniquity, but they are naive;
So, first you have a go at millennials for being worried about corruptiuon...
Between the `drug war,' our welfare state, piratic corporate governance and ever greater abuse of power by our government, we are rapidly catching up.
Then you say their worries are justified.
Which is it?
If Christ is the meaning of life then why do you cherry pick only some of his words and deeds when describing things you consider virtuous? Shouldn't you take him in his entirety?
What makes you think I don't?
While I will continue to point out that Marx's communist ideals have essentially never even come close to being realized for any population over a few hundred anywhere at any time, your continued insistence on confusing communism and socialism is quite simply silly.
Trumped by your desperate attempts to differentiate them by, like, an order of magnitude. National Socialist German Workers Party. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Own it.
The Liberal government got in on the narrowest of margins due entirely to a series of dodgy preference deals.
Rewrite history much? The Coalition won 90 seats; Labor won 55. It wasn't only most definitively not a narrow margin, it was one of the most decisive elections in recent history. Preferences deals aren't even relevant in the lower house, which is what determines who forms government; preference deals only happen with the Senate, and all the squawking about preferences this election wasn't to do with the coalition; it was to do with the minor parties, who finally got around to exploiting the preferential system the way the major parties have for years, and won a handful of seats, such that they hold the balance of power in the Senate (as long as the Greens vote in a bloc with Labor, which so far, they have).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Above that, they didn't advertise their polices, their entire campaign was based on "hate Labor". The Libs didn't even release a fiscal policy until after the election. Thats how bad they were. Their entire campaign was based on flinging shit at Rudd... Nothing more.
They didn't even need to do that. The Labor party self-destructed - they couldn't even keep the same prime minister for a whole term during the last six years. It was the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd backstabbing powerplay that won the Coalition the election.
Please stop pretending you know anything about the current government in Australia, Australians or anything about Australia in General.
Right back at you buddy.
Memory fault -- brain fried