Right Wing Discussion Thread XI: It's Okay To Be Right

[Reikoku]

Mostly civilians. What big, strong, Aryan supermen! =^)

Behold, my child, the Nordic man,
And be as like him, as you can;
His legs are long, his mind is slow,
His hair is lank and made of tow.

[Incendiar]

What do you guys think about the electoral college? I think we should replace it with something like how prime minister of UK is chosen. Oh and house in that case will be proportional instead of 435 little FPTP elections.

I don't think it's a horrible idea, but it needs some amendments if it's going to be kept. For one, the all or nothing rule is absurd. If that was taken away, politicians would actually care about all the states. The results would also more accurately represent the feelings of the American populace. Although, in my opinion, the best way to go is by the majority. We have the technology to make every vote count, why not do it? However, the electoral college does give smaller, more rural states a voice and I can see the merits in that.

[The Parkus Empire]

A state of exception is a state of emergency which threatens the very existence of the state

When you are president, you can intemperate it as such. Never mind when you miss out on buying Canada North Minnesota.

Using it to justify breaking the law outside of actual emergency is what's called tyranny

[West Leas Oros]

A state of exception is a state of emergency which threatens the very existence of the state

When you are president, you can intemperate it as such. Never mind when you miss out on buying Canada North Minnesota.

As a Minnesotan, I assure you that Minnesota has been secretly watching and judging you for your sins. Do not take the name of Minnesota in vain, you betcha. Uff da.

[Oil exporting People]

Edit: It seems it is Pat Buchanan who has written that piece, I shouldn't be surprised in that case as to the tone. OEP will glad to see his favorite author at work.

Can confirm, although I haven't read much from him as of late.

[Oil exporting People]

Evidently not.

Mostly civilians. What big, strong, Aryan supermen! =^)

Even just counting military causalities still exceed Jewish losses in the war; Krivosheev estimated between 8 to 9, while some others have been as high as 14.

On a more serious note, I don't condone the murder of innocents.

[Republic of the Cristo]

When you are president, you can intemperate it as such. Never mind when you miss out on buying Canada North Minnesota.

Using it to justify breaking the law outside of actual emergency is what's called tyranny

There are no laws on how to interpretate the constitution. There is 250 years of judicial precedent though.

And leaving your countrymen out to dry because of ideology, is called zealotry.

[Reikoku]

Mostly civilians. What big, strong, Aryan supermen! =^)

Even just counting military causalities still exceed Jewish losses in the war; Krivosheev estimated between 8 to 9, while some others have been as high as 14.

On a more serious note, I don't condone the murder of innocents.

No, you just support the imperialism which leads to them being murdered.

[The Parkus Empire]

Using it to justify breaking the law outside of actual emergency is what's called tyranny

There are no laws on how to interpretate the constitution. There is 250 years of judicial precedent though.

And leaving your countrymen out to dry because of ideology, is called zealotry.

And until the 20th Century those years used William Blacktstone's jurisprudence as their framework for interpretation

I am not going to support wronging Indians and Mexicans for my own country's benefit, Goddamn all that

[Oil exporting People]

Even just counting military causalities still exceed Jewish losses in the war; Krivosheev estimated between 8 to 9, while some others have been as high as 14.

On a more serious note, I don't condone the murder of innocents.

No, you just support the imperialism which leads to them being murdered.

Apples to Oranges; the National Socialist war against Bolshevism took on the rather particular character of ethnic war that separates it for the most part from general Imperialism.

[Conserative Morality]

There are no laws on how to interpretate the constitution. There is 250 years of judicial precedent though.

And leaving your countrymen out to dry because of ideology, is called zealotry.

And until the 20th Century those years used William Blacktstone's jurisprudence as their framework for interpretation

...

I am not going to support wronging Indians and Mexicans for my own country's benefit, Goddamn all that

Your previously stated opinions call that into question.

[The Parkus Empire]

And until the 20th Century those years used William Blacktstone's jurisprudence as their framework for interpretation

...

I am not going to support wronging Indians and Mexicans for my own country's benefit, Goddamn all that

Your previously stated opinions call that into question.

Ah, nope. Natural rights. The only way they were ever subverted is racism, and Gouverneur Morris observed early on there was a serious cognitive dissonance in the legal system because of this.

[Reikoku]

No, you just support the imperialism which leads to them being murdered.

Apples to Oranges; the National Socialist war against Bolshevism took on the rather particular character of ethnic war that separates it for the most part from general Imperialism.

The Nazi invasion of Eastern Europe was undoubtedly the bloodiest form of imperialism, but it's not as though atrocities were out of the ordinary in colonial empires. The Italian, Japanese, British, and French empires all have skeletons in the closet that they don't want to confront.

It's pretty strange to support imperialism while at the same time believing that internationalism is immoral. Suppressing nationalism in the colonies is always in the best interest of empires.

[Republic of the Cristo]

...

Your previously stated opinions call that into question.

Ah, nope. Natural rights. The only way they were ever subverted is racism, and Gouverneur Morris observed early on there was a serious cognitive dissonance in the legal system because of this.

Natural rights - the foundation of liberalism.

And from where do these rights come from? Natural, obviously, incurs that they cannot be derived from the state. Can these rights be viewed scientifically? No? Than there is by only one other method for which we can measure these supposed rights: God.

You and I are both Christians, Orthodox at that. Simply as an appeal to authority, I've never seen the GOAA report that there are human rights intrinsic to God's plan. And I have even seen the ROC in an article outlining Orthodoxy and human rights, state that human rights are, quote, " Not a divine institution ".

Within God's plans, I have never heard of any so called rights. Though, I have heard of many obligations and duties.

At least to me, it appears that it is Locke who gives us rights, not God.

[Pilarcraft]

Ah, nope. Natural rights. The only way they were ever subverted is racism, and Gouverneur Morris observed early on there was a serious cognitive dissonance in the legal system because of this.

Natural rights - the foundation of liberalism.

And from where do these rights come from? Natural, obviously, incurs that they cannot be derived from the state. Can these rights be viewed scientifically? No? Than there is by only one other method for which we can measure these supposed rights: God.

You and I are both Christians, Orthodox at that. Simply as an appeal to authority, I've never seen the GOAA report that there are human rights intrinsic to God's plan. And I have even seen the ROC in an article outlining Orthodoxy and human rights, state that human rights are, quote, " Not a divine institution ".

Within God's plans, I have never heard of any so called rights. Though, I have heard of many obligations and duties.

At least to me, it appears that it is Locke who gives us rights, not God.

(I mean, technically it's Cicero)

[Republic of the Cristo]

Natural rights - the foundation of liberalism.

And from where do these rights come from? Natural, obviously, incurs that they cannot be derived from the state. Can these rights be viewed scientifically? No? Than there is by only one other method for which we can measure these supposed rights: God.

You and I are both Christians, Orthodox at that. Simply as an appeal to authority, I've never seen the GOAA report that there are human rights intrinsic to God's plan. And I have even seen the ROC in an article outlining Orthodoxy and human rights, state that human rights are, quote, " Not a divine institution ".

Within God's plans, I have never heard of any so called rights. Though, I have heard of many obligations and duties.

At least to me, it appears that it is Locke who gives us rights, not God.

(I mean, technically it's Cicero)

I was going to respond with, " Shut up in latin "

but the translations I go back were absolutely hilarious and so very far off.

So, I guess... Propter mandatum assume latine?

Edit:

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, DO NOT MENTION ANYTHING RELATING TO ROME ON THIS THREAD EVER!

[The Parkus Empire]

Ah, nope. Natural rights. The only way they were ever subverted is racism, and Gouverneur Morris observed early on there was a serious cognitive dissonance in the legal system because of this.

Natural rights - the foundation of liberalism.

And from where do these rights come from? Natural, obviously, incurs that they cannot be derived from the state. Can these rights be viewed scientifically? No? Than there is by only one other method for which we can measure these supposed rights: God.

You and I are both Christians, Orthodox at that. Simply as an appeal to authority, I've never seen the GOAA report that there are human rights intrinsic to God's plan. And I have even seen the ROC in an article outlining Orthodoxy and human rights, state that human rights are, quote, " Not a divine institution ".

Within God's plans, I have never heard of any so called rights. Though, I have heard of many obligations and duties.

At least to me, it appears that it is Locke who gives us rights, not God.

Natural rights are from natural law. According to Blackstone, natural law does indeed come from God, hence why the state does not furnish it. In Blackstone's jurisprudence God furnishes two laws, natural and revealed, neither of which the state is above.

The document you reference is about contemporary human rights, which have nothing to do with natural rights.

[Republic of the Cristo]

Natural rights - the foundation of liberalism.

And from where do these rights come from? Natural, obviously, incurs that they cannot be derived from the state. Can these rights be viewed scientifically? No? Than there is by only one other method for which we can measure these supposed rights: God.

You and I are both Christians, Orthodox at that. Simply as an appeal to authority, I've never seen the GOAA report that there are human rights intrinsic to God's plan. And I have even seen the ROC in an article outlining Orthodoxy and human rights, state that human rights are, quote, " Not a divine institution ".

Within God's plans, I have never heard of any so called rights. Though, I have heard of many obligations and duties.

At least to me, it appears that it is Locke who gives us rights, not God.

Natural rights are from natural law. According to Blackstone, natural law does indeed come from God, hence why the state does not furnish it. In Blackstone's jurisprudence God furnishes two laws, natural and revealed, neither of which the state is above.

The document you reference is about contemporary human rights, which have nothing to do with natural rights.

And the word of William Blackstone is supreme why?

[The Parkus Empire]

From the document you cited

"It is inadmissible to introduce in the area of human rights the norms that obliterate or altogether cancel both the Gospel and natural morality."

This is acknowledging natural law, and saying rights which conflict with natural law are inadmissible. Rights which conflict with natural law are clearly not natural rights.

[The Parkus Empire]

Natural rights are from natural law. According to Blackstone, natural law does indeed come from God, hence why the state does not furnish it. In Blackstone's jurisprudence God furnishes two laws, natural and revealed, neither of which the state is above.

The document you reference is about contemporary human rights, which have nothing to do with natural rights.

And the word of William Blackstone is supreme why?

Do you disagree with him here, that the state is not above revealed or natural law?

[Republic of the Cristo]

From the document you cited

"It is inadmissible to introduce in the area of human rights the norms that obliterate or altogether cancel both the Gospel and natural morality."

This is acknowledging natural law, and saying rights which conflict with natural law are inadmissible. Rights which conflict with natural law are clearly not natural rights.

Laws do not require rights. Natural law, meaning the commands of God, do exist - but that doesn't mean we are somehow endowed with rights.

Rights are a relatively new concept for the most the worlds governments.

[Republic of the Cristo]

And the word of William Blackstone is supreme why?

Do you disagree with him here, that the state is not above revealed or natural law?

No earthly body is above the word of God - but none of his words speak of rights.

Except, perhaps, for dominion over the Earth. But this is more of a material thing than a political one.

[The Parkus Empire]

From the document you cited

"It is inadmissible to introduce in the area of human rights the norms that obliterate or altogether cancel both the Gospel and natural morality."

This is acknowledging natural law, and saying rights which conflict with natural law are inadmissible. Rights which conflict with natural law are clearly not natural rights.

Laws do not require rights. Natural law, meaning the commands of God, do exist - but that doesn't mean we are somehow endowed with rights.

Rights are a relatively new concept for the most the worlds governments.

If you mean natural rights, that's correct. Because Christian jurisprudence was a very late development when it came to state law; prior to that, pagan jurisprudence was what everyone largely used

[Zanera]

Is everyone there obese?

Nearly everyone, yeah.

See those red splotches in east WV?

I guess this is where Virginia and West Virginia are truly separation-worthy states.

[Gim]

From the document you cited

"It is inadmissible to introduce in the area of human rights the norms that obliterate or altogether cancel both the Gospel and natural morality."

This is acknowledging natural law, and saying rights which conflict with natural law are inadmissible. Rights which conflict with natural law are clearly not natural rights.

Natural morality? Do you, perchance, mean the morality of living things of nature other than human being? This is as hard to fathom as some of Kant's essays.