Posted on 06/15/2013 4:03:11 PM PDT by NYer
Please note I am asking this politely.
“Equating the corrupt leadership working to betray our Constitution with the millions who served in good faith to preserve our Constitution is a major mistake”
I never equated corrupt leadership with those who served in good faith. I was trying to teach a little history in a very short space to another poster. I honor patriotic Americans and those who served their country.
I wasn't implying you didn't honor those who serve and have served.
It seems to me that ansell12’s posts are somewhat off-topic and also biased.
Sure, you could say that the revolution in Mexico was “Catholics fighting Catholics,” but in fact it was basically Communist ex-Catholics fighting and murdering Priests and other Catholics.
It was much the same as the Civil War in Spain, which was also Communists murdering Priests and other Catholics. Franco was villanized by the leftist media, but he simply chose to fight against the Communist murderers; and he managed to keep Hitler from occupying Spain, which was about as much as he was able to do in the circumstances. He also provided refuge to quite a few Jews who managed to make it out of France into Spain, although the leftist Jews certainly don’t give him any credit for that.
I think narses sometimes gets carried away on these threads, but I don’t entirely blame him.
As for whether the U.S. should have intervened in the Mexican civil war, that’s a different question. Probably not. But Mexico wouldn’t be such a mess even now if not for the class warfare that has gone on down there. The best analysis of what’s wrong with Latin America that I know of is Joseph Conrad’s “Nostromo,” which describes the constant shift of dictators in Latin America from left to right, from Communism to crony capitalism. Not much the U.S. can do about it, although it might help if our Democrat politicians didn’t get so loving with their Communist dictators.
Whereas posters may argue vigorously for and against beliefs on “open” Religion Forum threads it is never tolerable to use ad hominems in religious debate because they invariably lead to flame wars when the subject is one’s deeply held religious beliefs.
For something to be "making it personal" it must be speaking to another Freeper, personally.
"Protestants are heretics" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic" is making it personal. "Catholics worship Mary" is not making it personal. "You worship Mary" is making it personal. "Mormons worship many gods" is not making it personal. "You worship many gods" is making it personal.
However, when a poster paints with a brush that accuses an entire religion of criminal behavior - his post will be pulled as flame bait. For example, posts that say "Protestants kill babies" or "Catholics molest children" or "Mormons kill non-Mormons" will be pulled. However, if the post is specific about a non-Freeper, I will not pull it. For example "Rev. Doe says abortion and infanticide are not sin" or "Father Doe was convicted for molesting those kids" or "Mormons killed non-Mormons at Mountain Meadows" would not be pulled.
Statements formed as questions are rarely "making it personal."
"Are you a heretic" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic" is making it personal.
Forms of "making it personal" include mind reading, attributing motive, accusing another Freeper of telling a lie (because it attributes motive, the intent to deceive) - making the thread "about" individual Freeper(s), following a Freeper from thread to thread and badgering a Freeper over-and-again with the same question.
The words "prevarication" "dishonesty" "slander" "deceit" "calumny" and "subterfuge" are synonymous with "lie" because they entail intent.
Words such as "false" "error" "wrong" "inaccurate" "misstatement" do not attribute motive and are not "making it personal."
Other words push the envelope of motive but are not synonymous with "lie" for purposes of modding the RF. However, they can be "making it personal" if applied to another Freeper, personally, in such a way the discussion becomes "about" the individual Freeper instead of the issues. Those words include "misrepresentation" "detraction" "disinformation" "distortion" "hyperbole" and "doublespeak."
Another example, calling a group of Freepers "anti-Mormon" attributes motive to them as a group which is not technically "making it personal" - but saying that another Freeper, personally, is anti-Mormon instead of anti-MormonISM is an ad hominem. It is "making it personal."
Another example, a poster may say on an “open” RF thread that a particular belief, diety, religious authority, etc. is "Satanic." But he must not say "You are Satanic." That would be "making it personal." The Bible is always a legitimate source on the Religion Forum, so a poster might quote the Bible where Jesus called Peter "Satan." If a post serves no debate purpose (flame bait or 'making it personal' by devious means) - it would be pulled.
When in doubt, avoid the use of the pronoun "you" and Freeper's names - or put yourself in the other guy's shoes.
Not really a new film, watched it on Netflix over a year ago.
I applaud your defense of the Faith! I did not see your correction of erroneous statements about the Church as incendiary, but as this is a private forum, the moderator makes the rules. Think of the RM as a nun with a ruler!
Post 9 was in response to post 8 that describes situations or history in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America, Mexico, Africa and the Middle East, China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia, that I disagreed with and that encompassed my father’s and mine, and my brother’s time in the military, and my nation’s engagement in combat in almost all those areas.
Responding to post 8 made sense, but I think it is right to point out that other posters got way off topic when they tried to get overly involved in Mexican history.
They even avoided the relevant question of which countries were supposed to send their Army’s to Mexico, and why, and if Mexico needed to be invaded, then perhaps the many Catholic nations south of it could have invaded, or perhaps the Catholic nations of Spain, or France could have gone to help.
America did it’s part by taking in hundreds of thousands of refugees from their Catholic nation of Mexico during that period.
Following that act, president for life, FDR, still retained Catholic voters at 73% in 1940 and 1944, and Jewish voters at 90% both of those elections, and the majority of Protestantism voters were voting against the guy, trying to get him out of office.
Everything remained pretty much the same for his veep in 1948, as America's Protestants as a whole were still voting against the administration, but Truman did magnificently with Catholics and Jews.
Yes, some of us lived and served during that 75 years, as nations like the United States gave blood and treasure, freerepublic is full of us.
One often sees an anti-Americanism show up on these threads.
Why is it so hard for many to accept that the vast majority of Jews in America have always wanted to be AMERICANS? So much so that they have always overlooked the plight of their fellow Jews in distant lands.
They’re not American conservatives because that has always meant a measure of Christian primacy if not of outright Christian authoritarianism.
I was responding to your post 61 to me, post 9 was in response to post 8, and I was right to correct that post.
See post 68.
By voting as far left as they can go? Do you think that desiring to be American explains 90% democrat votes and supporting Debs of the Socialist party at 38%?
The conservative vote is the more American.
See post 72.
You left out the second part. A lot of people besides Jews don’t want to live under Christian authoritarianism. The Founding Fathers, for example.
The people orchestrating the persecution were not Catholic, as I have already patiently explained.
I think we can assume that almost everyone involved in the Mexican power struggle was indeed Catholic.
So the Jews are, and the 1780 Americans were, anti-Christian?
The Jewish vote has always been so liberal for in American history, even leftist and socialist in America, not because of politics, but because of the hope that the democrats will suppress Christianity? Is that why they supported Debs by 38%?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.