Socialism is evil

[Sallow]

What would interest me is corporations not being taxed or regulated at all, and being completely shut off from the government.

And there's the pickle no one picks up. People talking about "unfettered" capitalism don't know that blade swings both ways. You want unfettered? Sure.

-No more patents or copyrights.
-No more laws on what can be sold. The only criteria is that there is a demand and it makes money.
-No more protection by government to corporations from Unions. Yeah..they got an unfettered right to assemble. Wonder how that would work out around factories without government stepping in.
-No more Government contracts, grants, or loans. Government builds what it needs on it's own.
-No more deference to "brick and mortars". You want to step up a stand to sell stuff? Go for it.

I've been to countries that practice this sort of thing..like Thailand (to a certain extent).

Wonder if Conservatives REALLY want to adopt that model.

If thw wingnuts want to live in a place with a small govt, I suggest Afghanistan. It's the wingnuts wet dream.

Well not really.

They like all the benefits..they just don't like "you" having them.

Conservatives are all about "me" and "mine".

 

[sangha]

And there's the pickle no one picks up. People talking about "unfettered" capitalism don't know that blade swings both ways. You want unfettered? Sure.

-No more patents or copyrights.
-No more laws on what can be sold. The only criteria is that there is a demand and it makes money.
-No more protection by government to corporations from Unions. Yeah..they got an unfettered right to assemble. Wonder how that would work out around factories without government stepping in.
-No more Government contracts, grants, or loans. Government builds what it needs on it's own.
-No more deference to "brick and mortars". You want to step up a stand to sell stuff? Go for it.

I've been to countries that practice this sort of thing..like Thailand (to a certain extent).

Wonder if Conservatives REALLY want to adopt that model.

If thw wingnuts want to live in a place with a small govt, I suggest Afghanistan. It's the wingnuts wet dream.

Well not really.

They like all the benefits..they just don't like "you" having them.

Conservatives are all about "me" and "mine".

They're not just about "me" and "mine". They are also about making sure that others don't get theirs.

The right (there are not conservatives) hates it when others do well. It just reinforces their feelings of failure.

 

[jgarden]

Acts 4:31-35 (The Believers Share Their Possessions)

31 After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.

33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all

34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales

35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

- And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit

- the believers were one in heart and mind.

- No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own,

- but they shared everything they had.

- And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them

- it (money) was distributed to anyone who had need

I'm sure that this selection was placed in the New Testament for no particular purpose and has absolutely no relevance as to how we conduct our affairs in the 21stC.

 

[sangha]

Matthew 4:31-35 (The Believers Share Their Possessions)

31 After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.

33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all

34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales

35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

- And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit

- the believers were one in heart and mind.

- No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own,

- but they shared everything they had.

- And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them

- it (money) was distributed to anyone who had need

I'm sure that this selection was just put in the New Testament as "filler," and has absolutely no relevance for us living in the 21stC.

It's easier to teach a pig to sing than to teach a xtian about what Christ preached

xtians couldn't care less about what Jesus thought

 

[logical4u]

There's different types of Socialism. Marxism is the most often misused and even that has many different variations. The Soviet Union started out as the main example and Vietnam, China, Laos, N. Korea, and Cuba copied a lot of it but practically all of them have made their own changes and reforms to the Marxist system with some of them actually have free markets which makes them really just Fascist Capitalists.

Another example of real life examples of Socialism is the Democratic Socialists. Most of Europe has a democratic socialist party though most of them are just minor parties with little seats in their governments. UK's labour party pre-tony blair is another example of democratic socialists. Clement Attlee was the Prime Minister and leader of the Labour party and is highly rated in opinion polls.

The other type is Social Democracy, which granted changed shaped and purpose over time but has modernly become really the Capitalist Welfare state. Most of the best countries in Europe have had huge social democratic influence and programs.


The thing about Capitalism is that it really could be good if people weren't evil. The same could be said about Socialism by Capitalists, as greed and power can corrupt any system. Capitalism has now become a game of dog eat dog, and usually there's one giant dog who will eat the tiny puppies in our world. Without Socialist influence, if someone can't pay rent their forced out into the streets, if they can't pay for food they go hungry, if they get sick they won't get treated, and if their children grow up they wont' get a proper education.

Even Republican's faith in Jesus should show them that even he didn't believe anything good about rich people. If unregulated they will cut hard working people's pay, hike prices, give no benefits, makes hours longer, make work even harder, make products that do not work or are harmful, and do everything in their power to keep money out of the poor's hand and keep the rest for themselves. Trickle down economics is just a rich man grabbing a huge pile of money and a few people managed to collect a few coins and bills that managed to drop out of his hands while running off with it.


Bill Gates and Warren Buffet already said that it is okay to tax the rich. It's merely taking away money that goes for the greater good, and for the people who have too little. If giving everyone a proper education, healthcare, housing, food, and anything else they can't afford under their Capitalistic machine is evil then there is no word to describe how malevolent Capitalism is.

Capitalism is a motivator, not a government. We live in a country that was established as a "republic". Any system will not work if there are no morals, as you say... evil (that was one of the benefits in having a largely Christian nation, the citizens police themselves for their actions).

If you are taking from producers to the point that they are no longer motivated and stop (or slow their) producing, that leaves a lot less to be given to those that are in need. Walter Williams is correct, it is a type of slavery. I did not hear him suggest that we need to collapse the government and turn to "pure" capitalism. He was laying out facts. What you do with those facts is up to you. Pretending that the statements are not true or trying to dimminish them makes it harder to solve the problems (you aren't really dealing with the problems, you are focusing on symptoms). Reducing the amount of handouts will help make the nation more productive. Is it unfair? Yes. Is life fair? No. Do you want a healthy nation where some people are not lifted to a false level? Or do you prefer an unhealthy nation where people are lifted on credit and falseness that cannot be sustained and will result in the economical collapse of the country? These are questions that people do not want to answer. The answer is simple. Doing it is extremely hard. In this country, we have not had to do "hard" in a very long time. The longer we wait, the "harder" it will be.

 

[logical4u]

Matthew 4:31-35 (The Believers Share Their Possessions)

31 After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.

33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all

34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales

35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

- And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit

- the believers were one in heart and mind.

- No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own,

- but they shared everything they had.

- And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them

- it (money) was distributed to anyone who had need

I'm sure that this selection was just put in the New Testament as "filler," and has absolutely no relevance for us living in the 21stC.

It's easier to teach a pig to sing than to teach a xtian about what Christ preached

xtians couldn't care less about what Jesus thought

That was until the "freeloaders" penetrated the ranks... then:
2 Thessalonians 3:10 (New International Version, ©2010)
10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”


Understand that "need" and "want" are as different as "acceptance" and "tolerance".

 

[sangha]

- And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit

- the believers were one in heart and mind.

- No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own,

- but they shared everything they had.

- And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them

- it (money) was distributed to anyone who had need

I'm sure that this selection was just put in the New Testament as "filler," and has absolutely no relevance for us living in the 21stC.

It's easier to teach a pig to sing than to teach a xtian about what Christ preached

xtians couldn't care less about what Jesus thought

That was until the "freeloaders" penetrated the ranks... then:
2 Thessalonians 3:10 (New International Version, ©2010)
10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”


Understand that "need" and "want" are as different as "acceptance" and "tolerance".

Because for xtians, what Paul said is more important than anything Jesus said or did.

PS - Lenin was very fond of 2 Thessalonians 3:10

 

[shintao]

- And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit

- the believers were one in heart and mind.

- No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own,

- but they shared everything they had.

- And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them

- it (money) was distributed to anyone who had need

I'm sure that this selection was just put in the New Testament as "filler," and has absolutely no relevance for us living in the 21stC.

It's easier to teach a pig to sing than to teach a xtian about what Christ preached

xtians couldn't care less about what Jesus thought

That was until the "freeloaders" penetrated the ranks... then:
2 Thessalonians 3:10 (New International Version, ©2010)
10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”


Understand that "need" and "want" are as different as "acceptance" and "tolerance".

Hmm, where is there anyone unwilling to work? I think there are misers unwilling to share.

 

[logical4u]

And there's the pickle no one picks up. People talking about "unfettered" capitalism don't know that blade swings both ways. You want unfettered? Sure.

-No more patents or copyrights.
-No more laws on what can be sold. The only criteria is that there is a demand and it makes money.
-No more protection by government to corporations from Unions. Yeah..they got an unfettered right to assemble. Wonder how that would work out around factories without government stepping in.
-No more Government contracts, grants, or loans. Government builds what it needs on it's own.
-No more deference to "brick and mortars". You want to step up a stand to sell stuff? Go for it.

I've been to countries that practice this sort of thing..like Thailand (to a certain extent).

Wonder if Conservatives REALLY want to adopt that model.

If thw wingnuts want to live in a place with a small govt, I suggest Afghanistan. It's the wingnuts wet dream.

Well not really.

They like all the benefits..they just don't like "you" having them.

Conservatives are all about "me" and "mine".

No Bill of Rights is in place in Afganistan, it sounds more like a lefties dream: no freedom of speech, no right to bear arms, no protection of personal property. And then the ultimate lefty dream: equal distribution of misery.

 

[sangha]

If thw wingnuts want to live in a place with a small govt, I suggest Afghanistan. It's the wingnuts wet dream.

Well not really.

They like all the benefits..they just don't like "you" having them.

Conservatives are all about "me" and "mine".

No Bill of Rights is in place in Afganistan, it sounds more like a lefties dream: no freedom of speech, no right to bear arms, no protection of personal property. And then the ultimate lefty dream: equal distribution of misery.

Afghanistgan is gun free?

You must be kidding

 

[shintao]

If thw wingnuts want to live in a place with a small govt, I suggest Afghanistan. It's the wingnuts wet dream.

Well not really.

They like all the benefits..they just don't like "you" having them.

Conservatives are all about "me" and "mine".

No Bill of Rights is in place in Afganistan, it sounds more like a lefties dream: no freedom of speech, no right to bear arms, no protection of personal property. And then the ultimate lefty dream: equal distribution of misery.

And what good is a bill of rights that is watered down? Who said Afghans don't have a right to free speech, guns, and their property, with millions rolling in selling drugs to europe? I think you are dreaming. And protection of property? The US military is protecting it.

 

[MikeK]

[...]Did you know before 1960 Blacks had a lower illegitimate rate than whites, a higher employment rate than whites and a lower divorce rate than whites

[...]

I didn't know that but it has captured my interest and I'd like to know more. Would you please provide a link to the source of that fascinating data.

Thank you.

 

[logical4u]

It's easier to teach a pig to sing than to teach a xtian about what Christ preached

xtians couldn't care less about what Jesus thought

That was until the "freeloaders" penetrated the ranks... then:
2 Thessalonians 3:10 (New International Version, ©2010)
10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”


Understand that "need" and "want" are as different as "acceptance" and "tolerance".

Hmm, where is there anyone unwilling to work? I think there a misers unwilling to share.

How many are getting "government assistance" that "can" work, but don't because they can get money without working?

Why should I share the "sweat of my brow" with another's charity cases and not my own charities? Why should the govenrment get to decide who is a charity case and not the local community? The government handouts will always have a huge amount of fraud and waste. Why not make it more efficient by letting local people decide who "needs", what?

 

[sangha]

That was until the "freeloaders" penetrated the ranks... then:
2 Thessalonians 3:10 (New International Version, ©2010)
10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”


Understand that "need" and "want" are as different as "acceptance" and "tolerance".

Hmm, where is there anyone unwilling to work? I think there a misers unwilling to share.

How many are getting "government assistance" that "can" work, but don't because they can get money without working?

Why should I share the "sweat of my brow" with another's charity cases and not my own charities? Why should the govenrment get to decide who is a charity case and not the local community? The government handouts will always have a huge amount of fraud and waste. Why not make it more efficient by letting local people decide who "needs", what?

1) Zero
2) Because that's what Jesus said you should do
3) It's called democracy
4) It's called democracy

 

[logical4u]

It's easier to teach a pig to sing than to teach a xtian about what Christ preached

xtians couldn't care less about what Jesus thought

That was until the "freeloaders" penetrated the ranks... then:
2 Thessalonians 3:10 (New International Version, ©2010)
10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”


Understand that "need" and "want" are as different as "acceptance" and "tolerance".

Because for xtians, what Paul said is more important than anything Jesus said or did.

PS - Lenin was very fond of 2 Thessalonians 3:10

Did Lenin follow Christ?

 

[logical4u]

Hmm, where is there anyone unwilling to work? I think there a misers unwilling to share.

How many are getting "government assistance" that "can" work, but don't because they can get money without working?

Why should I share the "sweat of my brow" with another's charity cases and not my own charities? Why should the govenrment get to decide who is a charity case and not the local community? The government handouts will always have a huge amount of fraud and waste. Why not make it more efficient by letting local people decide who "needs", what?

1) Zero
2) Because that's what Jesus said you should do
3) It's called democracy
4) It's called democracy

Where did Yeshua state that I should give money to the government for the government to give to charity cases?

 

[Intense]

2 Thessalonians Chapter 3

3:1 Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:

3:2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.

3:3 But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil.

3:4 And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you.

3:5 And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ.

3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

3:7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;

3:8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:

3:9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.

3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

3:11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.

3:12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

3:13 But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.

3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

3:15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

3:16 Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord be with you all.

3:17 The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.

3:18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

The Holy Bible Thessalonians&Chapter=3

 

[shintao]

How many are getting "government assistance" that "can" work, but don't because they can get money without working?

I will say 5.

Why should I share the "sweat of my brow" with another's charity cases and not my own charities?

Const.,Art.1,Sec.8, Gen Welf.

Why should the govenrment get to decide who is a charity case and not the local community?

Const.,Art.1,Sec.8, Gen Welf.

The government handouts will always have a huge amount of fraud and waste. Why not make it more efficient by letting local people decide who "needs", what?

Const.,Art.1,Sec.8, Gen Welf.

..........................

 

[MikeK]

[...]

You're in denial. It has already happened. The US is a socialist nation. One of many.

[...]

While there is no question that the New Deal did indeed impose certain significant socialist controls upon what essentially is a capitalist system the U.S. is far from being academically considered a socialist nation. In fact, the economic problems the U.S. presently is experiencing are the direct result of many of FDR's socialist policies being eliminated via reduced taxation, de-regulation of banking and finance practices and modified trade policies. (Thanks to Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush.)

If the U.S. were truly a socialist nation two percent of its population would not be permitted to control forty percent of its wealth.

 

[Intense]

[...]

You're in denial. It has already happened. The US is a socialist nation. One of many.

[...]

While there is no question that the New Deal did indeed impose certain significant socialist controls upon what essentially is a capitalist system the U.S. is far from being academically considered a socialist nation. In fact, the economic problems the U.S. presently is experiencing are the direct result of many of FDR's socialist policies being eliminated via reduced taxation, de-regulation of banking and finance practices and modified trade policies. (Thanks to Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush.)

If the U.S. were truly a socialist nation two percent of its population would not be permitted to control forty percent of its wealth.

Just keep telling yourself that the 2% has no hand in Government and current Government Policy.