New Pope Is A Commie

[Fishlore]

No one should be surprised that a Pope who came along and more closely reflected the teachings of Jesus than most of his predecessors would be hated by conservatives.

Jesus advocated government redistribution? Where?

The question should be "where in the New Testament is government redistribution advocated by Jesus?" Jesus is a character in a work of fiction written over a century after the events it describes are supposed to have occurred. There is no historical evidence that Jesus ever existed or that the events described in the NT ever occurred. One might as well ask "where in Gone With the Wind does Scarlett O"Hara advocate civil rights for blacks?".

Skipping over the historical aspect of the question, the Jesus portrayed in the NT comes across as a radical, itinerant preacher operating on the fringe of a liberationist insurgency seeking the overthrow of the puppet Herodian monarchy. Government redistribution is a concept that lay millenia into the future. Jesus would have no more commented on the idea than he would have discussed taking selfies.

What Jesus does say about the poor, the ruling Pharisee class and social justice does not support the status quo of his day. The socialism practiced by the Disciples after his death (as recorded in Acts) indicates that his teachings placed in the context of modern society point conclusively to the preferential option for the poor

Pope Frankie is right on the money. Just so's you know...

 

[bripat9643]

Do conservatives realize what total assholes they look like for condemning a man of god for advocating for the poor?

A commie, is a commie, is a commie. He advocated theft on an industrial scale.

 

[bripat9643]

Has anyone defined "legitimate redistribution" yet? What do you call taxes? At least some are legit...

Why not ask that Commie Eisenhower.

He's been dead for 50 years, dingbat.

 

[bripat9643]

Wouldn't it be easier for people like you briarpatty to just come out and say; **** them poor working people. I got mine, **** them.

I mean, that is what you are saying. But for some reason you want to sound nice about it.
Why? Just come out and say what you really think. "**** em if they are poor. It's their own damn fault" That's what you really mean. Right?

Wouldn't it be easier for you just to say that you feel entitled to take what I earned? "Gimme, gimme, gimme" is the libturd motto. I earned every dime I have, and the fact that some welfare slut couldn't keep her legs together and squeezed out a puppy doesn't obligate me or Walmart in any way to feed it.

It's one thing to help people of your own free will. It's another for thugs like you to shake me down at gunpoint and tell me I'm obligated to pay for the irresponsibility of other people.

This ain't about ME briar.

Yeah, it is about you and all your ilk. You're nothing but a gang of thieves. If you want to help the poor then do it with your own money. Don't go around pretending to be "compassionate" when you're hold a gun to my head to so you can extract the cash for your schemes from my wallet.

Save yourself the wear and tear on your fingers.

Just type. "**** them poor working people. I got mine." That is only 8 words and two periods. And very concise. And I am sure how you really feel.

No need to go off on every bad decision a poor person makes.

Just say; fuckem. I got mine.

And you can just type "hand over your money or we'll kill you."

"Gimmee, gimmee, gimmee." What a greedy asshole.

 

[Iceweasel]

The question should be "where in the New Testament is government redistribution advocated by Jesus?" Jesus is a character in a work of fiction written over a century after the events it describes are supposed to have occurred. There is no historical evidence that Jesus ever existed or that the events described in the NT ever occurred. One might as well ask "where in Gone With the Wind does Scarlett O"Hara advocate civil rights for blacks?".

Skipping over the historical aspect of the question, the Jesus portrayed in the NT comes across as a radical, itinerant preacher operating on the fringe of a liberationist insurgency seeking the overthrow of the puppet Herodian monarchy. Government redistribution is a concept that lay millenia into the future. Jesus would have no more commented on the idea than he would have discussed taking selfies.

What Jesus does say about the poor, the ruling Pharisee class and social justice does not support the status quo of his day. The socialism practiced by the Disciples after his death (as recorded in Acts) indicates that his teachings placed in the context of modern society point conclusively to the preferential option for the poor

Pope Frankie is right on the money. Just so's you know...

I agree with your post up to the last paragraph. (and what's with the lime color?)

Many early Christians practiced communal living, not socialist. There were rich Christians, some even owned slaves. Teachings were open to interpretations as Paul and James went to loggerheads over the proselytizing to the gentiles question. the pope is a man, elected by other men that shit like the rest of us. Each with his own bias. I'll respect the socialist opinions better when they give most of their stuff away.

 

[rightwinger]

Do conservatives realize what total assholes they look like for condemning a man of god for advocating for the poor?

A commie, is a commie, is a commie. He advocated theft on an industrial scale.

Keep on mind that the Pope is not overly concerned with Americas poor who have HDTV, Internet and Foodstamps

The pope has seen the worldwide poor firsthand. People who wake up wondering if their kids will eat that day, who fight disease and a hostile climate. He advocates not just that governments get involved, but industry and a billion Catholics

For this, Conservatives feel threatened and they go back to their old standby from years ago.......Commie, Commie, Commie

 

[bripat9643]

Do conservatives realize what total assholes they look like for condemning a man of god for advocating for the poor?

A commie, is a commie, is a commie. He advocated theft on an industrial scale.

Keep on mind that the Pope is not overly concerned with Americas poor who have HDTV, Internet and Foodstamps

The pope has seen the worldwide poor firsthand. People who wake up wondering if their kids will eat that day, who fight disease and a hostile climate. He advocates not just that governments get involved, but industry and a billion Catholics

For this, Conservatives feel threatened and they go back to their old standby from years ago.......Commie, Commie, Commie

The bottom line is that the Pope advocated organized plunder. He's a commie.

Everyone who pays taxes is threatened by what the Pope said. He's no better than a thug, just like you.

 

[MikeK]

Did the Pope give all of his stuff away yet? Just checking.

Where is it suggested that anyone should give away all of their stuff? The only mention of specific amounts has been my recommendation to confiscate personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars and to elevate the tax rate of the super rich to 91%. How many Americans do you know who would be affected by that? And does leaving one with only twenty million dollars amount to taking away "all their stuff?"

How would you like to be left with only twenty million dollars? Do you think you could get along on that? Or would you insist on retaining your multi-billion dollar fortune regardless of how such greedy hoarding affects the national economy?

When our Constitution was being formed it was impossible for its Framers to anticipate the kind of wealth the new Nation would be capable of producing. If they had been capable of such vision you may rest assured they would have imposed reasonable limits on individual accumulation of resources. Because there is a point at which money ceases to be a means of achieving reasonable luxury and becomes raw political power -- which is an insidious threat to national security.

It may be said in the interest of comparison that the need to control accumulation of wealth is analogous to the need to control the level of weaponry the ordinary citizen is permitted to possess. A closet full of rifles and pistols is acceptable. Tanks, rocket launchers and bombs is quite a different situation.

 

[Toro]

I don't agree with this Pope, but the American political right discredits itself by calling everyone who supports wealth redistribution a "communist."

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Just more proof that religion is a crock of shit.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't agree with this Pope, but the American political right discredits itself by calling everyone who supports wealth redistribution a "communist."

Hmmm . . . no they don't.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Just more proof that religion is a crock of shit.

Not to most here but noted.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Just more proof that religion is a crock of shit.

Not to most here but noted.

Perhaps I should have said organized religion. People of faith dont bother me unless they try to influence my life.

 

[Iceweasel]

Did the Pope give all of his stuff away yet? Just checking.

Where is it suggested that anyone should give away all of their stuff? The only mention of specific amounts has been my recommendation to confiscate personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars and to elevate the tax rate of the super rich to 91%. How many Americans do you know who would be affected by that? And does leaving one with only twenty million dollars amount to taking away "all their stuff?"

Are you the pope?
The church is super rich last I checked. How much HAVE they turned over to the poor? You didn't say.

How would you like to be left with only twenty million dollars? Do you think you could get along on that? Or would you insist on retaining your multi-billion dollar fortune regardless of how such greedy hoarding affects the national economy?

If it cost 30 million to run the business 20 million would mean I'd have to close up shop and kick workers out on the street. But the main point is that it isn't your money to decide. You are in no position to define what greed is for someone else. You may be the pope but you aren't God.

When our Constitution was being formed it was impossible for its Framers to anticipate the kind of wealth the new Nation would be capable of producing. If they had been capable of such vision you may rest assured they would have imposed reasonable limits on individual accumulation of resources. Because there is a point at which money ceases to be a means of achieving reasonable luxury and becomes raw political power -- which is an insidious threat to national security.

It may be said in the interest of comparison that the need to control accumulation of wealth is analogous to the need to control the level of weaponry the ordinary citizen is permitted to possess. A closet full of rifles and pistols is acceptable. Tanks, rocket launchers and bombs is quite a different situation.

You are full of it. The founder WERE rich. They were the one percenters. They set up a system where many could prosper. And many have. Suddenly, we have economic geniuses telling us history didn't happen the way it did and we have to share to make things right.

You aren't my baby brother, I feel no obligation to care for you.

 

[Toro]

I don't agree with this Pope, but the American political right discredits itself by calling everyone who supports wealth redistribution a "communist."

Hmmm . . . no they don't.

lol

Hilarious.

 

[MikeK]

If it cost 30 million to run the business 20 million would mean I'd have to close up shop and kick workers out on the street.

Corporate assets are separate from personal assets. (See, you've learned something already.) You could own and operate a fifty billion dollar corporation but your personal assets may not exceed twenty million. And if you get caught "mingling" funds it could mean twenty years in Leavenworth.

But the main point is that it isn't your money to decide. You are in no position to define what greed is for someone else. You may be the pope but you aren't God.

You should tell that to the IRS and learn what they have to say about it.

So be happy with your twenty million dollars. If you need a little psychotherapy to deal with losing your fifty billion dollar fortune you'll soon adjust.

 

[MikeK]

[Iceweasel;9075358]You are full of it. The founder WERE rich. They were the one percenters. They set up a system where many could prosper. And many have. Suddenly, we have economic geniuses telling us history didn't happen the way it did and we have to share to make things right.

Yes. They were rich. And having twenty million in personal assets is rich, too! But there is a difference between wealth and excessive wealth. The Founders had no way of anticipating the kind of wealth it would be possible to accumulate in the intricate society they were laying the groundwork for.

Again, if they could have seen the future you are assured they would have provided a measure of control to avoid the kind of raw power excess wealth would afford. Or do you believe they would have been tolerant of the idea that America would be turning into an oligarchy -- which is happening today?

Think!

 

[regent]

Did the Pope give all of his stuff away yet? Just checking.

Where is it suggested that anyone should give away all of their stuff? The only mention of specific amounts has been my recommendation to confiscate personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars and to elevate the tax rate of the super rich to 91%. How many Americans do you know who would be affected by that? And does leaving one with only twenty million dollars amount to taking away "all their stuff?"

How would you like to be left with only twenty million dollars? Do you think you could get along on that? Or would you insist on retaining your multi-billion dollar fortune regardless of how such greedy hoarding affects the national economy?

When our Constitution was being formed it was impossible for its Framers to anticipate the kind of wealth the new Nation would be capable of producing. If they had been capable of such vision you may rest assured they would have imposed reasonable limits on individual accumulation of resources. Because there is a point at which money ceases to be a means of achieving reasonable luxury and becomes raw political power -- which is an insidious threat to national security.

It may be said in the interest of comparison that the need to control accumulation of wealth is analogous to the need to control the level of weaponry the ordinary citizen is permitted to possess. A closet full of rifles and pistols is acceptable. Tanks, rocket launchers and bombs is quite a different situation.

When the Constitution was being framed most Americans were farmers, land was almost free, and the concern of some of the framers was the new emerging manufacturing industry. To aid this new interest the government passed tariffs to "help our infant industries." The framers probably could not see that manufacturing was to change our nation in that it gave us a new set of economic and social problems, and America is still trying to find answers for those problems today. But slavery is gone and we have Social Security and other social programs to help. Someday we may have job guarantees, maybe not?

 

[bravoactual]

You take the word of a convicted drug addict?

 

[MikeK]

When the Constitution was being framed most Americans were farmers, land was almost free, and the concern of some of the framers was the new emerging manufacturing industry. To aid this new interest the government passed tariffs to "help our infant industries." The framers probably could not see that manufacturing was to change our nation in that it gave us a new set of economic and social problems, and America is still trying to find answers for those problems today. But slavery is gone and we have Social Security and other social programs to help. Someday we may have job guarantees, maybe not?

Unless we manage to impose rigid controls over the acquisition of wealth and its influence on our representative government we are headed straight for oligarchic rule, the initial stages of which are staring us right in the face.

Slavery in its simplistic form may be gone but America already has experienced an era of wage slavery and the clear objective of the monied shadow government is to resurrect that abomination. It is critically important that we counteract that laissez-faire capitalist ambition by resurrecting the union movement and begin replacing the vertically upward siphoning of this Nation's wealth with horizontal re-distribution.

What I'm talking about is a radical political revolution! And one way to get it moving is to draft Bernie Sanders and vote for him in 2016. America is in desperate need of a socialist influence.