Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
yes, the article was stupid and about as insightful as anything RSR drags into the backyard. In fact, your second posted link pretty much makes the irony of your motivation as clear as it can ever be.
Oh, you can read minds now? The article is "stupid" to you because it shows you to be nothing but a bleeding heart sentimentalist.
Again, can you post specific examples or are we going to rely on rhetoric and water-cooler stories that someone heard about to prove your accusations? I assure you that it is blatant which of us is bouncing all over the place trying to avoid something.
You're the one avoiding the question I've posted twice now. As far as the schools go, you point to one school where they allow open Christian prayers or where they provide rooms for Christians to pray during schools hours.
Are christians banned from schools? is christians prayer BANNED from schools?
Do you see Christians praying in the schools? Not likely.
no?
then your diatribe kinda falls on its ass, doesn't it?
I think yours just did.
You hardly have a case beyond, ironically enough, subjective judgment just because kids are not allforced to acknowledge your baby jesus as the creater of the earth while forced to pray christian prayers before class.
I'm almost positive your ancestors were monkeys.
as to your question, you assume that god has anything to do with social status.
You're the one assuming I assumed that.
Moreso, you assume that liberals deny the very stratofication that has ALWAYS been a part of every society.
I certainly don't assume that. Liberals want to forcefully take from the rich and give to the poor. They are very class conscious.
Further, in a mad dash to talk shit, you ignore the reality of your own christianity for the sake of coultering up a thread with accusations.
"coultering up"? You hate Ann Coulter? Probably.
Finally, given your obvious assumptions about who deserves equal opportunity and a common living standard it sure take a mastermind to figure out why populations would refrain from your particular dogma.
What assumptions? What particular dogma? What populations?
Your example taints what benevolence your god may have offered.
How so?
by the way... go ask jebus if he was a capitolist right after you ask him why the hell he gathered bread and fishes and then distributed them among the masses. What a fucking liberal socialist, right?
Did Jesus continue to provide bread and fish on a regular basis? Did he instruct others to provide bread and fish to the crowds for all time or did the crowds have to go back home and fish and bake for themselves?
You may be an avid follower of Jesus Christ and I commend you for that.
Why do you disagree with the term "socialist democrat"? I believe it is quite appropriate for your party, especially the left wing which is running things.
What words in red?
I don't see lefties putting down Jesus so much as his zealot followers.
I don't "put down Christians" and I don't know a single democrat who does or ever has. I certainly DO put down the arrogance of the religious right to continue to try and cram their religious icons and their religious agenda down the throat of an increasingly diverse and non-Christian nation. We have NEVER been a "Christian nation"...we have, for the majority of our existence, been a "nation of Christians"....big difference. I am a devout Christian. I am a deacon. I have chaired pastoral search committees, I have preached more than a dozen sermons...I sing each Sunday in the choir. Christ is in my life. I have absolutely no problem with the fact that there are people in America who do NOT have Christ in their lives.... who have Buddha or Mohammad or any other deity in their lives. My faith is in my heart...I practice it in my life, in my home and in my church. I do NOT need to have the iconography of Christianity plastered on the walls of the Department of Motor Vehicles or the Court house or the public school.
Now.... I would love to see the list of ANY liberal who has precluded Christians from worshipping their Lord in their homes, in their churches or in their lives. Liberals do not want a secular society, they want a pluralistic society where everyone is free to worship OR NOT any way they chose as long as their worshipping does not impinge in the rights of others.
It's clueless to think that the Democrats are "socialist democrats".
In countries where social democrats have actually run things, the Dems would be on the right.
SOCIALISM:
Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or worker ownership of the means of production.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Wake up buddy. The far left of the Democrat party today are definitely Socialists, some I'd call Communists. Anyhow it is the far left that is running the Party. They want a redistribution of wealth, socialized medicine, and other collective controls. If that isn't socialism I'll eat my hat.
Well, kudos to you. But excuse me, we have been and still are today, to a great extent, a "Christian nation". That does not mean that we have a theocracy but it does mean that the majority of people in this country are Christian and believe in Christian principles.
You may hate the Republican approach of instituting "morality" into our laws but the flip side is the Democratic approach of instituting forced "morality" by providing too much in "welfare" and being too "forgiving" of crime for example.
Wake up buddy. The far left of the Democrat party today are definitely Socialists, some I'd call Communists. Anyhow it is the far left that is running the Party. They want a redistribution of wealth, socialized medicine, and other collective controls. If that isn't socialism I'll eat my hat.
One thing any reasonable individual of conservative opinion will discern from the average debate with the liberally inclined is that liberal arguments are chock full of sentimentality. Any argument at all will eventually lead to denial on the behalf of the liberal socialist and befuddlement on behalf of the reasonable individual.
The liberal reaction to even the most empirical suggestion is always one of subjective judgment, of judging how things ought to be as opposed to how they are. Liberal socialists are marked by idealism, and so are the thoughts which they often produce. That is why it is often difficult to argue with the liberal: because he cannot think in empirical terms when it is absolutely necessary, his inferences are often contaminated by sentimentality.
By itself sentimentality is not a bad thing; one can think of many circumstances under which it produces good moments. But when it is applied to very important issues such as the way people will live their lives, it is almost always a bad thing. For in this case it often leads to all efforts being directed at pleasing the masses, and the masses are almost never a good judge of what is in the common good, especially when the they are numerous and diverse in opinion.
The foundation upon which almost all liberal socialist ideology is based rests upon the assumption that all are born equal. By extension of this it is inferred that all should share equally in the fruits of society: none are to be granted favor whether it is deserved or not, and none are to be subjected to maltreatment whether of their own making or of an external nature. This argument, which has today virtually developed into a religion among the masses, can hardly be called an empirical one. History has demonstrated repeatedly that it is not true, and the biological sciences have been right behind practically begging for our attention.
Any observant man can surmise quite easily that inequalities exist between men. In fact, no matter the system employed to regulate equality, inequalities have always found a way in which to manifest themselves among men. It is almost a natural process. In fact, that is exactly what it is: a natural process. There has always been the elite and there has always been the poor --- in each and every society that has ever existed. Every form of government short of anarchy has always provided for the maintenence of an elite and the eventuality of the poor.
But the liberal socialist will say it is the impoverished environment that leads to the perpetuation of poverty. Since all men are born equal, but not every man can be guaranteed a share in the fruits of society (thus being in a state of poverty), deprivation will rob a man of his equality since equality will be judged by the accumulation of the fruits of society. This argument we are expected to believe despite the glaring fallacy.
The reasonable man might suggest that poverty is more than just being without the fruits of society (money, property, social status, whatever they may be in a particular society). Thus there is such a thing as intellectual poverty and poverty of potential. Being without possession of these things is enough to virtually guarantee a man a life of poverty. Again, history has shown that though a man might be poor in money, property, or status, if he possesses intellect and potential he can overcome poverty. History has also shown that if a man does not possess these crucial advantages, he may not overcome poverty unless money, property, and status is given to him for no other reason than his impoverished state. That is not to say, however, that a poor man (in the sense of wealth) might be necessarily inferior or that a rich man might be necessarily superior.
The reasonable man might now ask, "How can we determine who possesses intellect and potential? And cannot even those people who possess these things be morally impoverished?" This is clearly a question of virtue, not exactly in terms of what is morally right but what is morally right for the society. One might as well ask, "How do we determine who possesses virtue?" Any man that has intellect, potential, and does what is good for the society is a man that possesses virtue. For a man that has all these things, and does what is good for his fellow men, does good for himself and he is a good man. In other words, it is a man's actions that determines for us whether he has virtue or not.
The liberal socialist might now ask, "Isn't making all men equal doing what is best for all men since inequality is injustice towards men?" It is not what is doing best for all men. Creating equality where it does not exist is to stifle the natural process of our evolution since it robs the superior man of developing his potential and it credits the inferior man with potential he does not have.
But these things the liberal socialist refuses to acknowledge. His concern is one of idealistic fantasies, one of dreams. He looks ahead to the day when men may indeed be equal because all inequalities have been made extinct by the hand of nature, the way it seems to have done in so many other species. He naturally thinks that if we enforce equality now we will have reached that potential, or we may reach it sooner than we will have otherwise. He thinks this without considering for one moment that if equality is to be our future, and it may be, it will come about only as a result of a natural process and not one forced by the hand of man. For now inequalities exist, and there isn't anything we can do about it short of committing ourselves wholeheartedly to the principles of eugenics for the next one-thousand years.
Thus, in exposing the fallacies of liberal socialist thinking we have unraveled the great mystery of the liberal socialist. He is a sentimental idealist.
By Ben Cameron
http://www.stormfront.org/posterity/Viewpts/libsoc.html
yes. One looks at the countries in South America, Central America, and Mexico and one calls them Christian or Catholic countries because the majority of people living there are Catholics. One looks at Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, or Syria and one calls them Muslim nations because Islam is the main religion. One looks at Israel and calls it a Jewish nation. One looks at Spain or Italy and sees them as Christian nations. One also looks at the United States and typically sees a Christian nation. Get over it. (the secularists haven't won just yet)no. a nation of Christians is not the same as a Christian nation. I am a Christian. I believe in Christian principles. I am perfectly OK with the separation of church and state. As I said, my faith in the risen Christ is strong enough that I do not need to see iconography from my faith in public places, especially when it is in places paid for by the tax dollars of people who do NOT share my faith.
Only giving you the basics which you like to ignore. I was pointing out the two different approaches regarding "morality". Liberals like you are always complaining about conservatives inflicting their morality on people, yet liberals are doing exactly the same thing. Liberals inflict their inferior forms of morality on society all the time. Typically liberals want to "give a man a fish" and they pull the sentimental heartstrings with this approach but all it does is bind the man to the government dole. Conservatives want to "teach a man to fish" which would set a man free to provide for himself. Conservatives want equal opportunity under the law, whereas liberals want to rig an equality of outcome which of course never really happens. That's the failure of non-classical liberalism/socialism/communism because it flies in the face of individual freedom.maineman said:And your analysis of why I dislike the republican approach is an excellent synopsis of WHY THE FUCK THERE ARE POLITICAL PARTIES, YOU FUCKING MORON!!!!! Congratulations. You broke the fucking code. People have different views of how people and government ought to react. What a fucking Einstein you are!
Not necessarily. There are many approaches under the heading of "socialism". Some socialists want to nationalize all means of production. Then there are social democrats who want to only selectively nationalize only key industries. Then there are Marxists who advocate central planning of the economy with the State owning everything.maineman said:socialism is government ownership of all the means of production. It is NOT government ownership of SOME of the means of SOME of the production. Do you think that the fact that we have public water systems makes us socialist? Your misuse of the term is infantile and really straight from Rush "Oxy-moron" Limbaugh's playbook. ho-fucking-hum.
There is much confusion about the differences between Socialism and Communism. I created this page to help clarify these differences.
Socialism and Communism
The quick 'n' easy way to remember the difference between Socialism and Communism is: Socialism is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their DEEDS," whereas Communism is "from each according to their ability to each according to their NEEDS."
Socialism is the stage between Capitalism and Communism. It builds upon the previous system (Capitalism) by nationalizing the "means of production" (i.e. corporations, resources, banks, etc.), but not by making everyone equal. In other words, people will be paid wages based on several factors (social need, difficulty, amount of schooling required, etc.), so not everyone will make the same wage -- as is often a misinterpretation of Socialism.
Communism is the point where the state "withers away." This will be quite a few years in the future. If I had to guess, I'd say at least 10 generations of established Socialism has to occur before people evolve enough to realize that hurting others or the system ends up hurting themselves.
As Communists we advocate Socialism because it is the next necessary step to get to Communism. That is, it's not that we've given up on building a house, we just realize there is a need for a sturdy foundation first.
Communists believe in human evolution. We evolve in accordance to the system we live within. Capitalism has allowed us to evolve out of our feudalistic ways (for the most part), and slavery does not exist in our country anymore (for the most part). But Capitalism, which is driven by the need to always increase profits, creates a "dog eat dog" mentality. This is not a sustainable system, either for humankind or for the environment.
Under Socialism people will evolve to the point where they care about each other regardless of their location or race or whatever. If we are to survive as a species, we need to evolve. That's one of the many reasons I'm a Communist.
Finally, one misconception people often have about Communism is that we are looking to make everyone poor. On the contrary, we want everyone to enjoy as much as possible the fruits of our vast wealth.
http://www.geocities.com/commiett/difference.html
::yawn::
::yawn::
typical liberal response
typical liberal response
oh..and by the way....central and south America are nearly homogenous in ethnic population and relition. America is a melting pot. If we encourage the diversity that immigration affords us, we need to accept the fact that not everyone addiing to that diverse melting pot is a Christian or appreciates their tax dollars being used for Christian iconography, or appreciates their children being subject to Christian customs in public schools.
and you can CHANGE the definition of "socialism" to be synonymous with liberalism if you chose. In the same spirit... YOUR party is nothing but a pack or racist nazis.
See how that works?
So to the left, if we do NOT change America for immigrants - we are the racists?
yadda, yadda you sound just like the left wing secularists who want the perversity of diversity and godlessness to grow in our country even though you know about 95% of the people celebrate Christmas in America.oh..and by the way....central and south America are nearly homogenous in ethnic population and relition. America is a melting pot. If we encourage the diversity that immigration affords us, we need to accept the fact that not everyone addiing to that diverse melting pot is a Christian or appreciates their tax dollars being used for Christian iconography, or appreciates their children being subject to Christian customs in public schools.
and you can CHANGE the definition of "socialism" to be synonymous with liberalism if you chose. In the same spirit... YOUR party is nothing but a pack or racist nazis.
See how that works?
