You said socialism and communism were based on the Bible. Having similar rationales and ideals does not demonstrate basis...unless maybe you also think Buddhism is based on the Bible.
RPJ, here's your real history of Russians and liberals
- Thread starter Airport
- Start date
No, I fully expected you to not get the point and then be unnecessarily adversarial in your response ... without trying to understand the point.
Jesus created socialism? Karl Marx has been blamed all these years and all along it was Jesus who is to blame.This guy is an atheist? Who knew?
(I used the Caucasian version for you right wingers.)
Your history education sucks.
Your point is completely clear. Good job on that. Unfortunately it's also completely fallacious.
You said it's rooted in the Bible. Socialism is not rooted in the Bible. It is in fact in part a reaction against the Bible.
It isn't ... but thanks for playing ... there are any number or examples to point to that can be used to show what a purely capitalistic ideology would look like. And it's very much like what I described.
Hey, if conversations are over your head, maybe you should just remain silent.
Never said that ... but please continue to be incorrect in telling me what I said. I'd try to explain it to you, but you'll just keep telling me that it's what I said and I have no interest in pursuing that.
Social injustices is the code word for people aren't responsible for there actions or there lot in life. My grandfather had nothing, a wop, worked hard even changed his name from placido to Jack, put his kids through college, they put their kids through college. While things are not easy for ethnic people, it is there for them if they can over come the built in prejudices and make something of themselves. It wasn't easy for a lot of people but you have to be focused. Welfare makes people not want to achieve.
Rarely do Stanley cup celebrations go on for days at a time with people scared to come out of their apartments.
See, you call it "celebration" and it starts as that, but ends up just being a riot.
"Social injustice" isn't code word for anything. Why did your grandfather change his name? So it wouldn't be obvious he was Italian because of prejudices? Black people can't just pretend they are white. Social injustice ... prejudices that limit opportunity ... seems like tomayto tomahto to me. You grandfather recognized it and had a relatively easy fix for it.
Excuses now are like ********, everybody has one. If life is so bad here, they are free to leave.
Why should they leave? And where would they go? Equality for all is supposed to be promised here. Instead of telling people to leave, maybe we should make good on what's promised.
Let's not pretend a lot of the things about the Italians here....
True story, ya know the Mores...
If you don't get it, Google Dennis Hopper in True Romance
Be careful, he will put you on ignore if you continue to put him in his place, using logic and facts.
BTW. Jesus was about personal responsibility, not government. He was interested in the soul, not tax policy. Render under Caesar and all that. His admonitions to take care of the widows and orphans was about individuals doing the right thing by way of those that need help.
If they have a skill, they probably can emigrate somewhere. If all they are good at is getting a welfare chek, I doubt if a country would let in a free loader. Only the US does that.
Can you sight an example of a purely capitalist society as you discribe it? Of course not. Fallacious.
OK, since you're going to continue this:
Airport said that taking from some to give to others is rooted in Socialism and Communism.
I said that no, it was rooted in the Bible.
So an analogy that maybe you'll understand ...
Airport says "that car is blue"
I say "actually it's red"
So, clearly I'm saying that the car is red ... the way you read and interpret my statement is that I'm saying blue is red.
No, I can't ... because one doesn't exist, because it can't exist, ergo there are elements of socialism in any country with a government running it. I sighted what a purely capitalistic country might look like to show that pure capitalism doesn't work either, it can't work. If it could, it would exist someplace, but it doesn't. So tell me again how that's a fallacious argument.
People act as if we aren't socialist and that socialism is evil, without recognizing all the socialist programs that they benefit from every day.
Is that spoon fed enough for you? Or do I need to blend up the carrots smoother?
Now, you'll just go on about how that wasn't what I said and blah blah blah ... have at it ... you'll get no responses from me because I have no patience for people that don't even try to understand, but instead get argumentative over a point that wasn't even being made.
[laughing]
Do you seriously think the church could provide for all the needs of the less fortunate in this country? and they would do it non-discriminatory?
The bible never says for the govt to take from people to give to other people. That's not in the bible. The bible says render unto ceasar what is ceasar and render unto God what is God's. Tithes to the church. which is where people were supposed to go for help, not govt. The bible talks about helping your fellow man, not the govt taking property and reallocating it. The parable of the talents where you are given talents and are to use them. Socialism and communism is not rooted in the bible.
Before liberals got involved with taking more and more, that was the way it was supposed to be. If fewer people weren't enticed to get on welfare, there would be fewer to take care of. The goal of socialism and liberals is to get more and more on govt dole so they can further their power and control over the huddled masses.
No, the idea of the government doing that isn't in the bible, but the general philosophy of those that have helping those that don't is.
The problem is that even though "God" wanted people to behave this way, he didn't bother to make them this way. With all the power he had to make everybody the way he wanted to, I don't know why he didn't just do that instead of making them flawed and telling them to follow a book ... but that's another story.
People are fundamentally selfish. And even with all the "Christians" on the planet, they do very little to help the people that need help. In fact, they seem intent on opposing any regulation that does.
That's the goal of the GOP too ... they just have different pots they want to put the money in.
The liberals want to give the money directly to the people that need it. The GOP wants to give to those that don't in the hopes that they will be kind enough to provide for the people that need it in the form of jobs and whatnot.
Problem with the liberal way is that generation after generation suck at the govt teat, riot when they need new stuff and generally don't ad anything to society.:smiley:
Versus the ones that benefit from the GOP that crash the entire economy.
Put the people to work, don't follow regulations, injure them and make them sick ... then pull up, leave town, claim bankruptcy so they don't have to pay for the pensions and the damage they've done ... and create the people that need government assistance in the first place.
Or, put thousands of people to work, but at a wage that won't pay anything, and not enough hours to have to cover health insurance ... so these people have jobs but still need government assistance ... meanwhile the people that own these companies are among the richest in the world because all of their profits are subsidized employee by employee by the government.
Your crazy if you don't recognize that big businesses are sucking at the government teat at a much higher cost than the individuals.
The "everybody should have a home no matter if they can't pay for it" belongs to both parties.
Yes, I agree with that. I wasn't talking about that specifically, but that's a recent example of the kind of economic damage I was referencing.
If you want to eliminate jobs, mandate something from on high. Like mandatory healthcare coverage. We have to get away from govt mandating things that businesses have to fund. They just cut employment and make fewer do more. The one thing that keep the economy flat under Obama was Helathcare. Businesses just refused to hire to incur more costs. If you want to stop companies from bankrupting, stop incentivizing businesses to offer retirement plans.
I agree with you on the mandatory healthcare coverage ... to a degree. On the one hand we should have the freedom to buy insurance if we want it, or a business should have the freedom to not offer it if they don't want it. Many do it because they need talent, and talented people won't take a job without it. However, on the other hand, the people without insurance become a burden that everybody bears anyway, so I kind of see it. I don't like it.
I don't know if companies were incentivized to offer those pension packages. I think it was just like everything else, they wanted to be able to have a pool of the best workers to choose from and those pensions made it an attractive job. I could be wrong about that though.
Off this topic but I was listening on the radio and tucker carlson was talking about Perdue Pharma and how many RX there were in one Ohio county for opiods. I believe there was 1=1 per person. Totally ridiculous. This is one area where I agree with you that we need to rein in Perdue Pharma, the docs and the pharmacies. Govt needs to set up how many pills can be shipped to a locality, state pharmaceutical boards need to come down on Pharmacies and docs need to lose their license for over prescribing.
Yeah, there was someplace in WV that was like that too. Like 100 pills for every person in the county or something (I'm sure that number is off, but it was a lot). I agree, the pharmaceutical companies that are shipping such high quantities to lightly populated areas ... the doctors that are prescribing them over and over ... and the pharmacies that are ordering such large quantities all need to be held accountable. They need to be treated just like any corner drug dealer would, if not worse.
Just read an article where Sen. Manchin is introducing a bill that $.01 for every milligram of opioids produced goes into a fund for addiction treatment centers. In the article it said that heroin and opioid OD's have surpassed traffic fatalities as cause of death now.
But, thousands and thousands of opioid prescriptions will be written today for pain ... while weed remains illegal, even medical marijuana. Our country has lost any logic or reason we've ever had. These things make no sense.
I disagree with you about weed since this isn't the weed that was sold back in the 60's, 70'80's. It's much, much stronger now. The Board of Medicine needs to be involved, the state licenses, board of pharmacy and you need a limit on pills that can be shipped to a given population area. I agree with you 100%. It will drive the cost of the pills up that pbody pays out on the street, though.[roll]
I don't know. I have friends that do weed. My neighbors are doing weed all the time. I don't, I can't. Relatively speaking, it seems a helluva lot safer than the prescription opioids. But that's just me. Everything has its risks. You can even drink too much water for crying out loud. (not equating weed with water, just saying you can overdo anything)
I do like it when we eventually find common ground in these discussions. We are in complete agreement on the prescription drugs. The problem that I have with Manchin's proposal is that it isn't taking any of the people responsible to task. However, it does address a need for more treatment centers, only it does so without addressing anything that would diminish the need for them in the first place.