Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I doubt 10% of Americans could define socialism as something other than "just like communism! Commie Bastards!"
No, simply nonsense. If you want to see poverty with a socialist safety net, look at us. If you want to see poverty without a socialist safety net, go to India, or Africa.
Get back to me on which you prefer.
Are those the countries with freedom and liberty and the right to pusue happiness? Do they have the freedom of speech and the right to own personal property?
Maybe those are the countries that promised "socialism" and ended up dictatorships or tyranies? Please specify where capitalism was touted in any of those countries.
Capitalism without ethics is anarchy. Socialism destroys ethics.
Capitalism without ethics is unregulated capitalism. Government imposes ethics on capitalism because capitalism in and of itself is amoral.
No, simply nonsense. If you want to see poverty with a socialist safety net, look at us. If you want to see poverty without a socialist safety net, go to India, or Africa.
Get back to me on which you prefer.
Are those the countries with freedom and liberty and the right to pusue happiness? Do they have the freedom of speech and the right to own personal property?
Maybe those are the countries that promised "socialism" and ended up dictatorships or tyranies? Please specify where capitalism was touted in any of those countries.
Capitalism without ethics is anarchy. Socialism destroys ethics.
Capitalism without ethics is unregulated capitalism. Government imposes ethics on capitalism because capitalism in and of itself is amoral.
We "All fall short of the Glory of God", including Christians.
I seriously doubt that all the crooks in the banking industry are not proclaimed Christians, Jews or Muslims, who believe in God.
I seriously doubt all the people in jail, do not have a Christian in their makeup....
If people went according to the laws of G*d
Where there are moral people, capitalism IS the best system.
those for socialism or one of its cousins (communism, facism, etc) want to put their faith in corruptable people
We "All fall short of the Glory of God", including Christians.
I seriously doubt that all the crooks in the banking industry are not proclaimed Christians, Jews or Muslims, who believe in God.
I seriously doubt all the people in jail, do not have a Christian in their makeup....
Thank you. That was my point. Even in a completely religious culture, you still need laws. It is impossible to live up to the theory of "godliness" or "communism" or "socialism". People will find a way to scam the system. That is why law must be added to any culture.
"...If I was an uneducated hillbilly I'd be at a tea party rally right now..."
Excellent come-back my son. BRAVO !
☭proletarian☭;2010833 said:If people went according to the laws of G*d
You mean the laws about keeping slaves, keeping women in their place, and committing genocide?
Where there are moral people, capitalism IS the best system.
Never happened.
those for socialism or one of its cousins (communism, facism, etc) want to put their faith in corruptable people
Fail. You put all at the mercy of the Bourgeois.
Engels described the results.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Condition-Working-England-Oxford-Classics/dp/0192836889]Amazon.com: The Condition of the Working Class in England (Oxford World's Classics) (9780192836885): Friedrich Engels, David McLellan: Books[/ame]
In the 10 Commandments, there is nothing about slavery or keeping women "in their place".
When Yeshua gave the abridged version of G*d's Law (that would be to : love your G*d before all else, and to love your neighbor as yourself) there was nothing of slavery or keeping women (or any other human in their place)
. You are confusing G*d's Laws with a society's laws. There is a difference.
As far a a "moral", capitalistic society, I believe the first one hundred twenty years in this country were about as close as you could come
Can you give any examples of socialism or one of its cousin governments showing anywhere near the success that happened under capitalism for any length of time (that would be time after the gov stole all the wealth from "the rich")?
☭proletarian☭;2019267 said:In the 10 Commandments, there is nothing about slavery or keeping women "in their place".
The ten commandments don't exist. You merely refer to the first ten of many laws given as a part of the old law.
When Yeshua gave the abridged version of G*d's Law (that would be to : love your G*d before all else, and to love your neighbor as yourself) there was nothing of slavery or keeping women (or any other human in their place)
He never spoke out against it
Look again. The OT clearly gives the laws regarding how to capture and treat slaves. It also explicitly commands genocide against the Canaanites, Moabites, Ammorites, and others.
As far a a "moral", capitalistic society, I believe the first one hundred twenty years in this country were about as close as you could come
I'm sure the blacks, women, and the poor in the cities would disagree.
Can you give any examples of socialism or one of its cousin governments showing anywhere near the success that happened under capitalism for any length of time (that would be time after the gov stole all the wealth from "the rich")?
Sure. The United States. All of Europe. Japan. All are socialist nations/societies and have been for some time.
☭proletarian☭;2019267 said:In the 10 Commandments, there is nothing about slavery or keeping women "in their place".
The ten commandments don't exist. You merely refer to the first ten of many laws given as a part of the old law.
He never spoke out against it
Look again. The OT clearly gives the laws regarding how to capture and treat slaves. It also explicitly commands genocide against the Canaanites, Moabites, Ammorites, and others.
I'm sure the blacks, women, and the poor in the cities would disagree.
Sure. The United States. All of Europe. Japan. All are socialist nations/societies and have been for some time.Can you give any examples of socialism or one of its cousin governments showing anywhere near the success that happened under capitalism for any length of time (that would be time after the gov stole all the wealth from "the rich")?
The 10 Commandments were the Laws given to Moses, carved with the Lord's own hand.
The other laws were the result of people trying to get around the first 10. Those laws were decided by the priests of the Hebrews.
Can you tell me why G*d ordered the "genocide"?
Many "blacks, women, and the poor in the cities" were much better off in this country than they would have been, in a similar situation, in any other country at that time
Your example of socialist nations is not acceptable. Those countries have not been socialist for seventy years,
Dust Bowl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl#cite_note-17 In 1935, the federal government formed a Drought Relief Service (DRS) to coordinate relief activities. The DRS bought cattle in counties which were designated emergency areas, for $14 to $20 a head. Animals unfit for human consumption - more than 50 percent at the beginning of the program - were destroyed. The remaining cattle were given to the Federal Surplus Relief Corporation (FSRC) to be used in food distribution to families nationwide. Although it was difficult for farmers to give up their herds, the cattle slaughter program helped many of them avoid bankruptcy. "The government cattle buying program was a God-send to many farmers, as they could not afford to keep their cattle, and the government paid a better price than they could obtain in local markets."[19]
This country is not "socialist"
☭proletarian☭;2020020 said:☭proletarian☭;2019267 said:The ten commandments don't exist. You merely refer to the first ten of many laws given as a part of the old law.
He never spoke out against it
Look again. The OT clearly gives the laws regarding how to capture and treat slaves. It also explicitly commands genocide against the Canaanites, Moabites, Ammorites, and others.
I'm sure the blacks, women, and the poor in the cities would disagree.
Sure. The United States. All of Europe. Japan. All are socialist nations/societies and have been for some time.
The 10 Commandments were the Laws given to Moses, carved with the Lord's own hand.
They were but the first ten several hundred.
Remember that
To break the least commandment was to break them all
Really? Because they're presented as the laws of God, given by the LORD himself.
Realize it or not, you're saying the Torah is not the word of God. This undermines the entire premise of Judaism and Christianity (it actually fits in with Islamic teachings).
proletarian☭;2019267] [/COLOR]
The Bible tells a history, everything in it, is not from G*d. The choices that people made and many of the results were of man. G*d caused man to document important lessons so that man could learn. G*d did not make everything that happened in the Bible "happen" (the things that the Lord DID make happen, are claimed and explained)
Can you give me the verse that states the laws in Leviticus are all from G*d? Yeshua, narrowed those laws down to two, if all the rest were from the Lord, He would not have portrayed the question on divorce the way that He did. Yeshua explained to those that would entrap Him, that the laws were added for people because of their hard hearts and their refusal to obey or hear the Lord.
☭proletarian☭;2020020 said:☭proletarian☭;2019267 said:
Do I care. You will never convince me that anything a man does warrants killing newborn children and ripping the babies from the bellies of pregnant women. Any man who ever ordered such actions would be recognized as a truly evil character. That your god commands such things- no matter what 'justifications' he might give or what race of supermen he might give the orders to- proves that you worship an evil and cruel deity, molded after the darkest corners of your own heart. Any who followed such a man would be recognized as being every bit as evil as himself. To claim the Jews were 'just following orders' excuses them no more than it excuses any other.
proletarian☭;2019267]
So does that mean you are pro-life?
Look up the nephelim and "understand" that they could never have ANY compassion for mankind, or each other. Know that they tortured and killed in ways that were far worse than what you described above. Know that their fathers cursed each other to the point that their offspring could not turn to G*d or goodness, (ie. godliness), but would always HATE mankind and anything produced by mankind. The nephelim were also the very first "slavers" and "slavemasters". The people that the Lord ordered killed by the Hebrews (an extremely mild and weak people at that time), was done to show His power and to eliminate that hatred from that area. If you were one of the "victims" of those "races", I am sure that you would have approved of what the Lord did.
☭proletarian☭;2020020 said:☭proletarian☭;2019267 said:
That's like claiming slaves on one plantation were beaten less than at another. You can't claim to be a bastion of justice and liberties just because you're slightly less evil than the next motherfucker.
proletarian☭;2019267]
No, saying that people were treated better here than in similar circumstances in their own homelands puts it into perspective. At that time the earth was extremely violent. You are implying that this was a "wealthy" nation where all the citizens, but the ones you mentioned had this "fine" standard of living. That is simply not true. I did not say what was done, was not wrong. I said that compared to ANY WHERE ELSE ON THE GLOBE, OVERALL, the people here were treated better, HERE.
Your comment about their treatment would be similar to complaining cars were not used on the Oregan Trail, or for Marco Polo's trip to China.
The treatment of people was not a concern when this nation was formed. You could say that because of this nation (and the Bill of Rights), the entire world looked at how people were treated, differently, and made improvements. Something that "socialists" (and there cousin forms of gov) fail to EVER mention.
☭proletarian☭;2020020 said:☭proletarian☭;2019267 said:
Really? America in the 40's hadn't began any progression towards a more egalitarian and socialist design than it had in the 1700s? Did not women gain suffrage in 1920? The original Social Security Act passed in 1935. It was in the 30's that the Dust Bowl struck, triggering the big-government response known as the Soil Erosion Service. In 1935 we saw the Drought Relief Service
Dust Bowl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl#cite_note-17 In 1935, the federal government formed a Drought Relief Service (DRS) to coordinate relief activities. The DRS bought cattle in counties which were designated emergency areas, for $14 to $20 a head. Animals unfit for human consumption - more than 50 percent at the beginning of the program - were destroyed. The remaining cattle were given to the Federal Surplus Relief Corporation (FSRC) to be used in food distribution to families nationwide. Although it was difficult for farmers to give up their herds, the cattle slaughter program helped many of them avoid bankruptcy. "The government cattle buying program was a God-send to many farmers, as they could not afford to keep their cattle, and the government paid a better price than they could obtain in local markets."[19]
All signs that the US was well on its way to developing into a socialist society.
This country is not "socialist"
Au contraire. This country entered into a socialist stage of development a long time ago, as I have demonstrated with just a few examples of how this has manifested on the national scale.
proletarian☭;2019267]
Moving toward socialism does not mean this country is socialist. People have the "right" to personal property (for now). The government has not taken over all forms of industry (yet). You are allowed to keep a small chunk of what you earn (even though this administration wants more).
In the previous post you listed Japan and European countries as "successful" examples of socialism. I pointed out that "those" countries were rebuilt by this country at the end of WWII. "Those" countries are also "dependent" on the USA for their security (and sovereignty). "those" countries can afford to do "more" for their citizens; we are footing the bill.
I would like you, the one that thinks socialism is sooo great, to name a socialist society that made it (on its own) after it robbed and plundered the wealth of the nation. You haven't done so.
If I may conjecture that American ideas and ideals are more closely associated with self-reliance, free enterprise, and entrepeneurship, what is one to make of the latest Gallup poll?
"Americans are almost uniformly positive in their reactions to three terms: small business, free enterprise, and entrepreneurs. They are divided on big business and the federal government, with roughly as many Americans saying their view is positive as say it is negative. Americans are more positive than negative on capitalism (61% versus 33%) and more negative than positive on socialism (36% to 58%).
Socialism had the lowest percentage positive rating and the highest negative rating of any term tested. Still, more than a third of Americans say they have a positive image of socialism.
Exactly how Americans define "socialism" or what exactly they think of when they hear the word is not known. The research simply measures Americans' reactions when a survey interviewer reads the word to them -- an exercise that helps shed light on connotations associated with this frequently used term.
There are significant differences in reactions to "socialism" across ideological and partisan groups:
A majority of 53% of Democrats have a positive image of socialism, compared to 17% of Republicans.
Sixty-one percent of liberals say their image of socialism is positive, compared to 39% of moderates and 20% of conservatives."
Socialism Viewed Positively by 36% of Americans
It seems that socialism should be included in pantheon of Democrat beliefs.
Capitalism eventually fails because for everyone that wins there are two more who lose.
Capitalism eventually fails because for everyone that wins there are two more who lose.
Proof?
If I want something you have, and you are willing to sell it to me, who loses?
If I produce something different that people want, isn't that a "new form" of wealth?
Socialism: we clean out the warehouse, a big share goes to the leaders, everybody else divides up the rest. We have a big party. It is all gone. All goes well until the first bad year for harvest, then all the "little" people starve, the leaders have enough, and they blame it on the people that starved (they can't fight back), for eating (taking) too much. The hating followers believe them and the cycle starts again. Yes, the life of a serf, sound great, wonder when we will get that system?
