The Christian right seeks cultural and political domination

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Bone75

Some members do NOT understand what "socialism" is. Perhaps it's time for a new thread to actually discuss it.
What happened in China and Russia and Japan - with their killing many millions of people - was not about "socialism."

My response to those who un-realistically fear socialism is: "I like sewers".

I also enjoy roads that are maintained. Can you imagine everyone responsible for individually building and maintaining the road in front of their property?

And you're right about communism. Few bother to learn/research fact.

Religion is a male dominated man made form of mind control IMO. Fundamental religion is oppressive to women in its makeup alone without adding a ridiculous law.

As I previously stated, Hobby Lobby is not going to stop buying supplies from China, a country that has forced abortion. No, they went after women's reproductive rights.

a reply to: ketsuko

Except for one thing - the STATE does nothing to produce wealth. Name me one thing our government does to produce wealth. Even if you presume that the STATE owns all, it still does nothing to produce. Only we do that. I produce by working, my husband produces by working. WE are not the STATE, unless you also presume that the state also owns US. In that case, you advocate slavery.

Um...the STATE provides people with food and shelter so that THEY CAN WORK, which provides the WEALTH that is hoarded by the megacorps - who then expect the "socialist" part of our country to pull up the slack to FEED THEM and HOUSE THEM.

I advocate slavery?!!!


I have nothing more to say to you. Except for one thing - like I said very early in the thread - do some reading.
LEARN WHAT SOCIALISM IS.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Some obvious facts about what Democratic Socialism has produced in the U.S....

The Socialist programs have successfully compartmentalized the districts with the highest crime rates and poverty levels that coincidentally vote 90% plus for Democrat candidates. This is nationwide, not just a few "pockets".

Most of those districts also have a majority of Christians that vote for Liberal Democrats.

Hmmm.

And the continuing problems keep getting worse, not better.

And we see nobody with a clear solution.

Hmmm.

Big quagmire.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ketsuko

Except for one thing - the STATE does nothing to produce wealth. Name me one thing our government does to produce wealth. Even if you presume that the STATE owns all, it still does nothing to produce. Only we do that. I produce by working, my husband produces by working. WE are not the STATE, unless you also presume that the state also owns US. In that case, you advocate slavery.

Um...the STATE provides people with food and shelter so that THEY CAN WORK, which provides the WEALTH that is hoarded by the megacorps - who then expect the "socialist" part of our country to pull up the slack to FEED THEM and HOUSE THEM.

I advocate slavery?!!!

I have nothing more to say to you. Except for one thing - like I said very early in the thread - do some reading.
LEARN WHAT SOCIALISM IS.

Where does the food and shelter the state provides coming from?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Thanks with a small caveat... lol

It is distribution of the collective wealth of a state that ensures NO ONE starves, suffers needlessly, or is rendered helpless, homeless and alone. It's not that everyone has only one outfit, one room, two books, and half a loaf of bread. No. NONONO. It allows for people to have "more" depending on their contributions than others - but at the same time, NO ONE FALLS THROUGH THE CRACKS.

That is more along the lines of Collectivism which a lot of Socialists are BUT Socialism itself isn't distributive. Socialism is only one thing, worker ownership of the means of production... no owners, ceo's etc.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Where does the food and shelter the state provides coming from?

The same place your street came from...

the earth

a reply to: NavyDoc

In the 1886 case Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific, the Chief Justice Waite of the Supreme Court orally directed the lawyers that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause guarantees constitutional protections to corporations in addition to natural persons, and the oral argument should focus on other issues in the case.

"Orally directed" isn't the same a written ruling. Sorry, but that case doesn't set the precedent that you think it does.

A state statute specified fences as a form of land improvement. The decision famously implied that equal protection laws provided by the Fourteenth Amendment applied to corporations, but the opinion did not explicitly state this.
www.oyez.org...

The court's actual decision was uncontroversial. A unanimous decision, written by Justice Harlan, ruled on the matter of fences, holding that the state of California illegally included the fences running beside the tracks in its assessment of the total value of the railroad's property. As a result, the county could not collect taxes from Southern Pacific that it was not allowed to collect in the first place.

Thus the Supreme Court's actual decision never hinged on the equal protection claims. Nevertheless, the case has been allowed to have clear constitutional consequences, as it has been subsequently taken to affirm the protection of corporations under the Fourteenth Amendment. At the very least, this is a wrinkle in the normal understanding of the workings of the Court's tradition of stare decisis – the reliance on precedence. It is an instance in which a statement which is neither part of the ruling of the Court, nor part of the opinion of a majority or dissenting minority of the Court has been taken as precedent for subsequent decisions of the Court.
en.wikipedia.org...

Corporations are legal fictitious entities, for profit corporations are designed for profit, while non-profit unions are created to represent the philosophical views and rights of it's members. Neither are sovereign entities.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Where does the STATE get the money? It takes it out of people's pockets. The state does not produce the money itself. It steals.

Now, there are a few, very few legitimate functions of government. Most of those are best done locally on the small scale, not on a Federal level by a leviathan kleptocratic state that now borrows more cents on every dollar it spends than it actually takes from people because it has grown itself that large.

It cannot steal enough from us to provide all it promises. In short, it has run out of other people's money to redistribute, so now we are all waiting for it to collapse into a communist dictatorship.

But I have to ask you, since you seem to think what I said unreasonable, how much money is my fair share (or anyone's for that matter) to pay to the STATE? How much should I owe for a range of services, most of which I never use and will never use? And don't boil this down to the old "I like police and fire" as those are solely local concerns. I'm talking about the welfare state which is largely federal.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Also, it looks really good on paper. You'll find no argument from me. I understand that socialism looks really good on paper because I have read about it, but in reality it never works because humans being what they are ... they exploit the system to their own ends either for greed or for power.

I believe I've had this discussion with you on a Religion thread, so I know you know I know what socialism is as envisioned by the utopians of the world.

It's too bad you'll never find the perfect humans to run it.

originally posted by: ketsuko




But I have to ask you, since you seem to think what I said unreasonable, how much money is my fair share (or anyone's for that matter) to pay to the STATE? How much should I owe for a range of services, most of which I never use and will never use? And don't boil this down to the old "I like police and fire" as those are solely local concerns. I'm talking about the welfare state which is largely federal.

Are you refering to the corporate welfare state and the military industrial complex that is federally funded or do you just want to rag on the poor.

www.forbes.com...

costsofwar.org...

originally posted by: ketsuko

I understand that socialism looks really good on paper because I have read about it, but in reality it never works because humans being what they are ... they exploit the system to their own ends either for greed or for power.

You can say the same about all the "ism" ways of doing things. Doesn't matter if it's Communism, Capitalism, etc. Obviously some are destructive right from the start while others become destructive as time goes on but they all fall prey to the same problem. Greed for More Power and a disregard as to how one obtains it.

originally posted by: manna2
Would it help you if i state Stalin made the changes where he coined it "material dialectic? Its a system that morphs and in regards to it being implemented in the political spectrum, as in Stalin, we can see how beating concepts and ideals to death running them endlessly through the dialectic ringer you see how social engineers have used it being able to conform known absolutes into subjective shadows. To you its x's and o's. To me its a political tool being used to deprave society.a reply to: Chiftel

You're not making very much sense.

What absolutes are those?

Can you enumerate a few of these 'absolutes'?

Are you familiar with the concept of solipsism? How do you even KNOW there is such a thing as absolutes?

How do you know I am real and not just a figment of your imagination?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Also, it looks really good on paper. You'll find no argument from me. I understand that socialism looks really good on paper because I have read about it, but in reality it never works because humans being what they are ... they exploit the system to their own ends either for greed or for power.

Perhaps you should get out more and travel to some of the Socialist states like Sweden or Denmark.
They infact enjoy a higher standard of living than the US.

www.forbes.com...

They also are happier. Imagine that!


emsnews.wordpress.com...

Lay off Rush for a little bit and do some real research...

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Also, it looks really good on paper. You'll find no argument from me. I understand that socialism looks really good on paper because I have read about it, but in reality it never works because humans being what they are ... they exploit the system to their own ends either for greed or for power.

I believe I've had this discussion with you on a Religion thread, so I know you know I know what socialism is as envisioned by the utopians of the world.

It's too bad you'll never find the perfect humans to run it.

I know socialism is getting a bit off topic, but I agree with you. While I am socially liberal in supporting individuals lifestyle right of choice (adults only, with consent -- includes all marriages of choice, legal prostitution, etc etc), I'm not particularly liberal otherwise.

"THAT WHICH IS NOT EARNED, HAS NO VALUE"

However, there will always be doers, loafers, and everyone in between. I really can't go with the animalistic behavior of survival of the fittest --- I really want to believe the "supposedly" most evolved species has elevated themselves beyond that . . .

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Also, it looks really good on paper. You'll find no argument from me. I understand that socialism looks really good on paper because I have read about it, but in reality it never works because humans being what they are ... they exploit the system to their own ends either for greed or for power.

Perhaps you should get out more and travel to some of the Socialist states like Sweden or Denmark.
They infact enjoy a higher standard of living than the US.

www.forbes.com...

They also are happier. Imagine that!


emsnews.wordpress.com...

Lay off Rush for a little bit and do some real research...

The Dane in the article you posted seemed to dislike socialism and thought it was problematic, so I think the Forbes article you posted doesn't really support your position. Here are a few excerpts:

Now more than ever, America’s capitalistic society is threatened by burdensome government and a bloated entitlement state. Increasing amounts of regulations continue to come down the pipeline, making it harder for entrepreneurs and small businesses to create value.

Growing up in Denmark, I’ve seen this picture before. If America doesn’t want socialism its people must wake up and heed the lessons being played out in counties around the world – like Denmark.. If America doesn’t want socialism it must seek politicians and policies that allow the individual to have more liberty and freedom.

He wasn't too happy with Danish socialism:

The majority of Danish politicians intuitively believe that capitalists are an unpleasant necessity to generate the revenues to fund the social welfare state. Denmark has the highest total tax pressure in the world and is towering far above the European average. It also has the smallest private sector in Europe, one that supports one of the biggest public sectors. Add to that a generous entitlement system allowing unemployed and unemployable citizens an income well above that achieved by full time employees in the private sector in many European countries, and you will observe a need for tax revenues nearly unmatched anywhere else in the world.

He agrees with my post above--that European socialism depends on capitalists to fund the socialism--to be a parasite to capitalism as it were.

He says that, in order to survive and improve, the traditional Scandinavian socialism has had to become more capitalistic.

So is there really any hope for reforms, rationality, courage and capitalism in a welfare society? The answer is no, not under the current leadership. Some neighboring countries have pursued more responsible policies in recent years, notably Sweden and Finland. In a benchmarking of best practices, both countries have a more efficient use of money in the public sector, better value for money in education and health care, fewer persons permanently placed on social welfare and a more friendly rhetoric towards business, growth and job creation. Both of these countries must be considered traditional social welfare states, but at least show some degree of moderation in their socialist practices.

The article didn't say "quality of living" it said "economic freedom:

According to the 2012 Economic Freedom of the World report, America’s economic freedom has declined so greatly that it has plummeted to 18th place, even trailing behind Denmark.

And referenced this CATO article:
America's Vanishing Economic Freedom

Where such points are made:

During the past four years, the U.S. saw significant declines in nearly all categories of the economic-liberty index. Most significant — and this should come as no surprise to anyone paying attention — is that the size of government grew substantially, particularly when measured by size of government subsidies and transfers and by government consumption as a share of national consumption.

Yet discussion of economic freedom seems curiously missing from the presidential campaign. President Obama, in fact, would further restrict economic liberty. He proposes a host of new subsidies and regulations. And don’t forget that the largest parts of Dodd-Frank kick in next year.

So the Forbes article you posted seems to say is that socialism does not work and Scandinavia needs to drop away form it whereas economic freedom and prosperity in the US is dropping because of big government, government regulations, and wealth redistribution and we should heed the example of the evolving Scandinavian countries as they move closer to capitalism, not farther away.

Thus, you seem to have proven my point. Thanks.

I married into a Swedish family and spend a lot of time near Malmo. They dislike Swedish socialism which is why the young professionals in the family have emigrated to the US.

Interesting possible snowball effect.

LGBT groups are dropping support of ENDA because of the expanding religious exemptions.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I'd still like to know how you plan on dealing with the very real reality that our means of production are naturally evolving to become more and more hands free.

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: NavyDoc

I'd still like to know how you plan on dealing with the very real reality that our means of production are naturally evolving to become more and more hands free.

Unless we get to star trek level replicators, it will not change much. Technology does not eliminate economic realities, it simply changes them. The machines need to be maintained, the raw materials mined, machines need to be programmed and supervised, repaired, designed, etc. Jobs and creativity and work will still be needed and when we get to the point ( that is currently sheer fantasy) that nobody has to do anything to live, then we will devolve and another race will evolve to take our place.

originally posted by: Honcho

These jobs that you're talking about are very common jobs in the U.S. some of the most common in fact. Positions such as cashiers, fast-food workers, waiters, and salesmen make up a large sum of jobs. Not everyone can be in a very high paying job due to the simple fact that there are very, very few high paying jobs around. There simply isn't enough room for everyone. Not everyone can be a CEO, doctor, or high ranking government official. Take a look at the income inequality in this country right now. Even people who are so-called middle class are struggling.

So what is your point? Are you saying that a person can not do better than minimum wage? Typically a person starts out close to minimum wage, they gain skill, experience, education and get a better job down the rode. They gain more skills/experience and continue to do better in position and income. We are not talking high wage job, just living wage, and if a person due to poor/incorrect decisions in life or just low drive can not get to a point of a living wage then maybe they should not try and live on their own either.

I have a hard time stomaching that some corporate CEO's and other board members pocket something like 300x more than their AVERAGE worker. How in the world can someone work that much harder? It makes no sense. It's all just greed. A company who doesn't want to give their workers descent wages or benefits obviously don't care about their workers. They only care for themselves. It's the average workers who actually keeps the company moving. Their the worker bees doing all the work while they take orders from the top.

Why should that matter to you? I don't even think about those types of people, and their success/luck/greed whatever you want to call it has nothing to do with my own success. You also need a dose of reality, you ever live in a poor neighborhood/ghetto, it is a lot of poor people preying on each other, so the poor is not lacking in this area of greed, selfishness etc either...

Work is work at the end of the day. Sure, some jobs are obviously more demanding and more difficult, but with the amount of money some of these companies make, compared to how much their willing to pay their average workers, absolutely disgusts me.

You do know that the model is about 33% of gross goes to wages, right? This is almost a set in concrete percentage. Many companies if they go above that can not sustain and if under do not get the quality worker for the job... The Market is a different animal, it is people putting money down on what a company perceived worth is, not what a company's profit is. Amazon went like 10 years not making a profit though the perceived worth was billions, and many in the company became millionaires due to stock. This didn't mean they had more money to pay workers and at some point their payroll had to be at a level to actually make a profit.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

BuzzyWigs, good to see this thread. It wasn’t always like this. When the GOP took in politically and culturally conservative Southern Dixie-crats and Reagan Democrats, national power was fed to these groups, developing them into a base. Conservative Christians and churches were given direct political power, via “voters guides”. Politicians endorsed these groups, and, in turn, the groups brought voters to the polls.

Although the current situation was prophesied early on, warnings were ignored:

These rightists appeal to the real anxieties of a great many Americans about some serious moral issues, but their prescriptions are not likely to help in dealing with those issues; moreover, they threaten other moral values.

From 1981

The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.

I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. ....I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

Barry Goldwater (Too bad not enough good Republicans didn't speak up.)

The internal hunt for and killing off of (by withholding campaign dollars) RINOs by reactionaries (def: especially extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change) meant that any Republican who was to the left of a reactionary was falsely and ignorantly deemed a “leftist”, ie. “liberal”, ending up with a political party increasingly needing to pander to its extremists for votes (think McCain‘s choice of Palin), and a nation lurching increasingly to the political right.

This ultimate melding of religion and politics/governance should make Americans afraid. It is not something historically they’re used to nor should want. Europeans left their homes to come to America to get away from this meld of religion/governing. Until the end of WW2, Japan was led by an Emperor whom they believed was Divine. A Mitt Romney or Ted Cruz as a Divinely appointed POTUS?…. Americans really, really don’t want to go down that road. They’ve been warned.

Oh, something else I saw happen. As much pandering was done in the GOP for religious (moral) votes, leaders like VP Dick Cheney labeled them “kooks”. Sure, this base might go to the polls over social issues to vote in leaders, but, once in, these leaders pandered to the growing corporate power over them. The economic interest of these voters was not just ignored but was trampled upon. Insidiously, these voters were made to buy in to corporate needs over their own needs; corporate needs became personal needs. Welcome to American fascism.