It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bernie Sanders' Religion is Collectivism

page: 9
18
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Semicollegiate

MMMmmmmm Electrolytes. It's what Plants Crave!!

You can't just say "Wrong". Well, you can, but that explain it. I can just as easily rebuttal with, "No, I'm Right." Then you say, "No, you're Wrong." etc. etc. This can go on for some time and only ends when one of us Explains why the other is "Right or Wrong".

I see it as the same "Almost Free" concept. As I said, nothing is ever "Free". Neither in Capitalism or in Socialism. The work is still being done to produce whatever function is being done. Take Health Care. Someone is still doing the work of the Care Provider to the sick either way. They are still getting paid either way. Only one way the pay is a direct transfer of the Provided to the Provider in full. The other is a transfer from all the Provided in a very small amount to that Provider. So it's not "Free" at all. It's just the cost has been distributed as well as the provisions.


Actually, like most socialists, you provide no argument. The Libertarian has to know socialism, but rarely does a socialist know the free market argument.

You haven't said anything.




posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

This is true. Which is why I said it takes Both. Not one or the other. Not everyone is going to Strive to New Levels. Not everyone Starts up a new business. Not everyone is a Type A Achiever. Some people decide to blaze new trails while other people follow them. The blazers are needed to find new places. Some make it some don't. The others are needed to maintain those trails by walking them and widening them and making them into established ways.

Trail blazers don't maintain the paths they create. They are off creating new ones or die trying. The others don't make new trails but follow them and make them into roads for the next generation to follow in as well.



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Semicollegiate

This is true. Which is why I said it takes Both.


Not an argument


Not one or the other. Not everyone is going to Strive to New Levels. Not everyone Starts up a new business. Not everyone is a Type A Achiever. Some people decide to blaze new trails while other people follow them. The blazers are needed to find new places. Some make it some don't. The others are needed to maintain those trails by walking them and widening them and making them into established ways.

Trail blazers don't maintain the paths they create. They are off creating new ones or die trying. The others don't make new trails but follow them and make them into roads for the next generation to follow in as well.


So?



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Socialism and only socialism privatizes -- Only socialism claims that the government is justified to do anything.

Capitalism only sells to voluntary buyers.


They can't sell what they don't own or control. Therefor before you sell something you must first control access to it which is denied to others. That is why they buy it from you.

We might be using "Public and Private" in different ways or with different meanings and restrictions. Socialism would make everything "Privately Owned" into "Public Access" while Capitalism makes everything that is "Publicly Accessible" into "Privately Owned". For example, Fresh Water (Public Resource) gets bottled and sold (Privately Owned) is Capitalism in action. Your Bacon Farm (Privately Owned) get's distributed to everyone as mandated by Government (Publicly Accessed) is Socialism at work.



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Socialism and only socialism privatizes -- Only socialism claims that the government is justified to do anything.

Capitalism only sells to voluntary buyers.


They can't sell what they don't own or control. Therefor before you sell something you must first control access to it which is denied to others. That is why they buy it from you.

We might be using "Public and Private" in different ways or with different meanings and restrictions. Socialism would make everything "Privately Owned" into "Public Access" while Capitalism makes everything that is "Publicly Accessible" into "Privately Owned". For example, Fresh Water (Public Resource) gets bottled and sold (Privately Owned) is Capitalism in action. Your Bacon Farm (Privately Owned) get's distributed to everyone as mandated by Government (Publicly Accessed) is Socialism at work.


The only entity that can own the air is the government. The only way the air could be privatized, i.e. own by the State and then given to a private party, is after the State decreed ownship of the atmosphere.

There is no way for a capitalistic system to own the air. Only a political system can to that.



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Once again. Just saying, "You're Wrong" doesn't mean a damn thing. That's like calling me a big dummy head.

Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. But unless you explain "why" I'm "Wrong" or "why" I'm a dummy head you've established nothing. You've simply made an unsupported accusation.

Just like I can say you're a complete fool who hasn't said one thing that is correct or true this entire time. But that alone proves nothing does it??? For that to hold any weight I must show why that statement is true. So in turn, why don't you show that I don't know and haven't said anything and do not know the free market. Also show where I'm a socialist because I've stated quite clearly twice now that I'm not against Capitalism. I just don't think Capitalism by itself is the answer. Just like Socialism alone is not the answer. Please try and pay attention as I don't like to repeat myself.



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

So?


So???

So, If you don't understand what's written then ask a question or read it again until you understand it.



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

There is no way for a capitalistic system to own the air. Only a political system can to that.


Air was being used in that example to follow a humorous pattern in the conversation. It can mean anything. Use cars if you want. The manufacture who makes a car, owns the car. That is why he's able to sell that car to someone else. If he didn't own it he couldn't sell it.

Are you having trouble following me or are you just being playing dumb???

Or am I not being clear enough in what I'm saying. I am open to the possibility that I'm not wording my argument clearly. It makes sense to me but it may not be as clear to you or others as I think it is. Perhaps a third party could establish which one it is. If it's my fault I'll try and explain it more clearly.



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Collectivists never prove that collectivism is better than natural voluntary action by billions of thinking individuals.

Collectivists assume that good intentions are enough.

Collectivists believe in magic.



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Collectivists never prove that collectivism is better than natural voluntary action by billions of thinking individuals.

Collectivists assume that good intentions are enough.

Collectivists believe in magic.


Ok. I guess that's tough noogies on Collectivists then according to your theory. But what does that have to do with me???

I never said I was proving "Collectivism" over "Individualism". I thought we covered this aspect of our conversation already.

Are you still unclear what my position is???



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

Does this clarify things?

The Constitution doesn't limit my behavior. The government cannot have a religious test.

Try again.

Yeah, that's the point. Even our country's founding fathers didn't want any religious criteria for a person to become President. Hence, why they included that in the Constitution.

We might as well do a thread complaining about his shoe size, since that has just as much of a bearing on his Presidential campaign.



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Yeah, that's the point. Even our country's founding fathers didn't want any religious criteria for a person to become President. Hence, why they included that in the Constitution.

We might as well do a thread complaining about his shoe size, since that has just as much of a bearing on his Presidential campaign.


Exactly. That is the point. Damn you're always so rational and clear thinking. Why is it that so many others with a strong devotion to Religion get so lost while you maintain a clear bead on things???

I totally agree. I see what Sanders did as basically giving the middle finger to having to answer that question in the first place. He wasn't going to let himself be put in that position of having to answer such a loaded question. Kimmel was trying to hem him up in a Religious Loyalty gotcha question and Sanders flipped it around. After all, why should his religious choice or magnitude of such choice be of any importance in the first place??? It shouldn't be. He doesn't have to live up to anyone's Religious expectations of him to be president. It's not even an issue so why ask??? It's also rude.

But like the OP. So many people out there can't understand that and would actually rather be lied to and hear what they want than admit that Religion shouldn't be involved. They are perfectly happy to hear Trump's BS "I'm a Christian" answer even though we all know it wasn't true. It's nothing but a test of Loyalty to the Christian Power Base because of their influence over politics. Whether or not it's true they want them all to say out loud to the world that they are a Loyal Follower of their Faith. If they don't then they are then attacked.



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheWhiteKnight
After the looting, these bolshevik rallies tend to become a little too snuff-ish, for my tastes. They often decide that civilization cannot be perfected until the last worshipper of God is lined against a wall or shot or whatever. With guns. Normal folk get pitchforks. Government uses guns.


Strange you mention the bolsheviks. Do you know what a hallmark of their rebellion was? They eliminated all the skilled labor and brought in outsiders who didn't know what they were doing. Lies, mock trials, and armed revolution.

Which party is it again where the main theme of their campaign is to throw out all of the insiders and bring in new people who don't know the first thing about political wheeling and dealing?

Which party is it that just crucified a person over coughing during 11 hours of testimony rather than address the content of what they were saying?

Which party is it that wanted to throw away the protections of the Fifth Amendment just to get at a member of the established government?

Which party is it that's trying to pass legislation based on lies from CMP?

Which party is it that has come up with the slogan "makers and takers" and wants to get rid of 47% of the population?

The Democrats are plenty of things, but they are none of the above.
edit on 24-10-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm


Exactly. That is the point. Damn you're always so rational and clear thinking. Why is it that so many others with a strong devotion to Religion get so lost while you maintain a clear bead on things???

Oh, uhh, thanks (pats self on back when no one's looking). I try to joke around too, but my sense of humor doesn't convey well in text. It always seems like I'm more serious or stern than I actually am. And yeah, I'm very religious but I also believe that religion is a personal path. I don't like others trying to force their interpretations onto me & I wouldn't do it to others. We should be free to practice whatever faith or non-faith we choose, as long as we do no harm to others in the process.


I totally agree. I see what Sanders did as basically giving the middle finger to having to answer that question in the first place. He wasn't going to let himself be put in that position of having to answer such a loaded question. Kimmel was trying to hem him up in a Religious Loyalty gotcha question and Sanders flipped it around. After all, why should his religious choice or magnitude of such choice be of any importance in the first place??? It shouldn't be. He doesn't have to live up to anyone's Religious expectations of him to be president. It's not even an issue so why ask??? It's also rude.

Haha, yeah Bernie does that a lot actually, even when reporters try to get him to smear Hillary. He's tried to keep his campaign focused on the issues & not the sideshows, which is probably one reason a lot of media used to ignore him. But his popularity's reaching a point where they can't ignore him anymore, even when he still won't play their game of "volatile soundbites" (I don't think that's an actual term they use).


But like the OP. So many people out there can't understand that and would actually rather be lied to and hear what they want than admit that Religion shouldn't be involved. They are perfectly happy to hear Trump's BS "I'm a Christian" answer even though we all know it wasn't true. It's nothing but a test of Loyalty to the Christian Power Base because of their influence over politics. Whether or not it's true they want them all to say out loud to the world that they are a Loyal Follower of their Faith. If they don't then they are then attacked.

Yep. That's why I pointed out that part in the Constitution; to remind people that "religious loyalty tests" weren't actually a part of the process. People will still believe what they choose, but at least they can't claim the Constitution or the founding fathers support their viewpoint.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
We went to Waffle House and my son and my husband both had bacon and I didn't. Clearly that was not fair. So I took bacon from my husband and ate it. Nevermind that I didn't order any bacon for myself.


You neglected to mention that for the past 35 years, your husband has been taking 3/4 of your bacon (without even asking) at each and every brunch and saving it up in his private freezer, so that he has more than enough bacon to last him the rest of his life.

At this point, some of his bacon is rightfully yours.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I believe I mentioned that I could have ordered some and didn't.



So at the point of the meal, the resources at the table were what they were. At that point, I simply redistributed them to make them fair which is the point. It did not make him happy.

But perhaps I ought to tell the story a different way:

Once upon a time there was a little red hen, she was scratching around on the side of the road for grain that had fallen off the trucks at harvest time and found some grains of wheat. She was about to eat them when she had an idea! "I can plant these, grow them, harvest them, and make some bread," she thought. "Then my family and I will eat instead of just me having a few grains of wheat."

So she took the wheat home to her chicks, and she and her chicks planted the wheat. Then all summer long they carefully tended their crop as it grew. It was hard work, and they often asked the other farm animals for help. However, the other animals were always too busy doing other things or just lazing around in the shade. Then, it was time to harvest the beautiful crop of wheat and prepare it for baking. Again, the hen and her chicks worked hard cutting, threshing, grinding the wheat into flour. Again, they asked all other animals for help, and again, no one wanted to help them.

Now that the hen and her chicks had the flour, they had to make bread. So they worked hard to mix the flour into dough, knead, let it rise, shape it and bake into the perfect loaf of hot crusty bread. Again it was very hard work, and again they asked all the other animals on the farm to help, and again no one wanted to take part.

So finally, the hen and her chicks had their big beautiful loaf bread that they had created out of a few lost grains of wheat found by the roadside, carefully nurtured through hard work. It smelled really, really, good, and this time when they asked if anyone would help them eat it ... magically, they had no shortage of volunteers from the other farm animals.

-pause-

Now if you are aware of the traditional ending of this tale, you know the hen chides the farm animals for not helping with any of the work when they had the chance and she and her chicks eat all the bread themselves having done all the labor involved to create it. The moral being that hard work pays off. It is a very capitalistic tale.

If we rewrote the tale to make the collectivists happy it might look like this:

When the other farm animals said they would help eat the bread, the little red hen said that they deserved none of it as none of them had helped make it even thought they had plenty of chances all summer long. The farm animals got very angry and complained that it was clearly not fair that the hen and her chicks had bread while they had none, and they pointed this out to the farmer. The farmer thought for a while and took the bread away from the hen. He broke off the larger piece and gave a small piece back to the hen and her family. Then he broke the large piece up into equal pieces for each of the other farm animals.

In the end, no one was happy. The large piece of bread the farmer took still divided into smaller pieces of bread than what he left to hen. However, the piece of bread left to the hen and her family wasn't nearly enough to justify all their hard work and satisfy them, so the next time the hen found some wheat on the road ... she simply ate it.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The problem with your story is most of the people on benefits do have jobs and are working. What we really have is the hens instead bought the stuff to plant and make the bread then sat on their asses while the rest of the farm animals toiled to grow the stuff needed and bake the bread, then the hens gave each a slice of bread and saved several hundred loaves for themselves. The farm animals are rightfully pissed to only get a slice of bread after doing all of the hard work.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

No that would be the pigs. Haven't you read Animal Farm?

So the animals didn't appeal to the farmer they appealed to Napoleon the pig who referred to Commandment 7 - All Animals Are Equal when he made the bread ruling that convinced the hen it was wrong to find wheat and try to bake bread because why do all the work for it if none of the other animals will help but they'll get some just the same?

Oh, and I did say that some were busy and others were lazing about in the shade.

edit on 25-10-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
But perhaps I ought to tell the story a different way:


It doesn't matter. You're conveniently leaving out important factors of the story. The truth is, there's no need to talk about bacon, hens and loaves of bread. We can talk about this in REAL terms, not fairy tales. www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

your story didn't mention the pigs, just hens, didn't realize it was animal farm, and that was years and years ago. In your story as you just presented it, there were no pigs. So in your story as the hens are the ones with the "power" and "business" they fit that role best.

The main point is, few to no one is sitting on their ass, and most of the people suffering in this economy do have jobs and are working, as is most of the people so poor they are needing government benefits to live.

Few to no one is this lazy animals in your story trying to feed off everyone's hard work. Most everyone is working hard, and typically unnecessarily as well.

People pretend the majority is lazy #s that lay around and never do anything so they can feel better about their better lot in life and success, as well as to feel better about the rich, because if we pretend they are better than us and deserve their wealth, we can be more accepting of the glaring inequality.




top topics



 
18
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join