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.

 

While You Were Sleeping: Among Democrats 49% Favorable To Socialism

page: 14
24
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

Correct. However, I guess it's a good thing that the Prophet Jesus ordered his followers to sell their property & give the proceeds to the poor. There was nothing voluntary about it. It's in Line 33 below, however I included a lot of the passage to make sure nothing was lost in context.


Good for the Christians then, let them sell off all their worldly possessions, I am still using mine.




posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

And isn't it interesting in John where Judas gets upset at Martha for washing Jesus's feet and hair with nard that he doesn't chide Martha for not selling the nard to use the money for the poor the way Judas does?

Judas, the betrayer, is the one who chides Martha telling her that she could have sold the nard and the money would have helped many poor people, but Jesus rebukes Judas at that. That's where the famous line "the poor will always be with you" comes from. Jesus used it to rebuke Judas for getting mad at Martha.

Why? It was because Judas was motivated by greed, not any real desire to help the poor. And often, when I see people screaming about this or that person needing to "pay their fair share" it's what I see. A bunch of Judases motivated by their own greed, not any real concern for the poor.

As to the verses you put up, we are not to worry about the material concerns. God takes care of us. That does not mean we tempt fate. The material is just that - the worldly. We can't take it with us, and we should not be so concerned about it that we aren't willing to leave it if we must. However, there are also plenty of times Jesus taught in terms of the prosperous, and Judas kept the money for the disciples, so they did not wander about with nothing.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

Correct. However, I guess it's a good thing that the Prophet Jesus ordered his followers to sell their property & give the proceeds to the poor. There was nothing voluntary about it. It's in Line 33 below, however I included a lot of the passage to make sure nothing was lost in context.


Good for the Christians then, let them sell off all their worldly possessions, I am still using mine.

Hey, I'm just pointing out that you said charity was voluntary when the Prophet Jesus actually ordered it. And charity is literally a requirement of Islam too, though not to the point of selling off all of our possessions to do it. In other words, charity is voluntary to you but not to everyone, especially those who actually follow their scriptures.

a reply to: ketsuko
Nothing to disagree with in your post.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: SemicollegiateCapitalism makes things cheaper and more plentiful.



I don't know how you can say that with a straight face. Capitalism, unfettered, breeds monopolies, corruption and economic disparity. It is a terrible system for the average individual.

I understand the appeal of it, I understand how someone could be drawn to its idealism. I think though, historical precedent has proven, time and again, that it's a bad system. More specifically, this 'hands off' approach that some in the GOP want is a bad system.


Correct. Glass-Steagall Act is a good example of necessary regulation. The same can be said for anti-trust laws.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

How coincidental! I came across this earlier today. . .




posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

One of the worst mistakes ever made.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Perhaps you would provide us some evidence besides your good word that socialism is responsible for inflation?

I don't expect you to be able to do so, but I thought I'd ask.


Socialism centralizes power so as include everyone and everything, such as the War Between the States or the USSR's attempt at Poland in 1919.

Central power needs a central bank in order to print the money that the State spends.

All central banks print as much money as their economy can cover, especially during war -- the socialist's other gift.

Inflation is a reduction in the value of money because more money is created to spend on the same amount of goods and services.

Keynesian economics holds that spending inflated money will keep the economy sound by way of satisfying demand.

Socialism causes inflation -- because it has to.

And don't forget the 5th Plank of the Communist Manifesto

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.
www.libertyzone.com...



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Followup: can you point to the "free market" you're referring to? You know, the actual real world example that happens/happened in a place where there is no politicians and no government (or government officials?)

Hint: I'm not expecting much here either, because nothing like that exists or has ever existed.


The Industrial Revolution had almost zero Federal Regulation and little state and local governmental regulation.

Soon after the gov reg started the Industrial Revolution slowed and stopped. Coincidence?



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: mikkelno
a reply to: infolurker

Nothing wrong with being helpful to the people who needs help. That's also a christian view, am i right?


Is it possible to be forced into being helpful and still consider it "being helpful?"
Furthermore, is that concept in the Bible?



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I seriously, seriously doubt Jesus would advocate forcing anyone to help anyone -- if it's not genuine it kind of defeats the purpose.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I seriously, seriously doubt Jesus would advocate forcing anyone to help anyone -- if it's not genuine it kind of defeats the purpose.


Uhh, but I linked the entire biblical passage where he does just that. It's in Luke 12:22 through 12:34. The direct command is in line 33, but I linked more of the passage to show it in context.

I know non-Muslims don't agree with this, but the Prophet Jesus is one of the 4 most revered Prophets in Islam too. And we are literally required to perform charity, which he also taught. In fact, charity is one of the literal pillars of our faith.

I think the problem here is the American concept of "charity" usually involves giving to a poor person or giving to an organization that says it helps a cause (typically assisting the needy). But the actual religious meaning of "charity" involves the unlimited love God has for His Creations and the love His Creations have for Him. In other words, it's supposed to be about showing your kindness & love to God's Creations because of your respect & love for God.

So it makes sense that if you're really a "believer" & follower of God, you should be mandated to prove it by treating His Creations with love. And if some of His Creations are having a hard time surviving, us "believers" are supposed to be the first ones to jump in & help them. After all, how can we claim to love & respect God if we willingly neglect & abuse His Creations? And why should us "believers" care about material things for ourselves when we're trying to gain entry into God's kingdom/Heaven?

But the meanings are all jacked up here, which is why there's apparently so much confusion.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:40 AM
link   
When the government helps those who need help, it is not "charity" ... it's a measure to keep as many of our citizens as productive as possible. If you (or your kids) don't have enough to eat, don't have decent medical care, and don't have a decent place to live ... there's no way you can have a job and contribute to society (not to mention, improve your position so that you don't need assistance).

By the same absurd notion we would consider it "charity" when we give billions in corporate welfare so that CEOs can have bigger multi-million dollar bonuses. It would be "charity" when taxpayers subsidize the extravagant lifestyles of megachurch pastors whose current private planes just aren't good enough for them.

The only legitimate expenditures of government are in the maintenance of the national (or local) infrastructure, and the most fundamental essential part of that is our people. Pure and simple, PEOPLE are the engine of our economy, not corporations.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

Hey, I'm just pointing out that you said charity was voluntary when the Prophet Jesus actually ordered it.


The 'Prophet Jesus' running everyone's lives? No?

When he is I will worry about compulsory 'charity'. When I donate my money or time I want it to be because I made the decision to give, not because of dogma.




edit on 27-10-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

Hey, I'm just pointing out that you said charity was voluntary when the Prophet Jesus actually ordered it.


The 'Prophet Jesus' running everyone's lives? No?

When he is I will worry about compulsory 'charity'. When I donate my money or time I want it to be because I made the decision to give, not because of dogma.


LOL You're free to live how you choose. But the actual word "charity" comes from a Christian background. So it's funny to me when I see people speak of giving to "charity" while rejected where the word came from. Not the concept of helping others, but the actual word "charity" (which is about much more than just giving to the poor, as I explained above). That would be like you disrespecting Islam then saying you give "zakat" when you choose to, even though "zakat" is a mandatory form of charity in the same Islam you would've hypothetically insulted.

It amuses me the same way atheists named "Christopher" or atheists who name their sons "Christopher" do; since "Christopher" comes from a phrase that means "Christ bearer". It's just a weird form of amusement to me.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

So you think "Socialism" (capitalized so as to make it seem like some unifed dark mysterious force) was responsible for the War Between the States?

That's a unique approach.

First "Central Bank" in the US was chartered by Congress in 1791. I realize that doesn't fit your narrative, but it is, nonetheless, the fact.

... as to the rest of your uniquely self-defined terms and ill-informed proclamations, I leave it to others to counter, if any are interested.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

"The Industrial Revolution" ... in which country? During which years? You might as well refer to "the Middle Ages."

Are you claiming that in either the UK or the US (since that would be most relevant) there was no government regulation of business or the economy in those countries at that time?

As to the "Coincidence?" bit ... you're just pulling a rabbit out of your hat and then talking through the hat.

Be specific about what you're referring to or don't bother.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you honestly believe that? The only reason the government pays those "people in need" is to build kept voter bases who are a good bet not to vote against their Meal Ticket. Similarly, the reason the government pays the CEOs and corporations is because the CEOs and corporations, in return, pay contributions to individual politicians.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
LOL You're free to live how you choose. But the actual word "charity" comes from a Christian background. So it's funny to me when I see people speak of giving to "charity" while rejected where the word came from.


You are free to rename what I do with my time and money to a non-Christian secular noun if you choose. I tend the use the word for its convenience in explaining my actions, not for its etymology.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you honestly believe that? The only reason the government pays those "people in need" is to build kept voter bases who are a good bet not to vote against their Meal Ticket. Similarly, the reason the government pays the CEOs and corporations is because the CEOs and corporations, in return, pay contributions to individual politicians.


Do you really believe that the situation is that simplistic? In either case?

So, do the "people in need" know when to vote Democrat and when to vote Republican? i.e. did the "people in need" know to elect a majority Republican Congress in 2012? Did they elect Bush in 2000? (Oh wait, bad example) Did they elect Bush in 2004? Or is your thesis only accurate when a Democrat wins?

Funny how the real world breaks down seemingly wonderful idealistic scenarios, ain't it?



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Prior to 2008, the ratio between the net negative income tax "payers" and the positive net income tax payers was wider. I honestly believe that once we have over 50% in the negative net category, the prospect of a conservative president becomes very unlikely in absence of a significant event that disrupts the gravy train.

By the way, note I said "CONSERVATIVE." Unhinge yourself from the Democrat/Republican verbiage... The Republicans pander just as much as the Democrats do at this point. As I said yesterday, the Republicans are close to being America's liberal party while the Democrats shift themselves towards a closer comparison to Canada's NDP/Democratic Socialist party. The US presently lacks a major conservative party, IMO.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join