Socialist / Communist movement in New York - it needs to stop.

a reply to: toysforadults

You should watch that Cooper video. About 1/2 way through is a really good criticism of why we should have separation of church and state.

So many things wrong with this OP and its author I do not know where even to begin...

a reply to: dfnj2015

I read a theory that in order for there to be a balanced system as many people as possible need to be land owners.

If only a small portion of the population owns the land and business they control an equal amount of the policy

That's not exactly what I read however it goes something like that a d I'm at work so I cant research it

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Propagandalf

It's kinda funny that I just saw precisely the same term in that article, don't ya think?

Semantics, who cares?

The meaning of words, who cares, am I right?

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Theocracy4America

Religious zealots are just as much of a danger to the Constitution as Socialists.

What Amendments did the moral majority strike down?
Has the Catholic church killed the Constitution?
Mormons?
Muslims?
Got any facts to back that statement up or was that just socialist engineering speaking out?

The 13th amendment was the result of urging by religious factions from the North.
Shall we ignore their contributions as well?
I will admit that 30 years ago I probably would have said the same thing.
I was pretty liberal in my younger years but age has a way of balancing things out.
I see the need for liberalism and conservatism as they both have valid ideas.

I'm completely against socialism, I think my posting history adequately reflects that.

But I am also completely against any kind of organized religion being involved in the legislative processes of our country.

If you don't think religious zealotry is dangerous just take a look at countries run by our Muslim friends in the middle east. The Salem witch trials?

No thank you, religion has a very bad track record of squashing individual liberty in the name of suedo moral authority.

a reply to: watchitburn

We agree more than disagree in general but the premise was danger to the Constitution.
Salem Witch trials ain't quite evidence imho.
religious zealotry has been replaced by political zealotry, again imho.
only 1 religion seems to be aggressively asserting itself these days.
So far the US hasn't really felt the effects of that yet.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

I agree, but I'd prefer not to give either a chance to take root.

a reply to: Theocracy4America


Adolf Hitler was bad, too and he was the opposite of Communist. That's the problem with political leanings, they have little to do with actual holiness.

As far as individualism, capitalism and nationalism, Jesus spoke out against those things.

Jesus said, "‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment and the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments.”

Jesus also spoke out against capitalism when He said: "the love of money is the root of all evil" and "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven".

Jesus also said; "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities", and this, along with "render to Caesar, the things that are Caesar's and to God, the things that are God's" clearly shows that Jesus was far closer to 'socialist' subjection, than He was 'right wing' and self-acquisitive in attitude.

While sin is bad, Jesus was not there to condemn everyone for not being good enough (the religious leaders of the day were already doing that quite well), He was there for the purpose of forgiveness of the sinner, to help people change their ways and to achieve better than they had.

Jesus also never spoke either for, or against, homosexuality. He spoke of loving others of the same sex but the word He used for love was the Greek word "agape", not "eros". Clearly a non-sexual and Godly love.

Jesus also referred to "Eunuchs who have been so from birth" when referring to those who do not marry. In Roman society at the time there were homosexuals and they were referred to as 'eunuchs', so the term is a loaded one. Either way, it was referred to in a positive light with no condemnation attached.

If Jesus doesn't condemn, then it is best that I don't, either (I believe that homosexuality is promiscuous by its nature and that the actual sin is 'promiscuity', or the betrayal of the trust of a loving pairing, which is genderless).

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Theocracy4America


If we have to stop socialism, then I figure we'll take care of theocracy while we're at it.

That said, socialists and those who support the inverse are free to be extremists loonies.

I just find it funny some only want one flavor of crazy suppressed.

I'm trying to figure out where the other flavors are making a comeback. Other than the lefts infatuation with Islam.

The main problem the right wingers have is their only solution is "work hardurrr guys" or "learn duh only 3 skills that pay gud" is the only solution they have to the nearly 100 million working poor in this country

originally posted by: toysforadults
The main problem the right wingers have is their only solution is "work hardurrr guys" or "learn duh only 3 skills that pay gud" is the only solution they have to the nearly 100 million working poor in this country

Nice leftist talking points.

Capitalism gives everyone the opportunity to be successful. If you have a better idea, or work harder, provide better quality than your competitors, you too can be successful.

With your Marxist utopias everyone gets to be equally poor, miserable and oppressed. Innovation gets stuffed into a standardized box and never heard from again.
The Govt has never managed anything successfully, but for some reason you think they'll be good at managing your whole life?

a reply to: watchitburn

not quite sure where he is wrong though. I have no problem with some people being able to enjoy a better lifestyle than others because they have skill sets, better (and more needed) education and experience. I have a problem with the idea that some members of the working class, for some reason, just don't deserve to life independently and have and be able to care for families. Weather you are talking about the waitress serving you your coffee in the morning, the bus driver carrying your child to school, the factory worker at the punch press cutting out the parts the military needs for their planes, the store clerk checking out your groceries, the taxi or uber driver picking you up at the airport, whatever, whoever, if they are working producing a product or service that you want, then you should realize that they need the funds to stay alive so they can continue working to provide for you. and, if you want your child to grow up in a society where the things they want are produced and provided for them, then you should also realize that these workers need to be able to start a family. you should also realize that they can't be working every danged waking hour of their day to earn those funds and still find the time to care for that family!!!
the idea that they should just go find a better job, work harder, get better trained just won't solve the problem since for many, the jobs they are doing now are wanted or needed by society and therefore will need to be done by someone!!
the question is, who should be paying them to keep them alive. the businesses that are profiting from their labor, or the taxpayers? my first choice would be the businesses. but to say that neither of them really hold that responsibility will lead to severe economic problems! so, well, it's the taxpayers.

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Propagandalf

It's kinda funny that I just saw precisely the same term in that article, don't ya think?

Semantics, who cares?

The meaning of words, who cares, am I right?

Enlighten me, Propagandalf, grand wizard of sophistry!
What's the difference between democratic socialism and a social democracy?


a reply to: watchitburn

Nice talking points! I always enjoy a good saga.

With your Marxist utopias everyone gets to be equally poor, miserable and oppressed

That's right! Look at those vikings and their longboats! Norway must be a real sh!thole.

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

Social security and roads? Backyard buried safe and off road tyres will fix that! Unemployment? Get a job!

a reply to: watchitburn

What about a society based on the morality of a faith system, without forcing the belief on the subjects? God given rules, like don't murder or steal. I'm not advocating sharia or anything, lol. I see a country based on Christian law, but more how Qatar does Islamic law than how Siria does it.

a reply to: Theocracy4America

but, what makes you think that a person needs this or that particular faith based system to have the belief that murder and theft is wrong? the pagans in europe didn't have christianity, but they still had laws against those things.

What about a society based on the morality of a faith system, without forcing the belief on the subjects?

your biblical law placed women under the subjection to their husband, or father. ya know, the husband was king of his castle. and it allowed slavery. and it gave kings and priests the divine right to rule. so they designed their laws to go along with those principles. while, it was only a belief that the subordinates should be treated as the lords would like to be treated, treated with kindness and not with cruelity. and so, since you really can't force a belief onto anyone, they ended up with alot of people who really didn't believe in positions of god given power misusing that power and abusing their subordinates. and, their "faith bases laws" seem to have lacked the means to address the problems with those lords became tyrants.

sorry, not buying it!!!
the murderes would still be murdering, the thieves would still be stealing, the rapists would still be raping, only the power would be given to them legally to do it by making them lords over their fellow citizens!!!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: watchitburn

not quite sure where he is wrong though. I have no problem with some people being able to enjoy a better lifestyle than others because they have skill sets, better (and more needed) education and experience. I have a problem with the idea that some members of the working class, for some reason, just don't deserve to life independently and have and be able to care for families. Weather you are talking about the waitress serving you your coffee in the morning, the bus driver carrying your child to school, the factory worker at the punch press cutting out the parts the military needs for their planes, the store clerk checking out your groceries, the taxi or uber driver picking you up at the airport, whatever, whoever, if they are working producing a product or service that you want, then you should realize that they need the funds to stay alive so they can continue working to provide for you. and, if you want your child to grow up in a society where the things they want are produced and provided for them, then you should also realize that these workers need to be able to start a family. you should also realize that they can't be working every danged waking hour of their day to earn those funds and still find the time to care for that family!!!
the idea that they should just go find a better job, work harder, get better trained just won't solve the problem since for many, the jobs they are doing now are wanted or needed by society and therefore will need to be done by someone!!
the question is, who should be paying them to keep them alive. the businesses that are profiting from their labor, or the taxpayers? my first choice would be the businesses. but to say that neither of them really hold that responsibility will lead to severe economic problems! so, well, it's the taxpayers.

this post is so on point, you are absolutely correct. I'm not interested in a neo-feudal system to adhere to right wing platitudes and rhetoric

if you honestly believe that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a "communist" you are a fool, socialist at best, but she is the typical DemSoc, Capitalism with socialists language and aesthetics, it is Capitalism light

either you know nothing about Socialism and Communism, or are just being wilfully ignorant

a reply to: XAnarchistX

it's an actual republican strategy to highlight the furthest left leaning Democrat's to push the more moderate/ right leaning Democrat's to the Republican party as a scare tactic

MK light