Jump to content


Photo

Party Affiliation

What side do you take?

112 replies to this topic

Poll: Which party do you classify yourself as? (67 member(s) have cast votes)

Which party do you classify yourself as?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#51 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 05 June 2004 - 01:03 PM

Thank you CX for mentioning the enlightening facts about unemployment.

Vintage, I have to respond to your argument in pieces:

Arabs prefer blowing themselves up with civilians as their targets, Israelis hunt down specific terrorist factions.


The Israelis also happen to kill hundreds of Palestinians civilians in their hunt for terrorists. Sharon values Palestinian lives to the same extent that Arafat values Israeli lives.

Thankfully, there are people on both sides (including Palestinians) who think that fighting is stupid and both sides are wrong to kill and should just stop.

Arabs fight as networks of terrorists outside of governmental approval, Israelis fight under their military with full government approval. That should tell you right there that their claim is not reasonable.


That logic is, excuse me, bullsh*t. By that logic, since the American revolutionaries fought without government approval (they didn't have a government), and the British fought under their military with full government approval, the American's claim wasn't reasonable.

I know you mean well, but that has no relevency whatsoever. Islam originated from a man's own conception of Judeo-Christianity. You falsely assume I was comparing the claims of Christians and Muslims. Jews have been around much, much longer than Muslims. About 2500 years longer! Their land was Jerusalem and its surrounding lands. Christianity had been around 570 years before Islam.


Just as Christianity originated from a man's own conception of Judeism and Judeism originated from a man's own conception of God. You were comparing the claims of Jews and Muslims. Each has owned the land, at different times, for over 1000 years. It's safe to say that both have a great deal of history there.

Now, the regions around "Israel" are controlled by Muslim Arabs who attack the Jews solely out of spite for the Jewish faith. They already have most of the land originally owned by Israel, but that hasn't kept them from unprovoked attacks.


They attack it out of a desire for their land!!! Your entire case here is based upon a contradiction. I'll lay it out for you:

First, you say that the Israelis have a right to the land because they were there first (even tho the Arabs had it for 1000+ years).

Second, you say that the Arabs claims to the land aren't valid because:
"Think about how Americans got their land. They moved into lands occupied by the Indians. In a perfect world, things like that shouldn't happen, but that does not mean we should give all the land back."

So, which is it? Are historical claims valid or not? How about I use your own statement about America:
"Think about how Palestinians got their land. They moved into lands occupied by the Jews. In a perfect world, things like that shouldn't happen, but that does not mean they should give all the land back."

How bout I give another analogy:
The Indians lived in America for thousands of years. Then, one day, the Americans came over and took it from them. The Americans live in the land for a few hundred years. At this point, all of Europe decides to take Minnesota and give it to the Indians. Without consenting with America. Now, whose claim to the land is valid, the Indians or the native Minnesotans?

Who thinks the Dems can villify Bush for creating jobs? 


I'm sure Karl Rove can teach them how to use good things against candidates ^_^
  • 0

#52 Vintage

Vintage

    Member

  • Members
  • 462 posts
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 05 June 2004 - 07:46 PM

Wow. You managed to miss every point I made. Ugh, now I have to go over it again in more detail. This will be my last post on this topic, and I will let you have the last say in the matter, merlinski, after I am finished.

From a political perspective:

The Israelis also happen to kill hundreds of Palestinians civilians in their hunt for terrorists. Sharon values Palestinian lives to the same extent that Arafat values Israeli lives.

Haha, you almost proved my point there. Killing civilians in their hunt for terrorists is much different than killing civilians, "just to get their land back." We have killed alot of Iraqi civilians in our war, which is regrettable. We don't target civilians, Israel doesn't either, Arabs do.

How come the government who does nothing to stop it's own terrorists from attacking its neighbor country is brushed off, but the foreign government who launches counter-offensives against the terrorists to protect its people are considered wrong?

That logic is, excuse me, bullsh*t. By that logic, since the American revolutionaries fought without government approval (they didn't have a government), and the British fought under their military with full government approval, the American's claim wasn't reasonable.

It is entirely reasonable. My statement was in direct response to all who said that the Arabs were fighting for their land back. If their claim was legitimate, their government would back them up. Since they are not backed by their government, they are merely terrorists who hate Jews. They might feel that they should own Israel, but all they have proved is how they are heartless maniacs willing to blow themselves up to kill Jews. I mean, really...who would blow himself up in the first place, let alone for land he thinks belongs to him.

You can try to justify their actions, merlinski, but if I were Sharon, I would not tolerate the heartless killing of my citizens at the hands of terrorists who are not repressed by their own government.

From a religious perspective:

Just as Christianity originated from a man's own conception of Judeism and Judeism originated from a man's own conception of God. You were comparing the claims of Jews and Muslims. Each has owned the land, at different times, for over 1000 years. It's safe to say that both have a great deal of history there.

I could battle that if I wanted to, but I will only say this. Any person who tries to set up a religion that bases itself on the exact location of St. Peters Chapel, making it a holy place of a religion contrary to Catholic doctrine, has immediately desecrated that church. Especially if they no longer allowed the Catholics to worship there and instead claimed that site as theirs and only theirs. To make the analogy applicable, St. Peter's would have to have been destroyed by some disaster. If the church has had dreams to rebuild St. Peter's, here comes someone who has now ruined the "sacred ground" and destroyed any such dreams. Tell me, since we live in a nation of freedom of religion, how any such person should do that to the Catholics?

Do the math, the Jews have regarded that ground as sacred for 4000 years. Muslems for 1500.

Closing:

They attack it out of a desire for their land!!! Your entire case here is based upon a contradiction. I'll lay it out for you: >snip<

Yes, I agree. Israelis and Arabs have both fought for the same land numerous occasions. That was how land was gained back in B.C. times, through war. The Arabs have every right to attack Israel to regain "their" land, just as Indians would have every right to attack us to regain "their" land , right? But Israel has every right to defend it's borders and America would have every right to defend ours. However, the Arab governments have not declared war on Israel, they have allowed their own terrorist groups attack and kill civilians to make a statement.

Thank you merlinski for your time. And to all who read this, this is my last post concerning this subject, so if you have questions, PM me. Merlinski, feel free to give your closing argument.

~Vintage
  • 0
You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone
~Al Capone

#53 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 05 June 2004 - 08:14 PM

Haha, you almost proved my point there. Killing civilians in their hunt for terrorists is much different than killing civilians, "just to get their land back." We have killed alot of Iraqi civilians in our war, which is regrettable. We don't target civilians, Israel doesn't either, Arabs do.

How come the government who does nothing to stop it's own terrorists from attacking its neighbor country is brushed off, but the foreign government who launches counter-offensives against the terrorists to protect its people are considered wrong?


Actually, the whole hunt for terrorists things was supposed to be a sarcastic commentary on how the Israelis justify murdering Palestinians. There's a point where firing missiles into crowds isn't a military action, its just plain bloody revenge. Hell, there were a few Israeli fighter pilots who refused to be in the military because they felt that all their orders were just as bad as terrorist acts.

THERE IS NO REAL PALESTINIAN GOVERNMENT! They have no state, they have no army. It's not a government with citizens, because there is no state. It's just an *sshole (Arafat) who likes to pretend like he represents his people. The reason Palestine doesn't fight Israel with its military is because it doesn't have a military!! The only way they can fight is with terrorism.

It is entirely reasonable. My statement was in direct response to all who said that the Arabs were fighting for their land back. If their claim was legitimate, their government would back them up. Since they are not backed by their government, they are merely terrorists who hate Jews. They might feel that they should own Israel, but all they have proved is how they are heartless maniacs willing to blow themselves up to kill Jews. I mean, really...who would blow himself up in the first place, let alone for land he thinks belongs to him.


They don't have a government, and the closest thing they have to a government (Arafat) backs up their claim to land.

Ok, I think its time for some crystallization:

You believe that both claims are valid, and that both sides have a right to the land:
"The Arabs have every right to attack Israel to regain "their" land, just as Indians would have every right to attack us to regain "their" land , right? But Israel has every right to defend it's borders and America would have every right to defend ours."

I agree that both have valid claims.

You believe that Israel is the only valid claim because they have a state supporting them.

This is not valid because the Palestinians, the one who also have a claim to that land, do not have a state. Yes, there are Arab states in the region, but those states are not the ones who Israel is currently in conflict with. So, the opposition to Israel does not have a state and therefore cannot fight with an army and therefore must fight in the only way they can which is terrorism.

I'm not condoning terrorism, I believe its in the same league as firing hellfire missiles into crowds of protesters. But the real message here is that you can't blame Palestinians for not having a state when Israel is the reason they don't have a state.
  • 0

#54 Alexthebeast

Alexthebeast

    Member

  • Members
  • 728 posts

Posted 07 June 2004 - 10:30 AM

I Voted other, because Both parties have so much shit i dont agree with.
  • 0
<Fooz> In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penisses, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship.

#55 Accord

Accord

    Member

  • Banned
  • 141 posts

Posted 07 June 2004 - 03:20 PM

merlinski, I would like to commend you for being able to articulate your thoughts. I have not agreed with Vintage, but I havent foudn myself able to find enough skill or time to try to put up a convincing argument.

Killing civilians in their hunt for terrorists is much different than killing civilians, "just to get their land back."


Do you justify killing, even if accidentally, Vintage? Yes, you do say it is "regretable", but you don't put much thuoght or heart into that. I'm sure the soldiers that accidentally killed Palestinian civilians don't put much thought into it either. You need to realize that death is death. In both cases, people are killed violently. Even though the true intentions are different, the same result comes in the end. Someone is dead.

#56 Vintage

Vintage

    Member

  • Members
  • 462 posts
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 07 June 2004 - 07:21 PM

Do you justify killing, even if accidentally, Vintage? Yes, you do say it is "regretable", but you don't put much thuoght or heart into that. I'm sure the soldiers that accidentally killed Palestinian civilians don't put much thought into it either. You need to realize that death is death. In both cases, people are killed violently. Even though the true intentions are different, the same result comes in the end. Someone is dead.

I thought the topic of Palestine/Israel would be closed. Since that question was directed right at me, I will respond.

I don't justify senseless killing. I do justify killing in time of war. I don't think that a civilian casualty list should deter one nation from attacking another.

If the argument is Someone is dead then Israel can't defend itself. You basically are telling Israel "I am truly sorry those Arabs are KILLING your citizens, but you are not allowed to fight back, because you might kill people." Your morality is very shaky Accord. You seem to tell me that all death is bad. Obviously you disagree with yourself when you support abortion. You can't justify launching a huge counter-offensive against a nation terrorizing your borders, but you can justify killing your own child.

War means death! This is something the Arabs have chosen! If Arafat isn't going to stop the terrorists, Israel will! When terrorists hide in civilian clothes and bunker in civilian towns, they are the ones responsible for their civilian casualties.

Accord, I live in a nation where the military respects the lives of US citizens. Our military won't hide in New York waiting for bombs and rockets to start raining in. These Arab terrorists pick heavy civilian towns as their hideouts, because they expect people like you to be horrified when civilians die.

Cut the crap. They have brought this on themselves.

~Vintage
  • 0
You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone
~Al Capone

#57 Crankymonky

Crankymonky

    It's The Dean!

  • Members
  • 687 posts
  • Location:DC

Posted 07 June 2004 - 08:13 PM

And following Vintage's post, that's why I like Sharon. Now back to what this topic is supposed to be.

I am a communist. Well, I like the idea, just not the execution, Ho Chi Minh was the closest thing to a good Communist leader. Well, I guess I am independent, since I like conservative economic views as well as some military views, however I side with Democrats on far more issues. Like, not giving tax incentives for buying luxury SUV's and writing it off to your big bussiness...Silly Bush and his Big Bussiness. Also I am pro-choice and very open to other forms of government. I guess, I truly am independent. Also, I intend to go up to Bush, make out with some guy, then say "Fuck You, homophob. In the bible it says: Do not sleep with a man as you sleep with a women, Bush, did you know that isn't technically possible! And Bush I am straight." I guess people can figure out all my political views now. Go CCCP.

Crankymonky
  • 0
Tyranny Response Team

#58 Vintage

Vintage

    Member

  • Members
  • 462 posts
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 07 June 2004 - 08:34 PM

One of the main problems with communism is that the elite rulers and governmental officials receive way more money than the worker. Communism was originally meant to make "all men equal." How is that possible if an elite group of people are running everything? And reaping the benefits?

Just a thought.

Oh, and here is another. In America, people work harder for the prospects of more income. In communist countries, people all receive the same rations no matter how much work they put into the system.

Many citizens in communist countries want to come to America. Why don't you help offset that and move to a communist country?

~Vintage

Edit: Maybe you'll get lucky and get a job as a governmental official. Then again, maybe you won't get lucky ^_^ .

Edited by Vintage, 07 June 2004 - 08:35 PM.

  • 0
You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone
~Al Capone

#59 Accord

Accord

    Member

  • Banned
  • 141 posts

Posted 07 June 2004 - 08:41 PM

Let me rephrase that. I seem to have said it wrong. Violent killing is wrong, and civilians on both sides are doing this. I canít believe you are completely biased against one side. I feel that your ties to Israel is through the close links to Christianity, which is the root towards your blind bias.

Secondly, I am not contradictory of myself. Find the text that says I do support abortion. I actually remain indifferent about the matter, saying that people have the rights to do what they want. Also, we will have to get into the issue on where life begins, which is a whole other topic. Please stay on track. I appreciate on how you fill words in my own mouth.

Your morality is very shaky Accord


Personally, I question your own morality and arrogance through your religion. You believe that Christian morals are solely right, and you wonít actually use your own thoughts. You seem to think with the Bible and nothing else. Please, I would like to hear something original here. Donít give me carbon copies of ideas from others.

Accord, I live in a nation where the military respects the lives of US citizens.


By the way Captain Obvious, Iím an American.

On anotehr note, Crankymonky, yes, I do agree that communism sounds very good, but this is only on paper. Everyone being equal is very appealing and allows chances for equal opportunities. However, this is more or less impractical in life. With total equality, there is no motivation for advancement or inspiration. A lazy slacker would have the same social status as someone who is diligent.

Also, Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist before communist. He was first a democratic leader for his country. However, while in London, the British and other European nations wouldn't support his cause. Then, he became a socialist, but the party soon failed because no one would back him. However, he then chose the Communist party and recieved backing from both Russia and China, each one competing for more influence in the Vietnamese government. Basically, he didn't mind what party he was in, he just wanted independence for his country.

#60 Crankymonky

Crankymonky

    It's The Dean!

  • Members
  • 687 posts
  • Location:DC

Posted 07 June 2004 - 08:58 PM

Accord, we agree on many things politically and morally. (common arrogance in biblical/christian morals, and others) I was unaware of the Ho Chi Minh fact, interesting. This may have been an influencial factor in his success as a leader.

On another note, Crankymonky, yes, I do agree that communism sounds very good, but this is only on paper.

That is what I was trying to say, I can't tell if you were aware of that or contradicting me? Well, now it's open, What I quoted is what I meant!

Crankymonky

Edit: Accord, what is your political affiliation? Democrat or independent I would guess.

Edited by crankymonky, 07 June 2004 - 09:00 PM.

  • 0
Tyranny Response Team

#61 Accord

Accord

    Member

  • Banned
  • 141 posts

Posted 07 June 2004 - 09:02 PM

I was agreeing with you. I justl ike to sometimes leave quotes to give reference to what im talkign about.

#62 Vintage

Vintage

    Member

  • Members
  • 462 posts
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 07 June 2004 - 09:08 PM

Personally, I question your own morality and arrogance through your religion.  You believe that Christian morals are solely right, and you wonít actually use your own thoughts.  You seem to think with the Bible and nothing else.  Please, I would like to hear something original here.  Donít give me carbon copies of ideas from others.

Perhaps you don't understand Christianity? I have said this before, but if everyone has their own thoughts on morality, the world would be in utter chaos. My morality is based on the Biblical view.

I don't think it is wrong to look at the world through a Biblical perspective. You happen to look at the world through an atheistic perspective. These are called worldviews. If you have no worldviews, you are a guy who does no thinking. Or a guy who blows with the wind.

Accord, it is only natural that all who follow Jesus as their Lord have the same view on the Bible. It is only those who don't follow Jesus who have different views on the Bible.

Find the text that says I do support abortion.

If you are pro-choice you support abortion. Not support as in every person should have one, but support as in every person has the "right" to have one.

By the way Captain Obvious, Iím an American.

Sorry about that. I ran into a problem earlier on this thread when Canadians got confused with the poll. Since you don't give your location in your profile, I could not assume you were American.
  • 0
You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone
~Al Capone

#63 Crankymonky

Crankymonky

    It's The Dean!

  • Members
  • 687 posts
  • Location:DC

Posted 07 June 2004 - 09:18 PM

You assume we are Atheist, however I am a Jew, following the old testament. I don't believe in Jesus being the son of god, simply a nice rabbi that died on a crucifixion. There is more than one bible, not everyone follows the new testament.
I feel I can answer these question directed towards Accord since we were agreeing on everything. Accord please input. Accord what is your political affiliation?

Crankymonky
  • 0
Tyranny Response Team

#64 Accord

Accord

    Member

  • Banned
  • 141 posts

Posted 07 June 2004 - 09:22 PM

I'm an agnostic, not an athiest.

I do not consider myself to support abortion when I have not created a full and comprehensive opinion. For others, I leave it up to others to decide if they want to go through with it. Restricting this practice is not on my priority list, and I do not think it is right to intrude on certain rights of others. Also, President Bush does support abortion in extreme cases. Two examples are diddle and pregnancies in which the mother's life is endangered.

Crankymonky, I'm currently more of a moderate republican. However, most people in California are liberal, especially the youth. The reason I am more moderate is because of the religious aspect of the conservative views. But, my view do change with new events that go on. We might disagree on this part, but many of our views are very similar. What are your political views and representation

By the way, this topic is dying. I suggest we end it soon.

Edited by Accord, 07 June 2004 - 09:33 PM.


#65 Crankymonky

Crankymonky

    It's The Dean!

  • Members
  • 687 posts
  • Location:DC

Posted 08 June 2004 - 07:25 AM

I am pretty much a democrat. I disagree with liberal views on big business and the intense religious aspect. Funny how we both are disagreeing with religious beliefs effects in politics, yet say opposite groups are doing this.

Crankymonky
  • 0
Tyranny Response Team

#66 Vintage

Vintage

    Member

  • Members
  • 462 posts
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 08 June 2004 - 10:20 AM

I don't think it is wrong to look at the world through a Biblical perspective. You happen to look at the world through an atheistic perspective. These are called worldviews. If you have no worldviews, you are a guy who does no thinking. Or a guy who blows with the wind.

That was my statement. My point was not to label you as atheistic, Accord (I wasn't addressing you crankymonky). My point was to show that you look at the world through your beliefs. What you believe determines all aspects of your worldview.

If you preconceived believe the world is created by chance, everything you see will be interpreted as proving your belief.

If you have a preconceived belief that George Bush is terrible, everything you see will point you to that conclusion.

I was talking about preconceived views on the world, not necessarily religion (or lack of, Accord). Frankly, Accord, to be agnostic means you don't know what the heck you believe. Crankymonky, I am sorry you thought I was labeling you as atheistic.

As a side note, how can you believe in Communism? I, for one, would grow exceedingly bored if I had the same menial job for my lifetime. Here in America, I can apply for any job I want, and never need to stick with any job for any length of time. I like getting paid for my retail job. Even our minimum wage is much more than people receive through Communism. Who would honestly want to give all his money to the government hoping that they will act responsibly while rolling in dough? Only those in power enjoy any benefits. And there are alot for those in power.

~Vintage
  • 0
You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone
~Al Capone

#67 Accord

Accord

    Member

  • Banned
  • 141 posts

Posted 08 June 2004 - 03:24 PM

Frankly, Accord, to be agnostic means you don't know what the heck you believe.


I just wanted to let you know why I'm an agnostic. First of all, i wanted to go over what being an agnostic really is. In this thought, you simply state that you don't know if god exists. You dont deny him or support him. Also, contrary to what you said earlier being agnostic doesnt mean that you don't know what you are. I choose this because i feel that no religion correlates with my ideas.

Also, I do agree with you on communism. However, this practice does sound very equal in idea, but it would never work in reality. Most nations that chose this route were mainly rural and poor, even though in Marx's Communist Manifesto said that communism required the nation to already have achieved the industrial revolution.

edit: sorry, i had to clear the post up more. I'm not much of an english person, math and science are my strong points. If you dont understand something just ask.

Edited by Accord, 08 June 2004 - 03:30 PM.


#68 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 08 June 2004 - 03:47 PM

Accord, it is only natural that all who follow Jesus as their Lord have the same view on the Bible.  It is only those who don't follow Jesus who have different views on the Bible.

There are as many interpretations of 'The Bible' as there are Christianity-based religions. I can assure you that there are many Christians who are not literalist in their reading.

Presbyterians, Baptists, Episcopalians, and Methodists have all ordained women as ministers.

1 Tim. 2:12 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

None of those groups are Christian by your definition. But which version of 'The Bible' do you follow? Have you looked at the enormous differences among various translations? How did you choose The One you follow as gospel? Why?

What makes you think something that was written to be understood by people 1000-3500 years ago can possibly make sense in a word-for-word manner to someone who lives today?
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#69 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 08 June 2004 - 04:35 PM

So many things need addressing... I'll agree that the Israel issue is put to rest tho.

Perhaps you don't understand Christianity? I have said this before, but if everyone has their own thoughts on morality, the world would be in utter chaos. My morality is based on the Biblical view.


Let's hear it for ethnic cleansing! Face it, people will always disagree with each other, and people do have their own thoughts on morality. Hell, the world would be horrible if everyone blindly followed Christianity like you profess to do, because then no one would have challenged the morality of the Crusades, Inquisition, Sale of Indulgences, etc. I think it's time to mark the first hypocrisy point:

You believe that everyone should have the same ideas on morality, yet you support capitalism. Capitalism requires a marketplace of ideas, where people think differently in order to gain a leg up on one's fellow man. Capitalistic thought encourages varying views and challenging accepted doctrine, something that you do not support when it challenges christianity.

I don't think it is wrong to look at the world through a Biblical perspective. You happen to look at the world through an atheistic perspective. These are called worldviews. If you have no worldviews, you are a guy who does no thinking. Or a guy who blows with the wind.


Actually, I'd consider one who blindly follows a worldview articulated by another person to be a guy who does no thinking.

Accord, it is only natural that all who follow Jesus as their Lord have the same view on the Bible. It is only those who don't follow Jesus who have different views on the Bible.


CX already addressed this quite well. But I need to go into further detail about something somewhat tangential. Following the Bible literally is, quite simply, a horrible thing to do. The bible says, that those who plant 2 crops in 1 field should be stoned/executed, as well as those who approach an altar with less than perfect sight. The bible can have a positive role by setting a moral code, but only if you take it for what it is - a bunch of metaphors. Take it literally, and you are doing no thinking for yourself.

As a side note, how can you believe in Communism? I, for one, would grow exceedingly bored if I had the same menial job for my lifetime. Here in America, I can apply for any job I want, and never need to stick with any job for any length of time. I like getting paid for my retail job. Even our minimum wage is much more than people receive through Communism. Who would honestly want to give all his money to the government hoping that they will act responsibly while rolling in dough? Only those in power enjoy any benefits. And there are alot for those in power.


You see this issue in Black and White, capitalist and communist. Which is completely ridiculous. Let's go into a brief dissertation on communism:
The idea of socialism wasn't founded by Marx and Engels. In fact, the idea originated in early 19th century France, and first gained popularity through a group called the Saint-Simonians. These people believed in socialist ideas - the equality of all and joining all labor under one leader (the state). The Saint-Simonians were also realists, and to enact their dream founded investment banking. Yes, children, investment banking is socialist. It takes the money from a bunch of people under single leadership, and invests it in ventures, where all people have an equal share. So a major part of America's financial system is, in fact, communist (oh no, ze Reds! ze Reds!).

Furthermore, Vintage seems to be adopting the Reaganesque viewpoint of "look, it didn't work, capitalists win!". This is obvious through generalizations such as "Even our minimum wage is much more than people receive through Communism". Well, that's kind of hard to say, considering that Communism doesn't have a required minimum wage. In fact, Russian Communism guaranteed a job for every person in the country. So, I guess from the point of view of someone who can't find work, the wages in a country as backwards as Russia would be better than the wages here!

Ok, I should get to the point. Communism, as an idea, relies on the principle that people will realize that, although working harder does not give them direct benefits, if everyone works harder, everyone receives benefits. This mindset has been semi-achieved by American people, in the realm of voting. Everyone knows that their individual vote doesn't make a difference, but they vote because they know that the mindset of voting is essential if democracy is to succeed. For Communism to work, this mindset must be transferred from voting to working (obviously we should try to get our voting numbers up first). Communism also doesn't require a dictatorship, we could have our democratic republic with a communist economic system. So there goes your few corrupt leaders argument. The fact is that the world is not ready for Communism, but when it is ready, and when we are enlightened enough to fulfill the requirements of it, it will be far more productive and egalitarian than capitalism.
  • 0

#70 Crankymonky

Crankymonky

    It's The Dean!

  • Members
  • 687 posts
  • Location:DC

Posted 08 June 2004 - 05:29 PM

Russia is like what you last described, just there government is strugling with democracy. The are a democratic nation with socialism rather than capitalism.

Crankymonky
  • 0
Tyranny Response Team

#71 Chrysophylax

Chrysophylax

    Member

  • Members
  • 193 posts
  • Location:Buffalo, New York

Posted 08 June 2004 - 05:58 PM

Personally, I question your own morality and arrogance through your religion. You believe that Christian morals are solely right, and you wonít actually use your own thoughts. You seem to think with the Bible and nothing else. Please, I would like to hear something original here. Donít give me carbon copies of ideas from others.

I would like you for that post, but I don't like you already.

I'm democratic, but I can't vote. I'm pro choice, but I'm not a woman. I'm pro homosexual rights, but I'm not gay.

I suck. My political stances don't matter. But I'll leave you with this:



HOMO SEX RULES!
  • 0
"I FUCKING BEG OF YOU! MY FUCKING BROTHER WOULD GET OFF!"

--Mraow

#72 Vintage

Vintage

    Member

  • Members
  • 462 posts
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 08 June 2004 - 06:02 PM

I start with a brief explanation of my "black vs white" view on communism. I want to buy stuff. I want to have a nice home, decent bed, a fridge full of food, and a car. I can have all this under capitalism, I can't under communism/socialism. In fact, since all people are "equal" no one can. That to me is black and white.

Certainly, those people who live in boxes on streets will be much, much better off, but the government cannot just create millions of jobs to get these people working.

Think about this. You have an extremely successful businessman. He makes billions, due to his brilliance. Now you strip his income down to mere thousands to make him "equal." This man is making the same amount of money that the bum off the streets in NY is making. What possible reason would he have to continue in his high stress job when he can pump gas for the same amount of cash?

Or how about from the other side. A bum off the streets of NY is given thousands a year. He has no education, so the government pays him for schooling so that he has the experience necessary to have a job. He gets free schooling, AND still gets an income. What possible reason would he have to excell in anything?

Communism, as an idea, relies on the principle that people will realize that, although working harder does not give them direct benefits, if everyone works harder, everyone receives benefits.

No one ever looks out for everyone else in a communistic/socialistic form of government.

Concerning religion:
I don't want to tell you all about a religion you have already rejected. If you really are sincere about learning about Christianity, PM me. Cxwq, and merlinski, both of your comments were without basis and your questions were not asked in a truly sincere manner.

You really don't want to hear about Christianity here, for your comments such as:

The bible says, that those who plant 2 crops in 1 field should be stoned/executed, as well as those who approach an altar with less than perfect sight.

Presbyterians, Baptists, Episcopalians, and Methodists have all ordained women as ministers.

1 Tim. 2:12 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

prove that you think you already understand everything about the Bible.
If you truly want me to answer those questions, I would suggest you ask them in a manner that tells me you care.

~Vintage
  • 0
You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone
~Al Capone

#73 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 08 June 2004 - 06:14 PM

You're the one who said:

It is only those who don't follow Jesus who have different views on the Bible.


Which is utter crap.

You can't make blanket statements about Christianity that even most Christians don't agree with and expect not to be called on it.

You're right about me not really caring though. I've talked to enough people who share your views about the bible that I'm pretty certain I've heard what you have to say already. Fortunately, most of the Christians I know (and all the ones I like) are quite unlike you in their beliefs.

So just consider my points to have been not worth thinking about and continue on the path that picked you.
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#74 Vintage

Vintage

    Member

  • Members
  • 462 posts
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 08 June 2004 - 06:49 PM

Ok, cxwq, I finally understand what you are driving at. You are talking about exact interpretation of the Bible. What I meant to say, and understand I did mean to say, was that all true followers of Christ have the same view on morality.

I was trying to address Accord's question on my so called "carbon-copy" Christian view on morality.

What I meant for my reply to say was that every follower of Christ shares the same views on murder, theft, lying, cheating, etc. All issues of morality.

What makes it extremely difficult for true followers of Christ are all the false "Christians." They are people you see every day who follow Christianity, not Christ. To many, Christianity is merely meaning in their lives. To me, it is everything about my life.

Sorry about any confusion back there.

~Vintage

Edited by Vintage, 08 June 2004 - 06:51 PM.

  • 0
You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone
~Al Capone

#75 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 08 June 2004 - 07:42 PM

I start with a brief explanation of my "black vs white" view on communism.  I want to buy stuff.  I want to have a nice home, decent bed, a fridge full of food, and a car.  I can have all this under capitalism, I can't under communism/socialism.  In fact, since all people are "equal" no one can.  That to me is black and white.


Who says you can't have that under communism? What you're saying is completely based on the Russian example, and completely ignorant of communism as a theory of economics. Communism doesn't say "you can't have a nice car" it says that every worker should have an equal share in what he creates. Where does everyone being "equal" mean that everyone can't have an equally nice car, an equally stocked fridge, and an equally nice home? In fact, that's the basis of true socialist economics. Call it a hunch, but I think investment banks tend to do pretty well.

Think about this.  You have an extremely successful businessman.  He makes billions, due to his brilliance.  Now you strip his income down to mere thousands to make him "equal."  This man is making the same amount of money that the bum off the streets in NY is making.  What possible reason would he have to continue in his high stress job when he can pump gas for the same amount of cash?

Or how about from the other side.  A bum off the streets of NY is given thousands a year.  He has no education, so the government pays him for schooling so that he has the experience necessary to have a job.  He gets free schooling, AND still gets an income.  What possible reason would he have to excell in anything?


First, I'll turn this around. You are an average american citizen. You are a thinking, breathing, conscious human being, who has strong opinions on the issues. The way our government works, your vote means absolutely nothing in the big scheme of things. Even the closest election in history was decided by 357, not 1. You might be a millionaire, but in the political landscape you are just as insignificant as the aforementioned New York Bum. What possible incentive would you have to vote, when you know it won't make a difference?

The fact is, democracy as it is practiced in the US is the political counterpart of socialist economics. I admit that it wouldn't work if you suddenly changed the entire world to communism, but I think it is the highest form of economics which can eventually be reached as we learn from our mistakes and evolve. Socialism doesn't necessarily mean that everyone works the same jobs but gets the same pay. You're stereotyping an entire economic system, and it seems like it's useless trying to have this conversation. Socialism purely means that those who do the work own the entity that they are working for. A factory with varying levels of managers and workers who get different pay can be socialist, if the factory is owned by all the people who work in it. Try to overcome your preconception of socialist as "Russia", otherwise you'll never see the economic theory as a whole. Socialism arose because people noticed that workers never cared about the fate of their company, or their country. When the worker's success is tied to the fate of that which he is working for, he has all the more incentive.

You really don't want to hear about Christianity here, for your comments such as:
*snip*
prove that you think you already understand everything about the Bible.


I don't think I understand everything about the Bible, the quote was to show that I know there are parts that ought not to be taken literally.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users