[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Judeo/Christian/Muslim God
One too many slashes in that statement. [/quote]
Don´t bash the Muslim God, the Shariah was enlightened for its times.
Unfortunately, the very idea of divine law that held Muslim rulers in check at least within the Umma, makes Islam very inflexible when it comes to accepting modernity.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
It does. Christians forget that Jesus would have been a communist.
Lol.
I’m missing those passages where Christ lays out the ideal economic and political system for man.[/quote]
I think he thinks that the story of the rich young ruler was a mandate for everyone to give away everything they own rather than Jesus’ confrontation of that ruler with the first commandment.
To be sure, Jesus does advocate charity amongst believers, but I can’t find any mandate for Marxism in the New Testament. Actually, little is said at all about civil government by Jesus other than to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.”
The Law is good, when used lawfully.
I don’t see how. How did it surpass Roman law or even Hammurabi’s code?
It succeeded in uniting the Arabs and providing a legal justification for the second-class citizenship of Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and women and the confiscation of the property and life of any of the former for violations of their dhimma. The Arabs were better off without it.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
LOL. When the going got rough in here? Please. I comment when I have something to say, but I’m not going to keep reposting the same thing over and over, although it seems like you enjoy that. My life doesn’t revolve around the politics section. Sorry. I know your ass is hurting because the Cowboys blow, but I’m surprised you take it in the mouth on the political forum also. To each his own I guess.[/quote]
This coming from a fucknut who quotes the daily kos talking points without so much as a pause.
Nice way to try and dodge behind the Cowboys, but that is fucking weak.
You are a pathetic little wannabe who has yet to contribute to any society, and you think telling me I give blow jobs is not going to cover for the truth. I don’t expect it to register with you, but I could really care less.
You are a fucking paper boy. That is not being in the fucking media.
You never volunteered for shit. But - even if you did - what did you do the for the last several years while you were throwing little cunt fits about the war?
You are all fucking talk - and for someone who is supposedly a writer you do a pretty fucking crappy job of it.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
LOL. When the going got rough in here? Please. I comment when I have something to say, but I’m not going to keep reposting the same thing over and over, although it seems like you enjoy that. My life doesn’t revolve around the politics section. Sorry. I know your ass is hurting because the Cowboys blow, but I’m surprised you take it in the mouth on the political forum also. To each his own I guess.
This coming from a fucknut who quotes the daily kos talking points without so much as a pause.
Nice way to try and dodge behind the Cowboys, but that is fucking weak.
You are a pathetic little wannabe who has yet to contribute to any society, and you think telling me I give blow jobs is not going to cover for the truth. I don’t expect it to register with you, but I could really care less.
[/quote]
Blah blah blah.
You regurgitate the same old bullshit every day, and that same old “You get your news from the dailykos!” to everyone that disagrees with you.
Just another redneck republican shill.
HAHAHAHA!
Good thing you know my life better than I do. I actually got a call from Obama’s campaign tonight, funny you should mention that. It was right in the middle of my town council’s information meeting, which kills me because I have to vote Republican for the state assembly because of certain statewide issues.
And what is it, exactly, that I could do about the war, besides voting Democrat in every election I can get my hands on? Besides going to any protest in my area? Besides send shit to any of buddies who are over there? You want me go fly a chopper to Iraq and steal some troops back? Haha. You’re unbelieveable.
I do alot more than you think. But keep up your compliments of me. I appreciate each and every one of them. If you haven’t noticed, your bullshit doesn’t really bother me. I think it’s kind of funny. A big tough CPA… Next we’ll be seeing celibate hookers.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
It does. Christians forget that Jesus would have been a communist.
Lol.
I’m missing those passages where Christ lays out the ideal economic and political system for man.[/quote]
Well, it’s not something I could ever prove, but Jesus did hang out with the dregs of society, the hookers and homeless. The degree of compassion that he treated them with is indicative of what his political leanings would be, I believe.
I can’t exactly see Jesus on Wall Street makin paper, then riding in his CL to his condo in Hoboken while voting against welfare.
Jesus was probably one of the coolest cats that’s ever lived, and his life is a model for any and everyone.
But believe what you want. These are only my thoughts.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Blah blah blah.
You regurgitate the same old bullshit every day, and that same old “You get your news from the dailykos!” to everyone that disagrees with you.
[/quote]
Not everyone, junior - just those that are actually parroting them, which you are doing.
Walk like a duck, quack like a duck.
[quote]Good thing you know my life better than I do. I actually got a call from Obama’s campaign tonight, funny you should mention that. It was right in the middle of my town council’s information meeting, which kills me because I have to vote Republican for the state assembly because of certain statewide issues.
And what is it, exactly, that I could do about the war, besides voting Democrat in every election I can get my hands on? Besides going to any protest in my area? Besides send shit to any of buddies who are over there? You want me go fly a chopper to Iraq and steal some troops back? Haha. You’re unbelieveable.
I do alot more than you think. But keep up your compliments of me. I appreciate each and every one of them. If you haven’t noticed, your bullshit doesn’t really bother me. I think it’s kind of funny. A big tough CPA… Next we’ll be seeing celibate hookers.
[/quote]
I don’t know your life - I can just tell the difference between talkers and doers. You are a talker. No big deal, but I think it is pretty shitty of you to jump on someone when all you have done is talk a big talk. When it comes down to it, you vote republican when it is convenient. That’s pretty piss poor, kiddo.
Who said anything about tough? Unless you define tough as being able to drink a kid almost half my age and half my size under the table - I don’t claim to be tough. Never have.
I’m not a CPA anymore. I stopped with my CPE’s several years ago because I fundamentally hate what the profession has become, and the asswipes who run the AICPA.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Blah blah blah.
You regurgitate the same old bullshit every day, and that same old “You get your news from the dailykos!” to everyone that disagrees with you.
Not everyone, junior - just those that are actually parroting them, which you are doing.
Walk like a duck, quack like a duck.
[/quote]
Alright there Rush.
Keep wearing that t-shirt. I can listen to bullshit like yours anyday on the AM stations… that, surprisingly, no one listens to.
LOL. No, I vote Republican when I believe what they stand for. That never happens nationally. Locally, however, I vote for people over parties because that’s the nature of local politics.
Is that OK with you grandpa?
If you define toughness by ability to drink, the I guess you win. Hell, if that’s a definition of manliness, I’ll give it to you.
Cause where I come from, being an old drunk don’t mean much. Maybe life’s different in Texas.
What’d you just say? Walks like duck, quacks like a duck…
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Alright there Rush.
Keep wearing that t-shirt. I can listen to bullshit like yours anyday on the AM stations… that, surprisingly, no one listens to.[/quote]
You do realize that the t-shirt you are referring to is almost as old as you are, don’t you? Is that how far you have to go back? To you pre potty-training days?
Rush out earns Stern. He just signed a new deal worth hundreds of millions of dollars with Clear Channel. Say what you want about the guy, but thinking no one listens to him is laughable.
[quote]LOL. No, I vote Republican when I believe what they stand for. That never happens nationally. Locally, however, I vote for people over parties because that’s the nature of local politics.
Is that OK with you grandpa?[/quote]
A sellout is a sellout. What you do to justify it is your business.
[quote]If you define toughness by ability to drink, the I guess you win. Hell, if that’s a definition of manliness, I’ll give it to you.
Cause where I come from, being an old drunk don’t mean much. Maybe life’s different in Texas.[/quote]
You were the one not too long ago bragging about how you could out drink me. That is the only reference I can think of where I ever hinted at being a tough guy.
But 3 shots of bourbon is hardly a drunk, or being a man. It just happens to be more than you can handle.
[quote]I’m not a CPA anymore. I stopped with my CPE’s several years ago because I fundamentally hate what the profession has become, and the asswipes who run the AICPA.
What’d you just say? Walks like duck, quacks like a duck…[/quote]
When do I brag about being a CPA? I’d like to see the quote on that one, because I never have. I know a shit ton about the tax code, but if you think that is what a CPA is, then I doubt that quacking you think you hear is coming from me.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Alright there Rush.
Keep wearing that t-shirt. I can listen to bullshit like yours anyday on the AM stations… that, surprisingly, no one listens to.
You do realize that the t-shirt you are referring to is almost as old as you are, don’t you? Is that how far you have to go back? To you pre potty-training days?
Rush out earns Stern. He just signed a new deal worth hundreds of millions of dollars with Clear Channel. Say what you want about the guy, but thinking no one listens to him is laughable.
[/quote]
I could give two fucks who he out earns. The fact is, when old dogs like you are gone, my man will be out of a job, just like all his buddies. People from this century barely know what AM is, and for good reason.
And if you’ve got 24-year old t-shirts, you better take some that hhuuuugggeeee stack of paper you got and invest in a new wardrobe. Nobody wearin bellbottoms anymore.
My mistake. I’ll just be an idiot line voter like someone else I know.
You started that one. And I said you were a fat old drunk that time too.
Please hillbilly. If manhood came to drinking, you pour me Jameson or Patron. Get out of here with that bourbon bullshit.
No shame in that. I wouldn’t brag about being a CPA either.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m missing those passages where Christ lays out the ideal economic and political system for man.[/quote]
Jamiroquai 13:69
[quote]RoadWarrior wrote:
Out of 43 presidents, 13 have been Democrat. This would put Obama in some tall people. Although, until McCain I have never heard anyone refer to JFK or FDR as a socialist. Obama maintains the same party goals as them.
1 Andrew Jackson
2 Martin Van Buren
3 James Knox Polk
4 Franklin Pierce
5 James Buchanan
6 Grover Cleveland
7 Woodrow Wilson
8 Franklin Delano Roosevelt
9 Harry S. Truman
10 John Fitzgerald Kennedy
11 Lyndon Baines Johnson
12 James Earl ‘Jimmy’ Carter
13 William Jefferson ‘Bill’ Clinton
[/quote]
I thought we were going to discuss great socialists, such as Hitler (National Socialist) or Stalin (Soviet Socialist). Only #12 in your list weakly qualifies while 13 was just a big dumb hillbilly who likes bone-smackers.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
RoadWarrior wrote:
Out of 43 presidents, 13 have been Democrat. This would put Obama in some tall people. Although, until McCain I have never heard anyone refer to JFK or FDR as a socialist. Obama maintains the same party goals as them.
1 Andrew Jackson
2 Martin Van Buren
3 James Knox Polk
4 Franklin Pierce
5 James Buchanan
6 Grover Cleveland
7 Woodrow Wilson
8 Franklin Delano Roosevelt
9 Harry S. Truman
10 John Fitzgerald Kennedy
11 Lyndon Baines Johnson
12 James Earl ‘Jimmy’ Carter
13 William Jefferson ‘Bill’ Clinton
I thought we were going to discuss great socialists, such as Hitler (National Socialist) or Stalin (Soviet Socialist). Only #12 in your list weakly qualifies while 13 was just a big dumb hillbilly who likes bone-smackers.
[/quote]
LBJ, after killing JFK, launched the “Great Society”. If that doesn’t qualify for socialist, I don’t know what does.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
It does. Christians forget that Jesus would have been a communist.
Lol. [/quote]
The Acts of the Apostles chapter 2 verses 44-46:
[quote]
A thoroughly Christian society would have no need for statist communism. The citizens would do voluntarily and at their discretion what communism attempts to force (for everybody but the leaders of course) with disastrous results.
It’s one thing to share out of religious conviction and quite another for Joe Biden and Barack Obama to threaten you with prison if you don’t do your patriotic duty and give them your weath so they can spread it around for you.
A really great post from Richard Fernandez over at pajamas media…
[i]Undercover agent Larry Grathwohl discusses the Weather Underground’s post-revolution governing plans for the United States on a YouTube video. - YouTube
The video is taken from the 1982 documentary “No Place to Hide.” The Weathermen’s plans included putting parts of United States under the administration of Cuba, North Vietnam, China and Russia and re-educating the uncooperative in camps in located in the Southwest. Since there would be holdouts, plans were made for liquidating the estimated 25 million unreconstructable die-hards.
The most interesting moment of the video comes when Grathwohl asks the viewer to imagine what it’s like to be in a room with 25 people, all of whom have master’s degrees or higher from elite institutions of higher learning like Columbia, listening to them discuss the logistics of killing 25 million Americans.
Actually, it’s easy. What’s hard to imagine is sitting in a room full of plumbers discussing the same thing. [b]The longer I live the less I believe that humanity is able to live without submitting itself to some kind of belief system. Western Civilization decided to liberate itself from a belief in Christ - whose Kingdom was not of this world - and went straight to the altars of Nazism and Communism, whose kingdom was in the camps. People like Ayers aren’t atheists, they’re true believers. GK Chesterton was right when he said that a man who declares he has stopped believing in God often doesn’t mean he believes in nothing. It only means he’s willing to believe in anything.[/b]
Jean Paul Sarte believed Che Guevara was “not only an intellectual but also the most complete human being of our age…[the] era’s most perfect man”, which just goes to show you can get a fancy diploma from the Ecole Normale Supérieure and still graduate with not an iota of common sense. Unclogging a drain with a snake is something anyone with a little intelligence and persistence can do. Planning the death of millions of Americans takes an education.[/i]
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
RoadWarrior wrote:
Out of 43 presidents, 13 have been Democrat. This would put Obama in some tall people. Although, until McCain I have never heard anyone refer to JFK or FDR as a socialist. Obama maintains the same party goals as them.
1 Andrew Jackson
2 Martin Van Buren
3 James Knox Polk
4 Franklin Pierce
5 James Buchanan
6 Grover Cleveland
7 Woodrow Wilson
8 Franklin Delano Roosevelt
9 Harry S. Truman
10 John Fitzgerald Kennedy
11 Lyndon Baines Johnson
12 James Earl ‘Jimmy’ Carter
13 William Jefferson ‘Bill’ Clinton
I thought we were going to discuss great socialists, such as Hitler (National Socialist) or Stalin (Soviet Socialist). Only #12 in your list weakly qualifies while 13 was just a big dumb hillbilly who likes bone-smackers.
LBJ, after killing JFK, launched the “Great Society”. If that doesn’t qualify for socialist, I don’t know what does.
[/quote]
True. Forgot about him.
I read where one of LBJ’s girlfriend’s is recounted as asking him why he was troubled. He said, “Its big oil. Big oil wants to get rid of JFK.” (according to her). Would love to know the truth there.
Katz,
That was a great read.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
It does. Christians forget that Jesus would have been a communist.
Lol.
The Acts of the Apostles chapter 2 verses 44-46:
A thoroughly Christian society would have no need for statist communism. The citizens would do voluntarily and at their discretion what communism attempts to force (for everybody but the leaders of course) with disastrous results.
It’s one thing to share out of religious conviction and quite another for Joe Biden and Barack Obama to threaten you with prison if you don’t do your patriotic duty and give them your weath so they can spread it around for you.[/quote]
Communism is supposed to be based on at least a willingness of the majority.
I was just saying Jesus was a “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need kind of guy”
I think the fallacy with socialism is the need for an incorruptible authoritative leader, which Christianity would inherently theoretically have.
Irish you made note that true socialism would have no government, but again I don’t see it that way.
You spoke of the workers controlling production and profits, the whole idea of institutionalized control is government. Meaning really that the government is so large it is everyone.
Also when you speak of control, there has to be some sort of structured form which again would be government.
Could you imagine sitting down with an entire plant of assembly workers and trying to determine anything as simple as what weeks to have plant shut down for vacation? Or how about what temperature to have the building? Nothing would EVER get decided.
Even in a situation as localized as single plant, socialism facilitates the need for a structured government and probably an authoritative head.
Now try and figure out demand and supply issues for production on a national level where you would have to get everyone from an industry together and try and decide things with no governing authority.
Then try to tackle international issues, where continents are involved.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
There is exactly one big issue fascists and socialists could never agree one.
Fascists wanted to control the economy by leave the day to day operation to the owners and socialist wanted to nationalize them and run them themselves.
That is about it.
The whole point of the article FI posted seems to be lost to me, unless he wanted to show that yes, indeed, fascism and socialism do have the same roots but manifested themselves differently in each country.
In the case of Germany they happily coexisted with a heavy dose of nationalism and racism. And, surprise those were also collectivist, totalitarian philosophies.
One could also argue that Stalins or Kim Jong-Ils regimes had lots of traits that are considered to be “fascist” by the left.
Like militarism, nationalism, cult of personality, the invention of an outward enemy to create unity within the country and so on.
Fascism, Socialism and Social democracy share many of the same assumptions, and the central assumption is that the collective is more important than the individual.
That ultimately leads to using other people as beasts of burden, no matter how you turn it.
It is modern religion, and the state is their God.
Idolatry if you will.
That is an argument I’ve always found interesting, more so with the Obamessiah talk slinging around.
That the ultimate liberal ideology is an encapsulation of religion, not an abolishment of it.
It certainly manifested itself in Nazism where you saw a merging of socialism, religion, and an all authoritative messiah figure. Kind of the belief that a Utopian, heaven like society is achievable on earth through the power of government.
Thoughts Irish? Care to accuse me of comparing Obama and Hitler? =0)
It is interesting insofar as Christian conservatives are pointing out that “liberals” think that the state has God-like powers and can bring about paradise on earth.
On the other hand they get pissed that “atheists” never waged a jihad because socialism and fascism are religion like.
I am afraid that that is a problem they themselves have to solve.
The religious folk killed and oppressed under state atheism would disagree. I know, I know, socialism (somewhow now a religion) warped their atheist minds. Could Christians then blame the economic and political regimes present at low and bloody points in our history? Fair is fair, after all.
You misrepresent the argument.
I know of no holy war in the name of atheism.
A lot of wars were waged to spread/stop the spread of national socialism, fascism and communism though, and these ideologies undoubtedly have quasi religious motifs as is pointed out by a lot of Christians today.
Now we’re back to quasi religious…Can’t you just admit that the secular and atheist is at least as likely to resort to bloodshed? Is it really painful to do so? I mean, where atheism has had power, state atheism, it’s wielded a bloody sword.
I think the point is that “state atheism” is a brand of religion. Or maybe to some point atheism can be a religion.
Which is kinda funny, because I flipped through a book in a book store the other day on “Atheist Spirituality”.
It sounds to me like the arguement is that atheism, backed or corrupted by force (however you want to phrase it), is religiously inspired.
However, do I as a Christian get to argue that my religion is completely peaceful? That violent episodes in Christian history can be attributed to secular/governmental/this worldly concerns corrupting my religion?
Let’s say, converting the heathens wasn’t so much the goal, as was the grabbing of land and resources? And, my otherwise peaceful religion was actually used by those more concerned with material/this worldy goals?
I don’t know. It’s just that everytime someone says, “Christianity was involved in bloodshed,” pointing to mayhem committed for the sake of atheism is met with “well, that’s actually religions fault, too.”[/quote]
You could argue that, but what would it help?
If an inherently peaceful religion can be so easily used to lead the masses into war and other abominations, is it not seriously flawed?
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
There is exactly one big issue fascists and socialists could never agree one.
Fascists wanted to control the economy by leave the day to day operation to the owners and socialist wanted to nationalize them and run them themselves.
That is about it.
The whole point of the article FI posted seems to be lost to me, unless he wanted to show that yes, indeed, fascism and socialism do have the same roots but manifested themselves differently in each country.
In the case of Germany they happily coexisted with a heavy dose of nationalism and racism. And, surprise those were also collectivist, totalitarian philosophies.
One could also argue that Stalins or Kim Jong-Ils regimes had lots of traits that are considered to be “fascist” by the left.
Like militarism, nationalism, cult of personality, the invention of an outward enemy to create unity within the country and so on.
Fascism, Socialism and Social democracy share many of the same assumptions, and the central assumption is that the collective is more important than the individual.
That ultimately leads to using other people as beasts of burden, no matter how you turn it.
It is modern religion, and the state is their God.
Idolatry if you will.
That is an argument I’ve always found interesting, more so with the Obamessiah talk slinging around.
That the ultimate liberal ideology is an encapsulation of religion, not an abolishment of it.
It certainly manifested itself in Nazism where you saw a merging of socialism, religion, and an all authoritative messiah figure. Kind of the belief that a Utopian, heaven like society is achievable on earth through the power of government.
Thoughts Irish? Care to accuse me of comparing Obama and Hitler? =0)
It is interesting insofar as Christian conservatives are pointing out that “liberals” think that the state has God-like powers and can bring about paradise on earth.
On the other hand they get pissed that “atheists” never waged a jihad because socialism and fascism are religion like.
I am afraid that that is a problem they themselves have to solve.
The religious folk killed and oppressed under state atheism would disagree. I know, I know, socialism (somewhow now a religion) warped their atheist minds. Could Christians then blame the economic and political regimes present at low and bloody points in our history? Fair is fair, after all.
You misrepresent the argument.
I know of no holy war in the name of atheism.
A lot of wars were waged to spread/stop the spread of national socialism, fascism and communism though, and these ideologies undoubtedly have quasi religious motifs as is pointed out by a lot of Christians today.
Now we’re back to quasi religious…Can’t you just admit that the secular and atheist is at least as likely to resort to bloodshed? Is it really painful to do so? I mean, where atheism has had power, state atheism, it’s wielded a bloody sword.
I think the point is that “state atheism” is a brand of religion. Or maybe to some point atheism can be a religion.
Which is kinda funny, because I flipped through a book in a book store the other day on “Atheist Spirituality”.
It sounds to me like the arguement is that atheism, backed or corrupted by force (however you want to phrase it), is religiously inspired.
However, do I as a Christian get to argue that my religion is completely peaceful? That violent episodes in Christian history can be attributed to secular/governmental/this worldly concerns corrupting my religion?
Let’s say, converting the heathens wasn’t so much the goal, as was the grabbing of land and resources? And, my otherwise peaceful religion was actually used by those more concerned with material/this worldy goals?
I don’t know. It’s just that everytime someone says, “Christianity was involved in bloodshed,” pointing to mayhem committed for the sake of atheism is met with “well, that’s actually religions fault, too.”
You could argue that, but what would it help?
If an inherently peaceful religion can be so easily used to lead the masses into war and other abominations, is it not seriously flawed?
[/quote]
Great leaders can take anything and use it to motivate people as they see fit. Hitler probably could have perpetuated the Holocaust by twisting facts from children’s books. Does that make the children’s books flawed, or the gullible masses?
There is a whole argument that can be made about how evil doesn’t truely exist, only the perversion of good. The fact that something can be twisted to cruel or unjust ends doesn’t mean that it is flaw or should be gotten rid of.
Science is many times used to justify and control the same way religion is. Look at all the “studies” about health and nutrition flying around. Even Hitler used science to justify the “superiority” of the Aryan race.