Arnold:-6
I just read a lengthy article in the Vancouver sun, on China. China has openly said that it will use whatever force is necessary wherever to get the resources they need. I found that very interesting in light of American foreign policy. Extreme right meets extreme left.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
Ted wrote: Clint:-6
I've said it all before on this forum. I have nothing whatsoever against the Average American. They are fine decent folks who simply want to get on with life and enjoy it as best they can.
The problem is that the American government is coming ever closer to being a fascist government which is just a little more to the right. There are several hallmarks of fascism and one of them is to raise the level of fear to get cooperation.
Instead of a personal attack show me where I am wrong and I sincerely hope I am.
Shalom
Ted:-6
If you don’t want a personal response then don’t open with a personal attack. I’m an American.
I've said it all before on this forum. I have nothing whatsoever against the Average American. They are fine decent folks who simply want to get on with life and enjoy it as best they can.
The problem is that the American government is coming ever closer to being a fascist government which is just a little more to the right. There are several hallmarks of fascism and one of them is to raise the level of fear to get cooperation.
Instead of a personal attack show me where I am wrong and I sincerely hope I am.
Shalom
Ted:-6
If you don’t want a personal response then don’t open with a personal attack. I’m an American.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
Clint:-6
I think if you read my post clearly you will find that it is not a personal attack unless you are a elected representative in which case you have my sympathy.
Now, if you would care, show me where I am wrong.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I think if you read my post clearly you will find that it is not a personal attack unless you are a elected representative in which case you have my sympathy.
Now, if you would care, show me where I am wrong.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
Arnold :-6
Consider the following and you will have an idea as to why the east has great animosity for the west.
"Our culture is deeply engaged in sadomasochism---understood here as the have lording over the have-nots. How so? Let's take contemporary capitalism and the world distribution of wealth and power as an example: in the 1960's, the ovrall income of the richest 20% ofthe world's population was thirty times that of the poorest 20%. Today, it is 224 times larger! In the 1960's, the richest 20% held 70% of the world's evenues; in 1999 it was 85%. Today the income of the rishest 225 people in the world is equal to the income of 3 billion poor people. The income of the three richest people in the world is equal to the collective national incomes of the poorest forty-nine countries. It would take no more than 5% of the overall annual sales of arms in the world to feed all the starving children, to protect them from dying of preventable diseases, and to make basic education accessible to all." Matthew Fox.
BTW M Fox is an American who does not hide his disdain for the American way of life as it is today.
Shalom
Ted
Consider the following and you will have an idea as to why the east has great animosity for the west.
"Our culture is deeply engaged in sadomasochism---understood here as the have lording over the have-nots. How so? Let's take contemporary capitalism and the world distribution of wealth and power as an example: in the 1960's, the ovrall income of the richest 20% ofthe world's population was thirty times that of the poorest 20%. Today, it is 224 times larger! In the 1960's, the richest 20% held 70% of the world's evenues; in 1999 it was 85%. Today the income of the rishest 225 people in the world is equal to the income of 3 billion poor people. The income of the three richest people in the world is equal to the collective national incomes of the poorest forty-nine countries. It would take no more than 5% of the overall annual sales of arms in the world to feed all the starving children, to protect them from dying of preventable diseases, and to make basic education accessible to all." Matthew Fox.
BTW M Fox is an American who does not hide his disdain for the American way of life as it is today.
Shalom
Ted
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
Arnold:-6
I think the west ignores these figures at it own peril. Witness 9/11. What is next?
Shalom
Ted
I think the west ignores these figures at it own peril. Witness 9/11. What is next?
Shalom
Ted
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
Ted wrote: Arnold :-6
Consider the following and you will have an idea as to why the east has great animosity for the west.
"Our culture is deeply engaged in sadomasochism---understood here as the have lording over the have-nots. How so? Let's take contemporary capitalism and the world distribution of wealth and power as an example: in the 1960's, the ovrall income of the richest 20% ofthe world's population was thirty times that of the poorest 20%. Today, it is 224 times larger! In the 1960's, the richest 20% held 70% of the world's evenues; in 1999 it was 85%. Today the income of the rishest 225 people in the world is equal to the income of 3 billion poor people. The income of the three richest people in the world is equal to the collective national incomes of the poorest forty-nine countries. It would take no more than 5% of the overall annual sales of arms in the world to feed all the starving children, to protect them from dying of preventable diseases, and to make basic education accessible to all." Matthew Fox.
BTW M Fox is an American who does not hide his disdain for the American way of life as it is today.
Shalom
Ted
Sounds like Mr Foxxx may be a Commie?
1. The USA is the world's biggest giver
When the going gets tough, Americans keep giving - to the tune of nearly $241 billion.
Charitable donations for 2002 set a new high, rising 1 percent over 2001's total in current dollars, according to Giving USA, a report released Monday by the American Association of Fundraising Counsel's Trust for Philanthropy in Indianapolis. The estimated $240.92 billion in gifts equalled 2.3 percent of US gross domestic product.
Although once it is adjusted for inflation the amount represents a 0.5 percent decline since 2001, it still shows "the resilience and pervasiveness of giving in our culture," says Leo Arnoult, chair of the AAFRC Trust.
Most donations come from individuals (76 percent of the total)
Consider the following and you will have an idea as to why the east has great animosity for the west.
"Our culture is deeply engaged in sadomasochism---understood here as the have lording over the have-nots. How so? Let's take contemporary capitalism and the world distribution of wealth and power as an example: in the 1960's, the ovrall income of the richest 20% ofthe world's population was thirty times that of the poorest 20%. Today, it is 224 times larger! In the 1960's, the richest 20% held 70% of the world's evenues; in 1999 it was 85%. Today the income of the rishest 225 people in the world is equal to the income of 3 billion poor people. The income of the three richest people in the world is equal to the collective national incomes of the poorest forty-nine countries. It would take no more than 5% of the overall annual sales of arms in the world to feed all the starving children, to protect them from dying of preventable diseases, and to make basic education accessible to all." Matthew Fox.
BTW M Fox is an American who does not hide his disdain for the American way of life as it is today.
Shalom
Ted
Sounds like Mr Foxxx may be a Commie?
1. The USA is the world's biggest giver
When the going gets tough, Americans keep giving - to the tune of nearly $241 billion.
Charitable donations for 2002 set a new high, rising 1 percent over 2001's total in current dollars, according to Giving USA, a report released Monday by the American Association of Fundraising Counsel's Trust for Philanthropy in Indianapolis. The estimated $240.92 billion in gifts equalled 2.3 percent of US gross domestic product.
Although once it is adjusted for inflation the amount represents a 0.5 percent decline since 2001, it still shows "the resilience and pervasiveness of giving in our culture," says Leo Arnoult, chair of the AAFRC Trust.
Most donations come from individuals (76 percent of the total)
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
BTS:-6
Mr. Fox is definitely not a commie. I thought McCarthy was dead!
It matters not at all how much the US has given. This does not alter the fact that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The poverty around the world is growing. If we don't do something about it it will come back to haunt us.
Perhaps next time will make 9/11 look like kids' play.
Western countries must consider their foreign policy. We rape our own land and then we demand that we be allowed to rape that of others.
The future is not pretty.
Shalom
Ted
Mr. Fox is definitely not a commie. I thought McCarthy was dead!
It matters not at all how much the US has given. This does not alter the fact that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The poverty around the world is growing. If we don't do something about it it will come back to haunt us.
Perhaps next time will make 9/11 look like kids' play.
Western countries must consider their foreign policy. We rape our own land and then we demand that we be allowed to rape that of others.
The future is not pretty.
Shalom
Ted
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
Maybe thats are problem we give to much.
kmhowe
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
Why is it so many americans seem unable to discuss such things dispassionately?
Any criticism of US foreign policy by other americans or other nationalities get dismissed as being anti american per se without any consideration of the factual content of what is being said.
Anyone pointing out the disparity between rich and poor must be anti capitalist or a communist never mind the factual accuracy or othgerwise of what is said. Rather han debate it rapidly degenerates in o a slanging match. It is a pity as I would rather see logical arguement and disagreement, albeit passionate disagreement, than childish dismissal, makes me wonder if you are afraid to think about it.
There seems to be a general my country right or wrong and the devil take those who don't agree kind of attitude.
What is startling about PR's comments (incidentally outside the states and south america nobody seems to care what he said) is the failure to grasp such an action would be an act of war. Why not assasinate Putin or the chinese leader, arguably their countries pose a more serious threat than Venezuela, unless of course you really think Venezuala is going to attack you. If you asassinate Chavez and in rataliation all the south american states cut oil supplies will you then take on South America. Running them as client states is one thing occupying them is a whole different ball game.
As to China, well you have, in the US, an administration that openly says it will take military acton in defence of it's interests why should it surprise you if China decides to do the same by invading Taiwan or more likely seize the islands it is in dispute with Japan about. Useless except they happen to be sitting on unexploited oil reserves. The US and sadly Britain will hardly be in a position to take the moral high ground. Though hypocrisy is a concept TB seems to embrace`rather well.
If you behave aggressively towards others sooner or later they start doing the same and make ready for conflict. Islamic terrorism is a very real threat but a symptom of a problem not some all embracing mass movement to bring down western democracy despite the way it is hyped up .
How exactly is Chavez`a threat to the US? Will he invade? Form a cartel with other countries to hike the price of oil? Nationalise the oil industry?-you might not like it but it is their country. Why is the most powerful military and industrial nation in the world frightened of a south american country? What exactly are you afraid of.
Now in the past the British used to just send in a gunboat I'm sure one of your carriers would do just as well (yet another british innovation). Don't bother assasinating him just park a carrier of the coast to drop a heavy hint.
Any criticism of US foreign policy by other americans or other nationalities get dismissed as being anti american per se without any consideration of the factual content of what is being said.
Anyone pointing out the disparity between rich and poor must be anti capitalist or a communist never mind the factual accuracy or othgerwise of what is said. Rather han debate it rapidly degenerates in o a slanging match. It is a pity as I would rather see logical arguement and disagreement, albeit passionate disagreement, than childish dismissal, makes me wonder if you are afraid to think about it.
There seems to be a general my country right or wrong and the devil take those who don't agree kind of attitude.
What is startling about PR's comments (incidentally outside the states and south america nobody seems to care what he said) is the failure to grasp such an action would be an act of war. Why not assasinate Putin or the chinese leader, arguably their countries pose a more serious threat than Venezuela, unless of course you really think Venezuala is going to attack you. If you asassinate Chavez and in rataliation all the south american states cut oil supplies will you then take on South America. Running them as client states is one thing occupying them is a whole different ball game.
As to China, well you have, in the US, an administration that openly says it will take military acton in defence of it's interests why should it surprise you if China decides to do the same by invading Taiwan or more likely seize the islands it is in dispute with Japan about. Useless except they happen to be sitting on unexploited oil reserves. The US and sadly Britain will hardly be in a position to take the moral high ground. Though hypocrisy is a concept TB seems to embrace`rather well.
If you behave aggressively towards others sooner or later they start doing the same and make ready for conflict. Islamic terrorism is a very real threat but a symptom of a problem not some all embracing mass movement to bring down western democracy despite the way it is hyped up .
How exactly is Chavez`a threat to the US? Will he invade? Form a cartel with other countries to hike the price of oil? Nationalise the oil industry?-you might not like it but it is their country. Why is the most powerful military and industrial nation in the world frightened of a south american country? What exactly are you afraid of.
Now in the past the British used to just send in a gunboat I'm sure one of your carriers would do just as well (yet another british innovation). Don't bother assasinating him just park a carrier of the coast to drop a heavy hint.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
gmc wrote: Why is it so many americans seem unable to discuss such things dispassionately?
Any criticism of US foreign policy by other americans or other nationalities get dismissed as being anti american per se without any consideration of the factual content of what is being said.
Anyone pointing out the disparity between rich and poor must be anti capitalist or a communist never mind the factual accuracy or othgerwise of what is said. Rather han debate it rapidly degenerates in o a slanging match. It is a pity as I would rather see logical arguement and disagreement, albeit passionate disagreement, than childish dismissal, makes me wonder if you are afraid to think about it.
There seems to be a general my country right or wrong and the devil take those who don't agree kind of attitude.
What is startling about PR's comments (incidentally outside the states and south america nobody seems to care what he said) is the failure to grasp such an action would be an act of war. Why not assasinate Putin or the chinese leader, arguably their countries pose a more serious threat than Venezuela, unless of course you really think Venezuala is going to attack you. If you asassinate Chavez and in rataliation all the south american states cut oil supplies will you then take on South America. Running them as client states is one thing occupying them is a whole different ball game.
As to China, well you have, in the US, an administration that openly says it will take military acton in defence of it's interests why should it surprise you if China decides to do the same by invading Taiwan or more likely seize the islands it is in dispute with Japan about. Useless except they happen to be sitting on unexploited oil reserves. The US and sadly Britain will hardly be in a position to take the moral high ground. Though hypocrisy is a concept TB seems to embrace`rather well.
If you behave aggressively towards others sooner or later they start doing the same and make ready for conflict. Islamic terrorism is a very real threat but a symptom of a problem not some all embracing mass movement to bring down western democracy despite the way it is hyped up .
How exactly is Chavez`a threat to the US? Will he invade? Form a cartel with other countries to hike the price of oil? Nationalise the oil industry?-you might not like it but it is their country. Why is the most powerful military and industrial nation in the world frightened of a south american country? What exactly are you afraid of.
Now in the past the British used to just send in a gunboat I'm sure one of your carriers would do just as well (yet another british innovation). Don't bother assasinating him just park a carrier of the coast to drop a heavy hint.
Oh yeah?!?
Sorry, but it needed to be said.
I have noticed ad hominem attacks are quite the rage here. Conversation is now a competition sport rather than an opportunity to examine and learn. I blame Jerry Springer.
Arrogance abounds. For those who understand what I'm getting at and see themselves reflected in this post, try this: Seek first to understand; then be understood. In seeking to understand, continue persuing the other person's idea until he agrees you fully understand it from his side. Then, if you still disagree, lay out your argument. You stand a better chance of gaining acceptance. Of course, I understand several Gardeners here couldn't care less about being accepted or, only heard; but for the rest - give it a shot.
Any criticism of US foreign policy by other americans or other nationalities get dismissed as being anti american per se without any consideration of the factual content of what is being said.
Anyone pointing out the disparity between rich and poor must be anti capitalist or a communist never mind the factual accuracy or othgerwise of what is said. Rather han debate it rapidly degenerates in o a slanging match. It is a pity as I would rather see logical arguement and disagreement, albeit passionate disagreement, than childish dismissal, makes me wonder if you are afraid to think about it.
There seems to be a general my country right or wrong and the devil take those who don't agree kind of attitude.
What is startling about PR's comments (incidentally outside the states and south america nobody seems to care what he said) is the failure to grasp such an action would be an act of war. Why not assasinate Putin or the chinese leader, arguably their countries pose a more serious threat than Venezuela, unless of course you really think Venezuala is going to attack you. If you asassinate Chavez and in rataliation all the south american states cut oil supplies will you then take on South America. Running them as client states is one thing occupying them is a whole different ball game.
As to China, well you have, in the US, an administration that openly says it will take military acton in defence of it's interests why should it surprise you if China decides to do the same by invading Taiwan or more likely seize the islands it is in dispute with Japan about. Useless except they happen to be sitting on unexploited oil reserves. The US and sadly Britain will hardly be in a position to take the moral high ground. Though hypocrisy is a concept TB seems to embrace`rather well.
If you behave aggressively towards others sooner or later they start doing the same and make ready for conflict. Islamic terrorism is a very real threat but a symptom of a problem not some all embracing mass movement to bring down western democracy despite the way it is hyped up .
How exactly is Chavez`a threat to the US? Will he invade? Form a cartel with other countries to hike the price of oil? Nationalise the oil industry?-you might not like it but it is their country. Why is the most powerful military and industrial nation in the world frightened of a south american country? What exactly are you afraid of.
Now in the past the British used to just send in a gunboat I'm sure one of your carriers would do just as well (yet another british innovation). Don't bother assasinating him just park a carrier of the coast to drop a heavy hint.
Oh yeah?!?
Sorry, but it needed to be said.
I have noticed ad hominem attacks are quite the rage here. Conversation is now a competition sport rather than an opportunity to examine and learn. I blame Jerry Springer.
Arrogance abounds. For those who understand what I'm getting at and see themselves reflected in this post, try this: Seek first to understand; then be understood. In seeking to understand, continue persuing the other person's idea until he agrees you fully understand it from his side. Then, if you still disagree, lay out your argument. You stand a better chance of gaining acceptance. Of course, I understand several Gardeners here couldn't care less about being accepted or, only heard; but for the rest - give it a shot.
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
posted by accountable
Oh yeah?!?
Sorry, but it needed to be said.
What needed to be said? If you disagree with me then fine but if all you can do is post funny cartoons (where did you get it by the way it might come in handy) well nuff said. Seriously though I get fed up with people accusing others of being anti american instead when all that has been said is that us policy might be flawed, rather than putting a case disagreeing with the point made. Ya boo is not a very good counter arguement.
It was a serious question. How does Chavez threaten america?
I have noticed ad hominem attacks are quite the rage here. Conversation is now a competition sport rather than an opportunity to examine and learn. I blame Jerry Springer.
Usually it is someone assuming that a comment is meant personally rather than generally. Unless you know a person you can't make personal attacks.
For instance If I can pick on Arnold Layne since he is English from Kent and I am Scots, if I call him a soft poncey english ^**&^^& and in retaliation he calls me a skirt wearing sheep shagging northern barbarian it is part of the normal friendly badinage that takes place amongst the inhabitants of this sceptered isle, neither of us would take it too seriously. On the other hand if we actually knew each other and he implied a carnal relationship with a sheep I might find that deliberately offensive since it would be meant personally and I would be offended at being mistaken for a welshman.
So if I ask when did americans become paranoid to the extent that they were afraid of venezuela and what they might do I am not being personal but asking for clarification. I just don't get it. Why do you think it justified to interfere in the internal politics of a south american country? Before you say it I am well aware that we used to do it all the time. We called it Imperialism and justified it on those grounds. So unless you are justifying imperialist type interference what is the justification?
Nowadays out govt and the EEC receives vociferous condemnation for it's treatment of third world countries. The G8 protests were not govt sponsored and probably TB wishes we would all shut up and leave him alone to rule in presidential splendour but his days are numbered. Actually after Maggie and TB maybe we should take a lef out of the american book of politics and prevent PM's standing for more than two terms of office. That's still ten years.:wah:
I quite liked Jerry Springer, good to know here`are normal flawed human beings living in america, the god channel is more frightening.
posted by accountable
Arrogance abounds. For those who understand what I'm getting at and see themselves reflected in this post, try this: Seek first to understand; then be understood. In seeking to understand, continue persuing the other person's idea until he agrees you fully understand it from his side. Then, if you still disagree, lay out your argument. You stand a better chance of gaining acceptance. Of course, I understand several Gardeners here couldn't care less about being accepted or, only heard; but for the rest - give it a shot.
I laid out my argument, blow raspberries if you want, I'm not bothered about acceptance just getting answers.
Oh yeah?!?
Sorry, but it needed to be said.
What needed to be said? If you disagree with me then fine but if all you can do is post funny cartoons (where did you get it by the way it might come in handy) well nuff said. Seriously though I get fed up with people accusing others of being anti american instead when all that has been said is that us policy might be flawed, rather than putting a case disagreeing with the point made. Ya boo is not a very good counter arguement.
It was a serious question. How does Chavez threaten america?
I have noticed ad hominem attacks are quite the rage here. Conversation is now a competition sport rather than an opportunity to examine and learn. I blame Jerry Springer.
Usually it is someone assuming that a comment is meant personally rather than generally. Unless you know a person you can't make personal attacks.
For instance If I can pick on Arnold Layne since he is English from Kent and I am Scots, if I call him a soft poncey english ^**&^^& and in retaliation he calls me a skirt wearing sheep shagging northern barbarian it is part of the normal friendly badinage that takes place amongst the inhabitants of this sceptered isle, neither of us would take it too seriously. On the other hand if we actually knew each other and he implied a carnal relationship with a sheep I might find that deliberately offensive since it would be meant personally and I would be offended at being mistaken for a welshman.
So if I ask when did americans become paranoid to the extent that they were afraid of venezuela and what they might do I am not being personal but asking for clarification. I just don't get it. Why do you think it justified to interfere in the internal politics of a south american country? Before you say it I am well aware that we used to do it all the time. We called it Imperialism and justified it on those grounds. So unless you are justifying imperialist type interference what is the justification?
Nowadays out govt and the EEC receives vociferous condemnation for it's treatment of third world countries. The G8 protests were not govt sponsored and probably TB wishes we would all shut up and leave him alone to rule in presidential splendour but his days are numbered. Actually after Maggie and TB maybe we should take a lef out of the american book of politics and prevent PM's standing for more than two terms of office. That's still ten years.:wah:
I quite liked Jerry Springer, good to know here`are normal flawed human beings living in america, the god channel is more frightening.
posted by accountable
Arrogance abounds. For those who understand what I'm getting at and see themselves reflected in this post, try this: Seek first to understand; then be understood. In seeking to understand, continue persuing the other person's idea until he agrees you fully understand it from his side. Then, if you still disagree, lay out your argument. You stand a better chance of gaining acceptance. Of course, I understand several Gardeners here couldn't care less about being accepted or, only heard; but for the rest - give it a shot.
I laid out my argument, blow raspberries if you want, I'm not bothered about acceptance just getting answers.
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
The Big fellow, Rev Dr. Ian Kyle Paisley would spit him out
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
gmc, my sincere apologies. My first quips were in pure fun and not meant to offend, which they clearly did. The last portion was actually in support of your statement. I see I sabotaged that with the jokes. I am sorry.
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
posted by accountable
gmc, my sincere apologies. My first quips were in pure fun and not meant to offend, which they clearly did. The last portion was actually in support of your statement. I see I sabotaged that with the jokes. I am sorry.
I wasn't actually offended-just couldn't work out whether you thought I had a point or were just posting raspberries.
posted by arnoldlayne
LOL Oi! sweaty who you calling poncey ?
Well if you can't take the proverbial out of the english who else is there?
gmc, my sincere apologies. My first quips were in pure fun and not meant to offend, which they clearly did. The last portion was actually in support of your statement. I see I sabotaged that with the jokes. I am sorry.
I wasn't actually offended-just couldn't work out whether you thought I had a point or were just posting raspberries.
posted by arnoldlayne
LOL Oi! sweaty who you calling poncey ?
Well if you can't take the proverbial out of the english who else is there?
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
Far Rider.:-6
Unfortunately it is the truth. And as such not a very good reflection on the American way of life. Unfortunately unless America changes it will come back to haunt the US. And what might follow 9/11 could make it look like kindergarten stuff. Unfortunately all those innocent Americans will have to suffer along with the hawks.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Unfortunately it is the truth. And as such not a very good reflection on the American way of life. Unfortunately unless America changes it will come back to haunt the US. And what might follow 9/11 could make it look like kindergarten stuff. Unfortunately all those innocent Americans will have to suffer along with the hawks.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
In spite of my criticisms of American foreign policy it is not the people that I am criticising.
With the recent hurricane and what it did to the gulf coast those folks are in my thoughts and prayers. It was indeed a terrible thing to happen to any one or any city or area. Hopefully time will heal some of the wounds yet most will live with this terror in their minds for the rest of their lives.
Shalom
Ted:-6
With the recent hurricane and what it did to the gulf coast those folks are in my thoughts and prayers. It was indeed a terrible thing to happen to any one or any city or area. Hopefully time will heal some of the wounds yet most will live with this terror in their minds for the rest of their lives.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
Ted wrote: BTS:-6
Mr. Fox is definitely not a commie. I thought McCarthy was dead!
It matters not at all how much the US has given. This does not alter the fact that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Shalom
Ted
Ok I stand corrected..... The Govt. taking from the rich and giving to the poor is not communism. My mistake.
Quote:
"It matters not at all how much the US has given. This does not alter the fact that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer."
And this is not comminism either?
Sounds pretty close to the definition to it to me:
Communism is a movement based on the principle of communal ownership of all property. It has been a major force in world politics since the early 20th century. Modern communism is associated with The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, according to which the capitalist profit-based system of private ownership is replaced by a communist society in which the means of production are communally owned. This process, initiated by the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie (see Marxism), passes through a transitional period marked by the preparatory stage of socialism (see Leninism). Communism is now mainly understood to refer to the political, economic, and social theory of Marxist thinkers, or life in conditions of Communist party rule.
I believe if you have enough to share with your neighbor and they are in need then you share and help but that does not mean handouts and wefare for life until he is equal to your wealth. Let him earn it on his own.
How does that saying go?
"Feed a man a fish and he will eat for a day" Teach a man to fish and he will eat for LIFE"
Mr. Fox is definitely not a commie. I thought McCarthy was dead!
It matters not at all how much the US has given. This does not alter the fact that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Shalom
Ted
Ok I stand corrected..... The Govt. taking from the rich and giving to the poor is not communism. My mistake.
Quote:
"It matters not at all how much the US has given. This does not alter the fact that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer."
And this is not comminism either?
Sounds pretty close to the definition to it to me:
Communism is a movement based on the principle of communal ownership of all property. It has been a major force in world politics since the early 20th century. Modern communism is associated with The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, according to which the capitalist profit-based system of private ownership is replaced by a communist society in which the means of production are communally owned. This process, initiated by the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie (see Marxism), passes through a transitional period marked by the preparatory stage of socialism (see Leninism). Communism is now mainly understood to refer to the political, economic, and social theory of Marxist thinkers, or life in conditions of Communist party rule.
I believe if you have enough to share with your neighbor and they are in need then you share and help but that does not mean handouts and wefare for life until he is equal to your wealth. Let him earn it on his own.
How does that saying go?
"Feed a man a fish and he will eat for a day" Teach a man to fish and he will eat for LIFE"
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
BTS:-6
I definitely agree with your last statement re "fish".
However if you read Acts 2:44- to Acts 4:32 you will find that the idea of holding all things in common is completely Biblical. Now obviously it didn't work out too well or it would still be a part of the Christian Faith.
That being said the central theme of Jesus ministry was love of neighbour and self and distributive justice. The Lord called for distributive justice and that is what the kingdom of God on earth is about.
As a human race and as part of the western world we have failed miserably in this part of our Christian faith.
When you read the statistics I posted earlier it becomes very clear what our problem is in the world. It is the ever increasing disparity between the rich and the poor. This is not new it was the same problem that Jesus was opposed to. Now we live in a western society where a very small minority control the greatest part of the wealth in the world.
That is in part why we have the terroism of today and why we have folks dying in the streets. We ignore this at our peril.
It is all too easy to say get a job and earn your keep. Are the jobs available? Are the resources there? Have they been trained? Do they have the wherewithall to create jobs? Do they have the knowledge they need? Are they so mal nourished that no job would matter at this time?
It is fine for us to sit in our smug homes and pontificate on what others should do. It is time for the west to get off it collective ass and move in the right direction. These problems are not going to be solved by one person or one country but we ignore this issue at our peril.
Next time may make 9/11 look like kindergarted stuff whether it happens in Canada the US or Britain.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I definitely agree with your last statement re "fish".
However if you read Acts 2:44- to Acts 4:32 you will find that the idea of holding all things in common is completely Biblical. Now obviously it didn't work out too well or it would still be a part of the Christian Faith.
That being said the central theme of Jesus ministry was love of neighbour and self and distributive justice. The Lord called for distributive justice and that is what the kingdom of God on earth is about.
As a human race and as part of the western world we have failed miserably in this part of our Christian faith.
When you read the statistics I posted earlier it becomes very clear what our problem is in the world. It is the ever increasing disparity between the rich and the poor. This is not new it was the same problem that Jesus was opposed to. Now we live in a western society where a very small minority control the greatest part of the wealth in the world.
That is in part why we have the terroism of today and why we have folks dying in the streets. We ignore this at our peril.
It is all too easy to say get a job and earn your keep. Are the jobs available? Are the resources there? Have they been trained? Do they have the wherewithall to create jobs? Do they have the knowledge they need? Are they so mal nourished that no job would matter at this time?
It is fine for us to sit in our smug homes and pontificate on what others should do. It is time for the west to get off it collective ass and move in the right direction. These problems are not going to be solved by one person or one country but we ignore this issue at our peril.
Next time may make 9/11 look like kindergarted stuff whether it happens in Canada the US or Britain.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
We've always had a disparity between rich and poor. Our problem is that some of the poor (and probably a greater number of the middle class) think they deserve half of the disparity without doing the work necessary to earn it. They want it handed to them and are angry (confused?) that the rich aren't willingly giving it up!
Communistic thought and deed within the church is fine, even honorable. Look at the Mormon church, which takes care of it's own. Do not presume to thrust that on my government. I give what I want to the church. The government takes.
Communistic thought and deed within the church is fine, even honorable. Look at the Mormon church, which takes care of it's own. Do not presume to thrust that on my government. I give what I want to the church. The government takes.
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
Accountable:-6
I cannot agree that most want it handed to them.
Closing our eyes or saying I've done my part is not going to solve the problem. It is everyone's responsibility. We have raped the earth and we have ignored those living in destitution. The earth is now telling us how we have done. We, all of us, are responsible for the mess we are in. However, let someone else solve the problem. That sounds like a prescription for continued disasters.
It's kind of like lying on a hospital bed hovering between life and death and claiming, "But I had the right of way".
Perhaps we should demand that all those who have lost everything get out and find a job. It doesn't matter whether there is enough jobs for these folks outside of New Orleans we should demand it any way.
Just as we should demand that those living, if one can call it that, in Darfur get of their asses and work for a change. It doesn't matter if they are too malnourished to do the non-existant jobs. Of course that's not our concern is it?
Terrorism is a result of our past actions and the war will never be won with weapons. It is time for us to ask what the problem is and to help in any way possible. It may not be our responsibility but 9/11 has made it very clear that it is in part.
Who is it that has made the rich richer? One thought crosses my mind. Do what Chrysler has done get the job done in Mexico where they only have to pay absolute minimum. It is the poor and the oppressed that have made the multi-nationals rich. Their ownly concern is the bottom line and not how they get their money.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I cannot agree that most want it handed to them.
Closing our eyes or saying I've done my part is not going to solve the problem. It is everyone's responsibility. We have raped the earth and we have ignored those living in destitution. The earth is now telling us how we have done. We, all of us, are responsible for the mess we are in. However, let someone else solve the problem. That sounds like a prescription for continued disasters.
It's kind of like lying on a hospital bed hovering between life and death and claiming, "But I had the right of way".
Perhaps we should demand that all those who have lost everything get out and find a job. It doesn't matter whether there is enough jobs for these folks outside of New Orleans we should demand it any way.
Just as we should demand that those living, if one can call it that, in Darfur get of their asses and work for a change. It doesn't matter if they are too malnourished to do the non-existant jobs. Of course that's not our concern is it?
Terrorism is a result of our past actions and the war will never be won with weapons. It is time for us to ask what the problem is and to help in any way possible. It may not be our responsibility but 9/11 has made it very clear that it is in part.
Who is it that has made the rich richer? One thought crosses my mind. Do what Chrysler has done get the job done in Mexico where they only have to pay absolute minimum. It is the poor and the oppressed that have made the multi-nationals rich. Their ownly concern is the bottom line and not how they get their money.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
In fact if we as "Christians" do not respond in the positive and try to solve the problems we have betrayed the very life and teachings of Yeshua of Nazareth. The words on American money, "I God We Trust" then become nothing more then window dressing.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
I don't see the connection of this post with mine, but I'll be glad to respond to ya.
Ted wrote: Accountable:-6
I cannot agree that most want it handed to them.
Closing our eyes or saying I've done my part is not going to solve the problem. It is everyone's responsibility. We have raped the earth and we have ignored those living in destitution. The earth is now telling us how we have done. We, all of us, are responsible for the mess we are in. However, let someone else solve the problem. That sounds like a prescription for continued disasters.
Your opinions are inaccurate, in my opinion. The implication that my eyes are closed is likewise inaccurate.
the earth is not "raped." We are not ignoring all the destitute. We (the US government, I presume?) help the destitute when it serves us. We can't help everyone, so we pick and choose. You would rather we help everybody a little rather than help a few alot? Go ahead. Enjoy your fantasy.
I'm tired of the government being a mandatory charity and spending my hard-earned money. I would rather help who I choose. Gimme my money back.
Ted wrote: It's kind of like lying on a hospital bed hovering between life and death and claiming, "But I had the right of way".
Perhaps we should demand that all those who have lost everything get out and find a job. It doesn't matter whether there is enough jobs for these folks outside of New Orleans we should demand it any way.
Many from N.O. are asking for work already. Many here in the San Antonio area have held some vacant jobs (yes there are some) for them. No government help there. This is humanity. Humanity! Keep the government out of things and production goes much more smoothly.
Ted wrote: Just as we should demand that those living, if one can call it that, in Darfur get of their asses and work for a change. It doesn't matter if they are too malnourished to do the non-existant jobs. Of course that's not our concern is it?
Terrorism is a result of our past actions and the war will never be won with weapons. It is time for us to ask what the problem is and to help in any way possible. It may not be our responsibility but 9/11 has made it very clear that it is in part.
Is that what you would do, should someone carjack you? Ask what you did to prompt the action? Of course I suppose you don't drive in their neighborhoods because it might anger them, then complain that the government isn't doing more?
Ted wrote: Who is it that has made the rich richer? One thought crosses my mind. Do what Chrysler has done get the job done in Mexico where they only have to pay absolute minimum. It is the poor and the oppressed that have made the multi-nationals rich. Their ownly concern is the bottom line and not how they get their money.[...]
You would prefer they hire unionized American workers and pay 10 times the amount because that would show 'em right? Then the Mexicans would be jobless so that wouldn't do. I'm sure you would prefer they pay the Mexicans the same as they pay Americans? OOO OOOO! How about they keep the US and Mexican workers, pay them all the same. Then since we know they would just raise their evil gouging prices, we could put price controls on them. Yeh, that'd teach them. Then when they go out of business and the lawyers and politicians pick up the pieces for their own pockets, at least we can say we tried.
You want to know what's wrong with America? I know you don't but I'll tell you anyway. I saw it on a new comedy show called Mind of Mecina. He went to an actual intersection in LA. On corner 1 was a black guy begging for money. On corner 2 was a white guy with a Viet Nam Vet sign, also begging for money. On corner 3 was a Mexican (sorry, an hispanic) selling flowers. On corner 4 was a Mexican selling fruit. Too many people think the government is "us" and when they do something, "we" did it.
Ted wrote: Accountable:-6
I cannot agree that most want it handed to them.
Closing our eyes or saying I've done my part is not going to solve the problem. It is everyone's responsibility. We have raped the earth and we have ignored those living in destitution. The earth is now telling us how we have done. We, all of us, are responsible for the mess we are in. However, let someone else solve the problem. That sounds like a prescription for continued disasters.
Your opinions are inaccurate, in my opinion. The implication that my eyes are closed is likewise inaccurate.
the earth is not "raped." We are not ignoring all the destitute. We (the US government, I presume?) help the destitute when it serves us. We can't help everyone, so we pick and choose. You would rather we help everybody a little rather than help a few alot? Go ahead. Enjoy your fantasy.
I'm tired of the government being a mandatory charity and spending my hard-earned money. I would rather help who I choose. Gimme my money back.
Ted wrote: It's kind of like lying on a hospital bed hovering between life and death and claiming, "But I had the right of way".
Perhaps we should demand that all those who have lost everything get out and find a job. It doesn't matter whether there is enough jobs for these folks outside of New Orleans we should demand it any way.
Many from N.O. are asking for work already. Many here in the San Antonio area have held some vacant jobs (yes there are some) for them. No government help there. This is humanity. Humanity! Keep the government out of things and production goes much more smoothly.
Ted wrote: Just as we should demand that those living, if one can call it that, in Darfur get of their asses and work for a change. It doesn't matter if they are too malnourished to do the non-existant jobs. Of course that's not our concern is it?
Terrorism is a result of our past actions and the war will never be won with weapons. It is time for us to ask what the problem is and to help in any way possible. It may not be our responsibility but 9/11 has made it very clear that it is in part.
Is that what you would do, should someone carjack you? Ask what you did to prompt the action? Of course I suppose you don't drive in their neighborhoods because it might anger them, then complain that the government isn't doing more?
Ted wrote: Who is it that has made the rich richer? One thought crosses my mind. Do what Chrysler has done get the job done in Mexico where they only have to pay absolute minimum. It is the poor and the oppressed that have made the multi-nationals rich. Their ownly concern is the bottom line and not how they get their money.[...]
You would prefer they hire unionized American workers and pay 10 times the amount because that would show 'em right? Then the Mexicans would be jobless so that wouldn't do. I'm sure you would prefer they pay the Mexicans the same as they pay Americans? OOO OOOO! How about they keep the US and Mexican workers, pay them all the same. Then since we know they would just raise their evil gouging prices, we could put price controls on them. Yeh, that'd teach them. Then when they go out of business and the lawyers and politicians pick up the pieces for their own pockets, at least we can say we tried.
You want to know what's wrong with America? I know you don't but I'll tell you anyway. I saw it on a new comedy show called Mind of Mecina. He went to an actual intersection in LA. On corner 1 was a black guy begging for money. On corner 2 was a white guy with a Viet Nam Vet sign, also begging for money. On corner 3 was a Mexican (sorry, an hispanic) selling flowers. On corner 4 was a Mexican selling fruit. Too many people think the government is "us" and when they do something, "we" did it.
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
Accountable:-6
"Help the destitute when it serves us. Exactly and sad.
The American wouldn't want to interfere in Africa because there is no oil there.
The point is rather that we help those who need help to the best of our ability because they need help. That is the Christian response not Pat Robertson suggesting we take out the president of Venezuala. But on the other hand they have a lot of oil there. Hmmm.
Of course American cannot and should not do it alone. The entire western world needs to become involved.
Perhaps we're afraid of the answer if we ask why they hate us so. We might not like what they say.
We haven't raped the earth? We haven't misused our environment? Even Geordie has finally had to admit, albeit grudgingly, that man has been part of the cause of global warming. It should be neat to skin dive around and in New Your or Vancouver. Hey, come to think of it I'll have walkon waterfront. Parts of the world are now becoming a desert where before they produced food. I guess we can all eat sand.
We have destroyed the Newfoundland fishery and we have just about done the same job on the Pacific coast salmon fishery. The Indian ocean fishery is now floundering. We have created nuclear reactors and there is no viable way to dispose of the waste from those plants except keep it in pools of water or bury it in the ground where it will one day leak into the environment. Don't tell me it can't I lived about 300 miles downwind from Three Mile Island. Major cities are smog bound to the point where doctors tell folks to stay inside. We haven't raped the earth? Whatever you say
Shalom
Ted:-6
"Help the destitute when it serves us. Exactly and sad.
The American wouldn't want to interfere in Africa because there is no oil there.
The point is rather that we help those who need help to the best of our ability because they need help. That is the Christian response not Pat Robertson suggesting we take out the president of Venezuala. But on the other hand they have a lot of oil there. Hmmm.
Of course American cannot and should not do it alone. The entire western world needs to become involved.
Perhaps we're afraid of the answer if we ask why they hate us so. We might not like what they say.
We haven't raped the earth? We haven't misused our environment? Even Geordie has finally had to admit, albeit grudgingly, that man has been part of the cause of global warming. It should be neat to skin dive around and in New Your or Vancouver. Hey, come to think of it I'll have walkon waterfront. Parts of the world are now becoming a desert where before they produced food. I guess we can all eat sand.
We have destroyed the Newfoundland fishery and we have just about done the same job on the Pacific coast salmon fishery. The Indian ocean fishery is now floundering. We have created nuclear reactors and there is no viable way to dispose of the waste from those plants except keep it in pools of water or bury it in the ground where it will one day leak into the environment. Don't tell me it can't I lived about 300 miles downwind from Three Mile Island. Major cities are smog bound to the point where doctors tell folks to stay inside. We haven't raped the earth? Whatever you say
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
Well at least we agree on the other 2/3 of my post.
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
posted by bts
Ok I stand corrected..... The Govt. taking from the rich and giving to the poor is not communism. My mistake.
Quote:
"It matters not at all how much the US has given. This does not alter the fact that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer."
Never actually heard of this Fox character so don't know what else he has said but tell me. How does pointing out that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer make him a communist? Do they have communists in America? not having a ruling class to rise up against I always thought labelling someone a communist in US terms was a convenient way to change the subject and avoid debate. Bit like you're a plank so I'm gong to completely ignore what you have said.
Concern for your fellow man does not make you a communist, nor does having a sense of social justice, i.e. wanting to be fair in dealing with others. it is just good business sense. Helping third world countries out of the poverty trap is not charity but enlightened self interest it creates new markets and opportunities. so when the EEC dumps agricultural products in africa priving local producers out of business it is actually bad business in the long run (couldn't think of a us example off hand) There is a difference between operating a fair free market economy and exploiting a position of economic power to impoverish and keep impoverished other nations or keep out competition by using unfair tactics to destroy their market. (like microsoft and netscape for instance).
So when the workers in mexico, cambodia, china (China should be fun when you think about it) band together and start demanding better wages and conditions-as they invariably will, will they be branded as communists or free citizens defending their right to fair treatment and decent working conditions and wages.
When Venezuala decides to impose more taxes on US companies exporting profits abroad is it anti american, communist, or just a common sense approach to keep more of the wealth at home to help venezualen citizens. BP squeals about the taxes levied bu the British government on North sea oil. Most in the UK think tough **** it's our oil. (or even scotland's oil, but I digress.)
When US auto workers and textile workers start being laid off will you blame the companies manufacturing abroad, unfair competition (making stuff cheaper and exporting it to the states), greedy workers who priced themselves out of a job and for whom you have little sympathy, or the unpatriotic sob's that buy foreign goods.
Do you still buy Nke or Dell computers or go for ones wholly made in the US?
posted by accountable
We've always had a disparity between rich and poor. Our problem is that some of the poor (and probably a greater number of the middle class) think they deserve half of the disparity without doing the work necessary to earn it. They want it handed to them and are angry (confused?) that the rich aren't willingly giving it up!
Communistic thought and deed within the church is fine, even honorable. Look at the Mormon church, which takes care of it's own. Do not presume to thrust that on my government. I give what I want to the church. The government takes.
Interesting way of putting things, it's almost as if you feel you heve no control over government. In the UK we expect govt to provide certain things and that's why they get elected, the NHS for one but also education-it is compulsory up to age 16, neither is free as it is funded by taxation but it is free at the point of use. The idea that people are refused treatment because they are poor is abhorrent to most people. Truants get pursued and made to go to school where possible.
Love the concept of communism within the church. Interesting topic of debate, was JC the first socialist?
The trouble with Marx is most people forget he was writing in a time and in a country when suggesting one man one vote got you thrown in prison as a dangerous radical-which is why he moved to england where it was less dangerous saying things like that. Revolutionary communism is pretty well dead.
Ok I stand corrected..... The Govt. taking from the rich and giving to the poor is not communism. My mistake.
Quote:
"It matters not at all how much the US has given. This does not alter the fact that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer."
Never actually heard of this Fox character so don't know what else he has said but tell me. How does pointing out that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer make him a communist? Do they have communists in America? not having a ruling class to rise up against I always thought labelling someone a communist in US terms was a convenient way to change the subject and avoid debate. Bit like you're a plank so I'm gong to completely ignore what you have said.
Concern for your fellow man does not make you a communist, nor does having a sense of social justice, i.e. wanting to be fair in dealing with others. it is just good business sense. Helping third world countries out of the poverty trap is not charity but enlightened self interest it creates new markets and opportunities. so when the EEC dumps agricultural products in africa priving local producers out of business it is actually bad business in the long run (couldn't think of a us example off hand) There is a difference between operating a fair free market economy and exploiting a position of economic power to impoverish and keep impoverished other nations or keep out competition by using unfair tactics to destroy their market. (like microsoft and netscape for instance).
So when the workers in mexico, cambodia, china (China should be fun when you think about it) band together and start demanding better wages and conditions-as they invariably will, will they be branded as communists or free citizens defending their right to fair treatment and decent working conditions and wages.
When Venezuala decides to impose more taxes on US companies exporting profits abroad is it anti american, communist, or just a common sense approach to keep more of the wealth at home to help venezualen citizens. BP squeals about the taxes levied bu the British government on North sea oil. Most in the UK think tough **** it's our oil. (or even scotland's oil, but I digress.)
When US auto workers and textile workers start being laid off will you blame the companies manufacturing abroad, unfair competition (making stuff cheaper and exporting it to the states), greedy workers who priced themselves out of a job and for whom you have little sympathy, or the unpatriotic sob's that buy foreign goods.
Do you still buy Nke or Dell computers or go for ones wholly made in the US?
posted by accountable
We've always had a disparity between rich and poor. Our problem is that some of the poor (and probably a greater number of the middle class) think they deserve half of the disparity without doing the work necessary to earn it. They want it handed to them and are angry (confused?) that the rich aren't willingly giving it up!
Communistic thought and deed within the church is fine, even honorable. Look at the Mormon church, which takes care of it's own. Do not presume to thrust that on my government. I give what I want to the church. The government takes.
Interesting way of putting things, it's almost as if you feel you heve no control over government. In the UK we expect govt to provide certain things and that's why they get elected, the NHS for one but also education-it is compulsory up to age 16, neither is free as it is funded by taxation but it is free at the point of use. The idea that people are refused treatment because they are poor is abhorrent to most people. Truants get pursued and made to go to school where possible.
Love the concept of communism within the church. Interesting topic of debate, was JC the first socialist?
The trouble with Marx is most people forget he was writing in a time and in a country when suggesting one man one vote got you thrown in prison as a dangerous radical-which is why he moved to england where it was less dangerous saying things like that. Revolutionary communism is pretty well dead.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
gmc wrote:
Interesting way of putting things, it's almost as if you feel you heve no control over government. In the UK we expect govt to provide certain things and that's why they get elected, the NHS for one but also education-it is compulsory up to age 16, neither is free as it is funded by taxation but it is free at the point of use. The idea that people are refused treatment because they are poor is abhorrent to most people. Truants get pursued and made to go to school where possible.
I have less control over my gov't than I would like. I also expect certain things from my gov't. Charity is definitely not one of them. BTW, the only people refused treatment in the US are the mid-income people who use up their insurance. The poor, uninsured, and even illegal aliens get excellent treatment.
gmc wrote: Love the concept of communism within the church. Interesting topic of debate, was JC the first socialist?
I don't see Jesus' connection with any church. That came after, though I'd be interested in His take on how they bastardised his teachings. They do make wonderful charity organizations.
Interesting way of putting things, it's almost as if you feel you heve no control over government. In the UK we expect govt to provide certain things and that's why they get elected, the NHS for one but also education-it is compulsory up to age 16, neither is free as it is funded by taxation but it is free at the point of use. The idea that people are refused treatment because they are poor is abhorrent to most people. Truants get pursued and made to go to school where possible.
I have less control over my gov't than I would like. I also expect certain things from my gov't. Charity is definitely not one of them. BTW, the only people refused treatment in the US are the mid-income people who use up their insurance. The poor, uninsured, and even illegal aliens get excellent treatment.
gmc wrote: Love the concept of communism within the church. Interesting topic of debate, was JC the first socialist?
I don't see Jesus' connection with any church. That came after, though I'd be interested in His take on how they bastardised his teachings. They do make wonderful charity organizations.
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
posted by accountable
I have less control over my gov't than I would like. I also expect certain things from my gov't. Charity is definitely not one of them. BTW, the only people refused treatment in the US are the mid-income people who use up their insurance. The poor, uninsured, and even illegal aliens get excellent treatment.
Know the feeling, local govt as well. it's a standing joke that the only way you can tell the difference between a tory council and a labour one is labour councillors get caught less often with their hand sin the till.
Anyhing I get from government is not charity I pay in advance for it and am currently paying for all those who are using it or living on the old age pension.
re mid-income, you mean if the insurance runs out treatment just stops? Why on earth would you put up with that?
Bear in mind my knowledge of the US medical system is gleaned from soaps and is hardly an accurate picture. From what I've seen I prefer our system for all its failings, at least there is no question about receiving treatment when you need it, even for americans when they are here.
I have less control over my gov't than I would like. I also expect certain things from my gov't. Charity is definitely not one of them. BTW, the only people refused treatment in the US are the mid-income people who use up their insurance. The poor, uninsured, and even illegal aliens get excellent treatment.
Know the feeling, local govt as well. it's a standing joke that the only way you can tell the difference between a tory council and a labour one is labour councillors get caught less often with their hand sin the till.
Anyhing I get from government is not charity I pay in advance for it and am currently paying for all those who are using it or living on the old age pension.
re mid-income, you mean if the insurance runs out treatment just stops? Why on earth would you put up with that?
Bear in mind my knowledge of the US medical system is gleaned from soaps and is hardly an accurate picture. From what I've seen I prefer our system for all its failings, at least there is no question about receiving treatment when you need it, even for americans when they are here.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
gmc wrote: Anyhing I get from government is not charity I pay in advance for it and am currently paying for all those who are using it or living on the old age pension.
Anything you get from your government is not charity. I'm referring to the charitable gestures my gov't makes in my name, when private enterprise or churches would do better. Did you know FEMA turned back WalMart trucks from N.O. saying they already had enough emergency supplies? How can you have enough water??
gmc wrote: re mid-income, you mean if the insurance runs out treatment just stops? Why on earth would you put up with that?
I don't think I can answer this with the depth it deserves. NV or someone want to handle this one, please?
Anything you get from your government is not charity. I'm referring to the charitable gestures my gov't makes in my name, when private enterprise or churches would do better. Did you know FEMA turned back WalMart trucks from N.O. saying they already had enough emergency supplies? How can you have enough water??
gmc wrote: re mid-income, you mean if the insurance runs out treatment just stops? Why on earth would you put up with that?
I don't think I can answer this with the depth it deserves. NV or someone want to handle this one, please?
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
Accountable:-6
Do I agree with the rest of the post? No.
Instead of making criminals of folks who are simply trying to get along and keep alive even if the food is stolen it would be better to find out what theproblem is and deal with it. Up to now, the courts only deal with the symptoms. But that is typical of right wing thinking.
Was Jesus the first socialist. I would say yes he was because his first concern was for the oppressed, those living under an evil domination system. those in poverty and destitution, the street people etc. Those he was concerned about and quite clearly said that they would not exist as such in the Kingdom of God that could be established on earth. Jesus was definitely not right wing. The right wing tends to deny reality. if it soesn't match up to their level of income.
Shalom
Ted
Do I agree with the rest of the post? No.
Instead of making criminals of folks who are simply trying to get along and keep alive even if the food is stolen it would be better to find out what theproblem is and deal with it. Up to now, the courts only deal with the symptoms. But that is typical of right wing thinking.
Was Jesus the first socialist. I would say yes he was because his first concern was for the oppressed, those living under an evil domination system. those in poverty and destitution, the street people etc. Those he was concerned about and quite clearly said that they would not exist as such in the Kingdom of God that could be established on earth. Jesus was definitely not right wing. The right wing tends to deny reality. if it soesn't match up to their level of income.
Shalom
Ted
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
Jesus is the compass. A compass is not the direction, it indicates the direction, as it relates to true north. He is neither left nor right and He certainly isn’t in the middle of the road.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
One comment on the middle income insurance-it is true that when the insurance runs out you have to pay out of pocket for medical and nursing care. Otherwise, you have to let Medicare step in, at the expense of everything you own. That's why I'm picking up a second job, to pay for the nursing care during the daytime job for my husband who is an invalid. He has topped out the insurance-it will pay for doctor visits, percentage of the meds, but everything else is my responsibility to pay. If I take the medicare, I loose the house, all savings, (like what's left?)and they tell me what I can spend to live on.
Response to Clint-thanks to the generosity of God, I have never payed a bill late yet, and live one day at a time.
Response to Clint-thanks to the generosity of God, I have never payed a bill late yet, and live one day at a time.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
Ted wrote: Accountable:-6
Do I agree with the rest of the post? No.
Instead of making criminals of folks who are simply trying to get along and keep alive even if the food is stolen it would be better to find out what theproblem is and deal with it. Up to now, the courts only deal with the symptoms. But that is typical of right wing thinking.
Was Jesus the first socialist. I would say yes he was because his first concern was for the oppressed, those living under an evil domination system. those in poverty and destitution, the street people etc. Those he was concerned about and quite clearly said that they would not exist as such in the Kingdom of God that could be established on earth. Jesus was definitely not right wing. The right wing tends to deny reality. if it soesn't match up to their level of income.
Shalom
Ted
I re-read my post and don't see how you addressed it. Where did I mention criminalizing anyone?
As for Jesus, where did he ever advocate the government (Ceasar) take the responsibility to take care of the people?
Where in your post is your disagreement of my stance? I think you are trying to see socialism in the Bible where none exists, and right wing in my posts where none exists. Sorry I don't fit your stereotype.
Do I agree with the rest of the post? No.
Instead of making criminals of folks who are simply trying to get along and keep alive even if the food is stolen it would be better to find out what theproblem is and deal with it. Up to now, the courts only deal with the symptoms. But that is typical of right wing thinking.
Was Jesus the first socialist. I would say yes he was because his first concern was for the oppressed, those living under an evil domination system. those in poverty and destitution, the street people etc. Those he was concerned about and quite clearly said that they would not exist as such in the Kingdom of God that could be established on earth. Jesus was definitely not right wing. The right wing tends to deny reality. if it soesn't match up to their level of income.
Shalom
Ted
I re-read my post and don't see how you addressed it. Where did I mention criminalizing anyone?
As for Jesus, where did he ever advocate the government (Ceasar) take the responsibility to take care of the people?
Where in your post is your disagreement of my stance? I think you are trying to see socialism in the Bible where none exists, and right wing in my posts where none exists. Sorry I don't fit your stereotype.
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
Chonsigirl:-6
Blessings an the best of luck to you and your husband. It sounds like an awful system to me. One designed to drive fokks into poverty. Then they get bitched at because they are living in poverty and perhaps on social assistance.
If that is the Great American Dream then God help the individual citizens.
God Bless.
Shalom
Ted
Blessings an the best of luck to you and your husband. It sounds like an awful system to me. One designed to drive fokks into poverty. Then they get bitched at because they are living in poverty and perhaps on social assistance.
If that is the Great American Dream then God help the individual citizens.
God Bless.
Shalom
Ted
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
Accountable:-6
You didn't mention criminalizing anyone. However the poverty that exists leads inevitabley to that. Eventually the oppressed see the great wealth and obscene homes that some of these folks live in and react. That is what happens to the oppressed and has done so all down throughout history. We are still not addressing the problem but only the symptoms.
Jesus was quite clear "render onto Ceasar what is Caesar's" What Jesus was opposed to wasthe 5% of society living off the hard work of the other 95% and actually leaving them very little to live on or sew for next years cropl Howeveer, the times have changes. The churches are doing their best but unfortunately it is not good enough and governments are going to have to help. Especially if the government gives the impression of "In God We Trust". The commedy you presented presents a situation that may or my not reflect reality. How are any of those folks with their hand out or holding out flowers going to make a decent living? Jesus was fighting for distributive justice. One that we have failed most miserably.
If you were to read the portion of Acts that I presented you would see that an early form of socialism did exist in the Bible and was encouraged. Those in some of the churches held all things in common.
When the country is known to be right wing and one of its citizens tells me that they do help others when it serves thei purpose that sounds a lot like right wing to me.
Our call clearly seen in the Parable of the Good Samaritan is that anyone in need is our neighbour and we are bound to help that person. We help not because it "serves our interest" but because that person is in need. We are our brother's keeper.
Don't get me wrong our country may look after the destitute a little better then the US but we have nothing to crow about. We have our own impoverished and destitute people and they are not being look after to the shame of Canada and our country is supposedly founded on Christain principles. We could take a lesson from the Muslims and the Hindus as well.
Shalom
Ted:-6
You didn't mention criminalizing anyone. However the poverty that exists leads inevitabley to that. Eventually the oppressed see the great wealth and obscene homes that some of these folks live in and react. That is what happens to the oppressed and has done so all down throughout history. We are still not addressing the problem but only the symptoms.
Jesus was quite clear "render onto Ceasar what is Caesar's" What Jesus was opposed to wasthe 5% of society living off the hard work of the other 95% and actually leaving them very little to live on or sew for next years cropl Howeveer, the times have changes. The churches are doing their best but unfortunately it is not good enough and governments are going to have to help. Especially if the government gives the impression of "In God We Trust". The commedy you presented presents a situation that may or my not reflect reality. How are any of those folks with their hand out or holding out flowers going to make a decent living? Jesus was fighting for distributive justice. One that we have failed most miserably.
If you were to read the portion of Acts that I presented you would see that an early form of socialism did exist in the Bible and was encouraged. Those in some of the churches held all things in common.
When the country is known to be right wing and one of its citizens tells me that they do help others when it serves thei purpose that sounds a lot like right wing to me.
Our call clearly seen in the Parable of the Good Samaritan is that anyone in need is our neighbour and we are bound to help that person. We help not because it "serves our interest" but because that person is in need. We are our brother's keeper.
Don't get me wrong our country may look after the destitute a little better then the US but we have nothing to crow about. We have our own impoverished and destitute people and they are not being look after to the shame of Canada and our country is supposedly founded on Christain principles. We could take a lesson from the Muslims and the Hindus as well.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
Ted wrote: Accountable:-6
You didn't mention criminalizing anyone. However the poverty that exists leads inevitabley to that. Eventually the oppressed see the great wealth and obscene homes that some of these folks live in and react. That is what happens to the oppressed and has done so all down throughout history. We are still not addressing the problem but only the symptoms.
The poor are not the oppressed unless they are oppressed. The two are not synonyms. the ideal of the American dream is to see what wealth can bring and know that it is available to anyone willing to do the work. This idea is probably lost on you because you equate lack of money with oppression.
What kind of message is it to poor people if we took from the rich and gave to the poor? Easy. Working hard is pointless because the gov't will take it from you. It's far more profitable to sit back and let the gov't give it to you. Productivity, creativity, and national (not to mention personal) pride are in the toilet in no time.
Every society has criminals. The biggest mistake we make is the bigotry that comes with being upper middle class. We think the poor are not smart enough, lucky enough, etc. to make it on their own, so we must help them. We say this publicly, ignoring how we ourselves got where we are. The poor hear it so often (and virtually never hear about the virtue of hard work) that they themselves believe it. They believe they are oppressed, Ted, because you have convinced them of it. You have oppressed them and created the criminal element because you are not holding poor people to the same standard you hold for yourself. The trick is to recognize how bigoted and dispicable that view is and rid yourself of it. We are not better than the poor. Give them what they need and cheer them on to attain the rest on their own.
Ted wrote: Jesus was quite clear "render onto Ceasar what is Caesar's" What Jesus was opposed to wasthe 5% of society living off the hard work of the other 95% and actually leaving them very little to live on or sew for next years cropl
Where is that? He was against making a profit in the synagogue and judging hypocriticaly. I don't recall him railing against Ceasar at all.
Ted wrote: Howeveer, the times have changes. The churches are doing their best but unfortunately it is not good enough and governments are going to have to help. Especially if the government gives the impression of "In God We Trust".
The churches are doing crap. They are depending on the gov't just like you are. They help fill in the voids, helping the people that fall through the cracks. The gov't should not have the funds to be in a charitable position, IMO. Citizens should have their own money to give to the charities they wish. If churches knew the gov't was not there to help, they'd get off their collective a$$es and spend some money on the truly needy, rather than on fancy buildings.
Ted wrote: The commedy you presented presents a situation that may or my not reflect reality. How are any of those folks with their hand out or holding out flowers going to make a decent living?
That situation was real, that's why it was funny. Whether or not the guy makes a "decent" living is not the point. The point is he's not waiting for his handout. But since you need to see it: He sells the flowers at a moderate profit. Some days are good, some bad. Some days he eats; some days he may have to skip a meal, but he doesn't quit. On the good days he sets the little extra aside. He doesn't get a bigger or better meal because he sees that house on the hill and he wants it for himself. When he has enough set aside, he buys maybe better clothes, maybe better flowers. Either can increase his profit margin. He continues scrimping and saving until he can afford a cart to sell his flowers from, because it can increase his profit margin. He continues to live modestly, eat modestly, always with the end goal in mind. Does he make it? Certainly not in your acceptable time frame. He may not see the house in his lifetime, but his children might, if they learned from their father. The point is that that cart would be more valuable to such a man than any house your entitlements can give because he worked for it.
Ted wrote: Jesus was fighting for distributive justice. One that we have failed most miserably.
I had to look that up. Thanks for the mind-expansion.
reference.com wrote:
Distributive justice concerns what is just or right with respect to the allocation of goods (or utility) in a society. It is often contrasted with procedural justice. Distributive justice concentrates on just outcomes, while procedural justice concentrates on just processes. The most prominent contemporary theorists of distributive justice are John Rawls and Robert Nozick.
The two main types theories of distributive justice are end-state theories, and entitlement theories.
An end-state theory looks at the distribution of goods among members of society at a specific time, and on that basis decides whether the distribution is just. For example, someone who looks at standard of living, absolute wealth, differences in wealth, or any such utilitarian standard to judge justice is using a type of end-state theory. People who hold equality to be important generally, if implicitly, rely on an end-state theory of justice.
An entitlement theory looks at the history of the situation, and evaluates on that basis. For example, a free market relies on the notion that if you buy something from someone who rightfully owns it, then it is yours. This appeals to history - a past legitimate trade. The resulting distribution of goods is irrelevant to this view. People who hold non-aggression to be important generally, if implicitly, rely on an entitlement theory, since they look at the sequence of actions/transactions leading up the the current distribution. If goods were justly owned initially, and all later actions were non-aggressive and consentual, then the current distribution is just. (Cf: "Anarchy, State, and Utopia", Robert Nozick.)
Socialists tend to favor end-state theories, while capitalists tend to favor entitlement theories.
I like distributive justice too, if you go by this entitlement theory definition. However, I don't think Jesus was concerned with gov't or society, so much as the heart/soul of the individual. You're welcome to accept the challenge to convince me that anything more is not really projecting your own societal views on your biblical interpretation.
Ted wrote:
If you were to read the portion of Acts that I presented you would see that an early form of socialism did exist in the Bible and was encouraged. Those in some of the churches held all things in common.
The Book of Acts chronicles how Jesus' follower immediately went back to their old ways of legalism as soon as He left. Show me in the first 4 Books where Jesus endorsed legalism.
Ted wrote: When the country is known to be right wing and one of its citizens tells me that they do help others when it serves thei purpose that sounds a lot like right wing to me.
Our call clearly seen in the Parable of the Good Samaritan is that anyone in need is our neighbour and we are bound to help that person. We help not because it "serves our interest" but because that person is in need. We are our brother's keeper.
You, too, help people when it serves your purposes and stop when it is no longer convenient. If not, you wouldn't be able to afford the hardware and services charges involved with maintaining this very conversation. (if you are doing this from a public library using public computers, I apologize).
The Parable of the Good Samaritan is to help without seeking something in return. It is not to take half of someone else's stuff and give it to a third person.
Ted wrote: Don't get me wrong our country may look after the destitute a little better then the US but we have nothing to crow about. We have our own impoverished and destitute people and they are not being look after to the shame of Canada and our country is supposedly founded on Christain principles. We could take a lesson from the Muslims and the Hindus as well.
You're definition of destitute is skewed if it includes able-bodied people who prefer begging to work. The N.O. victims we have been watching on TV are destitute. To equate the two is disgusting.
You didn't mention criminalizing anyone. However the poverty that exists leads inevitabley to that. Eventually the oppressed see the great wealth and obscene homes that some of these folks live in and react. That is what happens to the oppressed and has done so all down throughout history. We are still not addressing the problem but only the symptoms.
The poor are not the oppressed unless they are oppressed. The two are not synonyms. the ideal of the American dream is to see what wealth can bring and know that it is available to anyone willing to do the work. This idea is probably lost on you because you equate lack of money with oppression.
What kind of message is it to poor people if we took from the rich and gave to the poor? Easy. Working hard is pointless because the gov't will take it from you. It's far more profitable to sit back and let the gov't give it to you. Productivity, creativity, and national (not to mention personal) pride are in the toilet in no time.
Every society has criminals. The biggest mistake we make is the bigotry that comes with being upper middle class. We think the poor are not smart enough, lucky enough, etc. to make it on their own, so we must help them. We say this publicly, ignoring how we ourselves got where we are. The poor hear it so often (and virtually never hear about the virtue of hard work) that they themselves believe it. They believe they are oppressed, Ted, because you have convinced them of it. You have oppressed them and created the criminal element because you are not holding poor people to the same standard you hold for yourself. The trick is to recognize how bigoted and dispicable that view is and rid yourself of it. We are not better than the poor. Give them what they need and cheer them on to attain the rest on their own.
Ted wrote: Jesus was quite clear "render onto Ceasar what is Caesar's" What Jesus was opposed to wasthe 5% of society living off the hard work of the other 95% and actually leaving them very little to live on or sew for next years cropl
Where is that? He was against making a profit in the synagogue and judging hypocriticaly. I don't recall him railing against Ceasar at all.
Ted wrote: Howeveer, the times have changes. The churches are doing their best but unfortunately it is not good enough and governments are going to have to help. Especially if the government gives the impression of "In God We Trust".
The churches are doing crap. They are depending on the gov't just like you are. They help fill in the voids, helping the people that fall through the cracks. The gov't should not have the funds to be in a charitable position, IMO. Citizens should have their own money to give to the charities they wish. If churches knew the gov't was not there to help, they'd get off their collective a$$es and spend some money on the truly needy, rather than on fancy buildings.
Ted wrote: The commedy you presented presents a situation that may or my not reflect reality. How are any of those folks with their hand out or holding out flowers going to make a decent living?
That situation was real, that's why it was funny. Whether or not the guy makes a "decent" living is not the point. The point is he's not waiting for his handout. But since you need to see it: He sells the flowers at a moderate profit. Some days are good, some bad. Some days he eats; some days he may have to skip a meal, but he doesn't quit. On the good days he sets the little extra aside. He doesn't get a bigger or better meal because he sees that house on the hill and he wants it for himself. When he has enough set aside, he buys maybe better clothes, maybe better flowers. Either can increase his profit margin. He continues scrimping and saving until he can afford a cart to sell his flowers from, because it can increase his profit margin. He continues to live modestly, eat modestly, always with the end goal in mind. Does he make it? Certainly not in your acceptable time frame. He may not see the house in his lifetime, but his children might, if they learned from their father. The point is that that cart would be more valuable to such a man than any house your entitlements can give because he worked for it.
Ted wrote: Jesus was fighting for distributive justice. One that we have failed most miserably.
I had to look that up. Thanks for the mind-expansion.
reference.com wrote:
Distributive justice concerns what is just or right with respect to the allocation of goods (or utility) in a society. It is often contrasted with procedural justice. Distributive justice concentrates on just outcomes, while procedural justice concentrates on just processes. The most prominent contemporary theorists of distributive justice are John Rawls and Robert Nozick.
The two main types theories of distributive justice are end-state theories, and entitlement theories.
An end-state theory looks at the distribution of goods among members of society at a specific time, and on that basis decides whether the distribution is just. For example, someone who looks at standard of living, absolute wealth, differences in wealth, or any such utilitarian standard to judge justice is using a type of end-state theory. People who hold equality to be important generally, if implicitly, rely on an end-state theory of justice.
An entitlement theory looks at the history of the situation, and evaluates on that basis. For example, a free market relies on the notion that if you buy something from someone who rightfully owns it, then it is yours. This appeals to history - a past legitimate trade. The resulting distribution of goods is irrelevant to this view. People who hold non-aggression to be important generally, if implicitly, rely on an entitlement theory, since they look at the sequence of actions/transactions leading up the the current distribution. If goods were justly owned initially, and all later actions were non-aggressive and consentual, then the current distribution is just. (Cf: "Anarchy, State, and Utopia", Robert Nozick.)
Socialists tend to favor end-state theories, while capitalists tend to favor entitlement theories.
I like distributive justice too, if you go by this entitlement theory definition. However, I don't think Jesus was concerned with gov't or society, so much as the heart/soul of the individual. You're welcome to accept the challenge to convince me that anything more is not really projecting your own societal views on your biblical interpretation.
Ted wrote:
If you were to read the portion of Acts that I presented you would see that an early form of socialism did exist in the Bible and was encouraged. Those in some of the churches held all things in common.
The Book of Acts chronicles how Jesus' follower immediately went back to their old ways of legalism as soon as He left. Show me in the first 4 Books where Jesus endorsed legalism.
Ted wrote: When the country is known to be right wing and one of its citizens tells me that they do help others when it serves thei purpose that sounds a lot like right wing to me.
Our call clearly seen in the Parable of the Good Samaritan is that anyone in need is our neighbour and we are bound to help that person. We help not because it "serves our interest" but because that person is in need. We are our brother's keeper.
You, too, help people when it serves your purposes and stop when it is no longer convenient. If not, you wouldn't be able to afford the hardware and services charges involved with maintaining this very conversation. (if you are doing this from a public library using public computers, I apologize).
The Parable of the Good Samaritan is to help without seeking something in return. It is not to take half of someone else's stuff and give it to a third person.
Ted wrote: Don't get me wrong our country may look after the destitute a little better then the US but we have nothing to crow about. We have our own impoverished and destitute people and they are not being look after to the shame of Canada and our country is supposedly founded on Christain principles. We could take a lesson from the Muslims and the Hindus as well.
You're definition of destitute is skewed if it includes able-bodied people who prefer begging to work. The N.O. victims we have been watching on TV are destitute. To equate the two is disgusting.
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
way off topic but who cares?
posted by ted
Was Jesus the first socialist. I would say yes he was because his first concern was for the oppressed, those living under an evil domination system. those in poverty and destitution, the street people etc. Those he was concerned about and quite clearly said that they would not exist as such in the Kingdom of God that could be established on earth. Jesus was definitely not right wing. The right wing tends to deny reality. if it soesn't match up to their level of income.
posted by accountable
I don't see Jesus' connection with any church. That came after, though I'd be interested in His take on how they bastardised his teachings. They do make wonderful charity organizations.
I was actually being facetious when I made that crack about JC being the first socialist. If I offended anyone it was unintentional.
But to stretch a point, if he was the son of god did he believe everybody was equal except him?
posted by accountable
What kind of message is it to poor people if we took from the rich and gave to the poor? Easy. Working hard is pointless because the gov't will take it from you. It's far more profitable to sit back and let the gov't give it to you. Productivity, creativity, and national (not to mention personal) pride are in the toilet in no time.
Socialism developed in a time and country when the rich had just taken what they wanted. The aristocracy were descendants of medeival warlords who had managed to fool everybody in to thinking they had a right to rule. Advocating one man one vote made you a dangerous radical threatening the fabric of society, only men of property should have any say in government since they were the ones with most to lose. It used to be take from the rich to give to the poor because the B^&^%^^S stole it in the first place.
Many of your countrymen are the descendants of people who got forced off their land on to ships and sent to the colonies at the point of a bayonet. When marx talked about all property being theft what he was referring to was landowners using their financial clout to enclose common land and just take what they needed to enrich themselves, not robbing his neighbour of his coat. if you look at american history and the conflict between cattle ranchers and settlers who had the right of that? why should one powerful individual claim so much for himself?
That was over 150 years ago. Communism is a middle class political philosphy where the enlightened socialist leads his brethern to revolution and freedom eventually handing over power to a proletariat empowered by the good commie. It is essentially patronising in its basic premise i.e. that people need guidance cos they're too thick to think for themselves is inhumane in that it sees people as things to be managed and not as individuals and has kind of had it's day. For all europe tends to elect left wing government you will not see many advocating state ownership of everything i.e socialism.
Looking at these posts I am conscious that europeans and americans view things completely differently, use the words differently but actually agree on most things.
Here it's socialist? what kind of socialist, there are many strands to the debate it's not all about state control. Most will accept some socialist ideas as being valid but reject others.
Social reform and justice is a different matter. It's an age old debate , poor, deserving poor, rich man, poor man.
Seems to me if you demonise the poor as being feckless and undeserving then it is a way of avoiding looking at a problem. It's their fault, rather than what can be done to help them get out of the cycle of poverty caused by lack of education and opportunity. They are not oppressed as they perhaps were in the past but is lack of opportunity because of poor education etc not another type of oppression.
Here it is a given that everybody has a right to an education, proper health care and decent housing. Govt exists to provide for it's people and the fact that some abuse the system does not make the basic principle unsound only that you need checks in the system to stop abuse like that.
So when someone like chavez says he wants a greater share of the wealth in venezuela to be distributed amongst his people then he is not saying let's take from the rich to give to the poor but rather let's be a bit fairer about sharing the wealth. It is in society's interest as a whole to care about the lowest.
posted by accountable
Every society has criminals. The biggest mistake we make is the bigotry that comes with being upper middle class. We think the poor are not smart enough, lucky enough, etc. to make it on their own, so we must help them. We say this publicly, ignoring how we ourselves got where we are. The poor hear it so often (and virtually never hear about the virtue of hard work) that they themselves believe it. They believe they are oppressed, Ted, because you have convinced them of it. You have oppressed them and created the criminal element because you are not holding poor people to the same standard you hold for yourself. The trick is to recognize how bigoted and dispicable that view is and rid yourself of it. We are not better than the poor. Give them what they need and cheer them on to attain the rest on their own.
see what i mean? I think we essentially agree in principle but express it differently. Maybe your problem is not the "welfare" state but rather the lack ofa decent one.
http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-intro.htm
The father of capitalism-scots of course and a Fifer from Kirkcaldy. much quoted little read. just curious if anyone has read it. Alan Greenspan gave the adam smith memorial lecture this year with a socialist chancellor at his side. Do you think he got the irony of it all?
posted by ted
Was Jesus the first socialist. I would say yes he was because his first concern was for the oppressed, those living under an evil domination system. those in poverty and destitution, the street people etc. Those he was concerned about and quite clearly said that they would not exist as such in the Kingdom of God that could be established on earth. Jesus was definitely not right wing. The right wing tends to deny reality. if it soesn't match up to their level of income.
posted by accountable
I don't see Jesus' connection with any church. That came after, though I'd be interested in His take on how they bastardised his teachings. They do make wonderful charity organizations.
I was actually being facetious when I made that crack about JC being the first socialist. If I offended anyone it was unintentional.
But to stretch a point, if he was the son of god did he believe everybody was equal except him?
posted by accountable
What kind of message is it to poor people if we took from the rich and gave to the poor? Easy. Working hard is pointless because the gov't will take it from you. It's far more profitable to sit back and let the gov't give it to you. Productivity, creativity, and national (not to mention personal) pride are in the toilet in no time.
Socialism developed in a time and country when the rich had just taken what they wanted. The aristocracy were descendants of medeival warlords who had managed to fool everybody in to thinking they had a right to rule. Advocating one man one vote made you a dangerous radical threatening the fabric of society, only men of property should have any say in government since they were the ones with most to lose. It used to be take from the rich to give to the poor because the B^&^%^^S stole it in the first place.
Many of your countrymen are the descendants of people who got forced off their land on to ships and sent to the colonies at the point of a bayonet. When marx talked about all property being theft what he was referring to was landowners using their financial clout to enclose common land and just take what they needed to enrich themselves, not robbing his neighbour of his coat. if you look at american history and the conflict between cattle ranchers and settlers who had the right of that? why should one powerful individual claim so much for himself?
That was over 150 years ago. Communism is a middle class political philosphy where the enlightened socialist leads his brethern to revolution and freedom eventually handing over power to a proletariat empowered by the good commie. It is essentially patronising in its basic premise i.e. that people need guidance cos they're too thick to think for themselves is inhumane in that it sees people as things to be managed and not as individuals and has kind of had it's day. For all europe tends to elect left wing government you will not see many advocating state ownership of everything i.e socialism.
Looking at these posts I am conscious that europeans and americans view things completely differently, use the words differently but actually agree on most things.
Here it's socialist? what kind of socialist, there are many strands to the debate it's not all about state control. Most will accept some socialist ideas as being valid but reject others.
Social reform and justice is a different matter. It's an age old debate , poor, deserving poor, rich man, poor man.
Seems to me if you demonise the poor as being feckless and undeserving then it is a way of avoiding looking at a problem. It's their fault, rather than what can be done to help them get out of the cycle of poverty caused by lack of education and opportunity. They are not oppressed as they perhaps were in the past but is lack of opportunity because of poor education etc not another type of oppression.
Here it is a given that everybody has a right to an education, proper health care and decent housing. Govt exists to provide for it's people and the fact that some abuse the system does not make the basic principle unsound only that you need checks in the system to stop abuse like that.
So when someone like chavez says he wants a greater share of the wealth in venezuela to be distributed amongst his people then he is not saying let's take from the rich to give to the poor but rather let's be a bit fairer about sharing the wealth. It is in society's interest as a whole to care about the lowest.
posted by accountable
Every society has criminals. The biggest mistake we make is the bigotry that comes with being upper middle class. We think the poor are not smart enough, lucky enough, etc. to make it on their own, so we must help them. We say this publicly, ignoring how we ourselves got where we are. The poor hear it so often (and virtually never hear about the virtue of hard work) that they themselves believe it. They believe they are oppressed, Ted, because you have convinced them of it. You have oppressed them and created the criminal element because you are not holding poor people to the same standard you hold for yourself. The trick is to recognize how bigoted and dispicable that view is and rid yourself of it. We are not better than the poor. Give them what they need and cheer them on to attain the rest on their own.
see what i mean? I think we essentially agree in principle but express it differently. Maybe your problem is not the "welfare" state but rather the lack ofa decent one.
http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-intro.htm
The father of capitalism-scots of course and a Fifer from Kirkcaldy. much quoted little read. just curious if anyone has read it. Alan Greenspan gave the adam smith memorial lecture this year with a socialist chancellor at his side. Do you think he got the irony of it all?
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
gmc wrote: But to stretch a point, if he was the son of god did he believe everybody was equal except him? Jesus must have loved the common man since He made so many of us.
By the way, excellent post, gmc!
Jesus must have loved the common man since He made so many of us.By the way, excellent post, gmc!
Look what the cat dragged in.
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
Accountable:-6
It seems to me that gmc has adquately defined who are the oppressed. It is this oppression that can and does lead to criminal acts.
If we look at the destitute, and the oppreesed we see people tht lack education. Why they lack education has many reasons. The fact is that in lacking education theylack the very abilities and skills to seek our and get tht education which might fit them for some form of work. It is time to quite looking at this people as lazy and leaches on society. I dare say most would like a job that gives them a decent living.
When a country looks tht these folks through negative eyes they are offerered no help whatsoever. Pover is known to be cyclical. It runs in the family from generation to generation leaving these folks feeling as if they don't count in society that no one gives a s***. To quote the American psychologist "If I'm ok you're ok.and if I'm and SOB so are you." These are the folks who ultimately end up criminalized because they steel to keep their family together or to try to give them a little better life.
Where to find the facts on the ancient history and the oppression of the 95% of the folks. "Jesus and Eastern Mediterranean Peasant" by John Dominic rosson would be a good place to start. He clearly outlines the society into which Jesus was born.
There will always be those who will abuse the system. Then lets deal with them and not paint all folks with the same brush.
As far as distributive justice goes Jesus picture of the Kingdom of God on earth was an elgalitarian society where all folks contributed as best they could and helped those less able to do do: by donation, by education, by hiring etc. Realizing also that there will always be a few who for whatever reason cannot work.
You don't see where he railled against Caesar. Where did he get the coin from before he said "render onto Caesar. . . " He got it from his accusers because he carried no coins with Caesar's image on it. That was his very quiet revolt against the emperor.. He was concerned that all folks look to God not Caesar as a divine person which he was considered to be.
Jesus was every bit, if not moreso concerned about the poor and the outcasts and those suffereing under the evil oppessive system that existed during his time. Fundamentalism/literalisn has ignored that part of the message of Jesus and it can be found in Matt. 25:31ff.
Jesus did not endorse legalism for during his life he often broke the "laws" and was criticized for it. Though he did suggest that they generally follow the law but that they were not to be slaves to the law.
I help people when I servis my perpose! That does not describe either my self or my wife. In fact when I raad that phrase to my wife she was as appalled as I war. I help those in need because they are in need and often do without myself because others have a greater need then I do.
We help support two foster children, the local recyclying organization, the local food bank. a family on disability because their disability check is dis graceful, the local church, overses missions as well as other parishes that are in need.
I guess you would say tht is crap.
May the Peace of Christ be with you.
Shalom
Ted:-6 .
It seems to me that gmc has adquately defined who are the oppressed. It is this oppression that can and does lead to criminal acts.
If we look at the destitute, and the oppreesed we see people tht lack education. Why they lack education has many reasons. The fact is that in lacking education theylack the very abilities and skills to seek our and get tht education which might fit them for some form of work. It is time to quite looking at this people as lazy and leaches on society. I dare say most would like a job that gives them a decent living.
When a country looks tht these folks through negative eyes they are offerered no help whatsoever. Pover is known to be cyclical. It runs in the family from generation to generation leaving these folks feeling as if they don't count in society that no one gives a s***. To quote the American psychologist "If I'm ok you're ok.and if I'm and SOB so are you." These are the folks who ultimately end up criminalized because they steel to keep their family together or to try to give them a little better life.
Where to find the facts on the ancient history and the oppression of the 95% of the folks. "Jesus and Eastern Mediterranean Peasant" by John Dominic rosson would be a good place to start. He clearly outlines the society into which Jesus was born.
There will always be those who will abuse the system. Then lets deal with them and not paint all folks with the same brush.
As far as distributive justice goes Jesus picture of the Kingdom of God on earth was an elgalitarian society where all folks contributed as best they could and helped those less able to do do: by donation, by education, by hiring etc. Realizing also that there will always be a few who for whatever reason cannot work.
You don't see where he railled against Caesar. Where did he get the coin from before he said "render onto Caesar. . . " He got it from his accusers because he carried no coins with Caesar's image on it. That was his very quiet revolt against the emperor.. He was concerned that all folks look to God not Caesar as a divine person which he was considered to be.
Jesus was every bit, if not moreso concerned about the poor and the outcasts and those suffereing under the evil oppessive system that existed during his time. Fundamentalism/literalisn has ignored that part of the message of Jesus and it can be found in Matt. 25:31ff.
Jesus did not endorse legalism for during his life he often broke the "laws" and was criticized for it. Though he did suggest that they generally follow the law but that they were not to be slaves to the law.
I help people when I servis my perpose! That does not describe either my self or my wife. In fact when I raad that phrase to my wife she was as appalled as I war. I help those in need because they are in need and often do without myself because others have a greater need then I do.
We help support two foster children, the local recyclying organization, the local food bank. a family on disability because their disability check is dis graceful, the local church, overses missions as well as other parishes that are in need.
I guess you would say tht is crap.
May the Peace of Christ be with you.
Shalom
Ted:-6 .
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
If people are dependent on the gov't for sustanance without providing some sort of production to help sustain that gov't, they are leeches. It doesn't matter how needy they are, how lazy they are, how deserving they are. The trick is to admit this to ourselves and to them and show them how to become independent as soon as they can. Stigma is good! I would feel like crap to have to ask for a handout. I would do it if necessary. I would accept it if I need it. But I would do everything I could to stand on my on and pay back what was owed because I would feel stigmatized.
Where we go wrong is telling them it's okay to leech. They become complacent. Who wouldn't? Why go out and try, possibly fail, when the gov't will give you what you need for nothing?
Ted, it serves your purposes to have foster children. If you did not enjoy it and feel fulfilled by it, you wouldn't do it. Likewise with your other good deeds. We do good deeds because it makes us feel good. I'm going in a couple of hours to spend my normal sleepy-time to help the Red Cross. I expect it will be unpleasant and tiring, yet fulfilling. It serves my purposes.
GMC, I apologize for helping pull the thread off-topic.
Where we go wrong is telling them it's okay to leech. They become complacent. Who wouldn't? Why go out and try, possibly fail, when the gov't will give you what you need for nothing?
Ted, it serves your purposes to have foster children. If you did not enjoy it and feel fulfilled by it, you wouldn't do it. Likewise with your other good deeds. We do good deeds because it makes us feel good. I'm going in a couple of hours to spend my normal sleepy-time to help the Red Cross. I expect it will be unpleasant and tiring, yet fulfilling. It serves my purposes.
GMC, I apologize for helping pull the thread off-topic.
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
Accountable:-6
That I do good deeds has nothing with "serving my purpose as a person". I help because the help is needed. I am called to be a servant. That is my vocation. I did not choose it. I was called to it. It is my vocation.
People who need our help are not leeches and when most get on their feet they do likewise for others.
Shalom
Ted:-6
That I do good deeds has nothing with "serving my purpose as a person". I help because the help is needed. I am called to be a servant. That is my vocation. I did not choose it. I was called to it. It is my vocation.
People who need our help are not leeches and when most get on their feet they do likewise for others.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...
posted by ted
It seems to me that gmc has adquately defined who are the oppressed. It is this oppression that can and does lead to criminal acts
I meant what I said as a moot point, it's a factor but I don't actually think things are that simple or that there will ever be a simple answer but rather a shifting set of circumstances that you have to adapt to all the time. Theories help understand what is going on but don't necessarily provide all the answers.
I happen to live in an area that was at the heart of the industrial revoution, oil, coal, steel, manufacturing all now gone and a very painful transition, but now replaced with new industrial age industries and still changing but a lot of money was invested in the infrastructure and in encouraging inward investment that came from govt and the eec (mainly eec regional fund actually) private industry on it's own would not have paid for it because there was no immediate profit for them. So a one time drain on the economy is now major contributor, that's not socialism just a common sense approach to a social problem. Lots of industrial museums as well. If govt's don't exist to make things better for their people then why are you paying for it since it does nothing for you? It's not about interfering in daily life or controlling every aspect
posted by accountable
If people are dependent on the gov't for sustanance without providing some sort of production to help sustain that gov't, they are leeches. It doesn't matter how needy they are, how lazy they are, how deserving they are. The trick is to admit this to ourselves and to them and show them how to become independent as soon as they can. Stigma is good! I would feel like crap to have to ask for a handout. I would do it if necessary. I would accept it if I need it. But I would do everything I could to stand on my on and pay back what was owed because I would feel stigmatized.
Not just hand outs then, but how do you do help them out of the poverty trap? In the thirties you had roosevelts new deal which now seems to be demonised as socialism, which it wasn't, rather than looked at objectively, stop the discussion I want to get off.
It's a bit like a religious debate between catholic and protestant except it's perhaps Keynesian economics versus Monetarism with the high priests on both sides vying for control and more interested in scoring cheap points than trying to find common ground and everybody else wonders what they are on about and take sides without realising they are actually in charge and should be calling the tune.
The aid that will be given to New Orleans citizens to start over again. Will that be a hand out or a hand up? How long wil they be helped for before they become feckless wasters again.
posted by accountable
GMC, I apologize for helping pull the thread off-topic.
The main thing is to feel guilty about it. I don't actually :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl
It seems to me that gmc has adquately defined who are the oppressed. It is this oppression that can and does lead to criminal acts
I meant what I said as a moot point, it's a factor but I don't actually think things are that simple or that there will ever be a simple answer but rather a shifting set of circumstances that you have to adapt to all the time. Theories help understand what is going on but don't necessarily provide all the answers.
I happen to live in an area that was at the heart of the industrial revoution, oil, coal, steel, manufacturing all now gone and a very painful transition, but now replaced with new industrial age industries and still changing but a lot of money was invested in the infrastructure and in encouraging inward investment that came from govt and the eec (mainly eec regional fund actually) private industry on it's own would not have paid for it because there was no immediate profit for them. So a one time drain on the economy is now major contributor, that's not socialism just a common sense approach to a social problem. Lots of industrial museums as well. If govt's don't exist to make things better for their people then why are you paying for it since it does nothing for you? It's not about interfering in daily life or controlling every aspect
posted by accountable
If people are dependent on the gov't for sustanance without providing some sort of production to help sustain that gov't, they are leeches. It doesn't matter how needy they are, how lazy they are, how deserving they are. The trick is to admit this to ourselves and to them and show them how to become independent as soon as they can. Stigma is good! I would feel like crap to have to ask for a handout. I would do it if necessary. I would accept it if I need it. But I would do everything I could to stand on my on and pay back what was owed because I would feel stigmatized.
Not just hand outs then, but how do you do help them out of the poverty trap? In the thirties you had roosevelts new deal which now seems to be demonised as socialism, which it wasn't, rather than looked at objectively, stop the discussion I want to get off.
It's a bit like a religious debate between catholic and protestant except it's perhaps Keynesian economics versus Monetarism with the high priests on both sides vying for control and more interested in scoring cheap points than trying to find common ground and everybody else wonders what they are on about and take sides without realising they are actually in charge and should be calling the tune.
The aid that will be given to New Orleans citizens to start over again. Will that be a hand out or a hand up? How long wil they be helped for before they become feckless wasters again.
posted by accountable
GMC, I apologize for helping pull the thread off-topic.
The main thing is to feel guilty about it. I don't actually :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl