|
Posts:
1,793
From:
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Registered:
12/6/00
|
|
(61 of 94)
Believe it or not, I actually read your charming post
Jun 17, 2003 5:40 AM
|
|
I mean, once you get past all the personal attacks and the namecalling, there wasn't much to reading your post. Nothing at all.
> I wish I had the time or the will to respond to all
> of this tripe, but I don't.
Usually someone writes this when they don't respond. And yet you do. In detail. Starting right off with a contradiction is no way to get off to a flying start.
>
>
> << definition of liberalism is change. Conservativism is
> primarily based on a mythic invention of tradition in
> this country. It starts from the premise that America
> is essentially good, the government should generally
> be believed because they know more than the rest of
> us, and whatever problems we have are not large
> enough for dissent. I like the optimism of this, but
> not the naivete--the thought that we should trust the
> government is contrary to the very foundation of this
> country.>>>
>
> -What you just described was a Conservative. Liberasl
> think the government has all the answers and should
> think for the populace. The Conservative ideology
> contradicts that inane ideology by advocating less
> government and more individual responsibility. Get it
> right, pal!
So, if I paraphrase this paragraph, what I described was a conservative, but I just contradicted conservativism. I described conservativism with a contradiction??? You seemed to like it at first, then five seconds later you think it's wrong? I'm schizophrenic, and so am I? Which is it? Either you agree with me or disagree. Make up your mind.
>
>
> BTW: There were many reasons for the Great
> Depression, although individuals such as yourself
> enjoy exploiting that tragic era in our history to
> pursue an invidious agenda against Capitalism.
Very true, there were many reasons why the Great Depression occurred, many of them rooted in the flaws of capitalism. However, you are taking me out of context when you say this. I have said time and again that if you are going to blame the fall of the USSR on socialism, then it is equally fair to call the Great Depression the proof of the failure of capitalism. Of course, seeing as how I have to say this for the umpteenth time now, the fall of the USSR was not the failure of communism--it was the failure of an evil dictatorship that could not keep up with the American arms buildup. I gove Reagan a lot of credit here. But suggesting socialism is what caused the USSR to fall would inherently imply that had they been a free market economy, they would still be around, still causing Cold War hostility, still teetering on the verge of nuclear holocaust, still bent on world domination. If socialism was the reason, every country in the world with socialism as a prime component in its economy--including all of Western Europe and the United States--would have failed right along with it.
Your prejudices and biases are exposed for all to see, and it is causing you to flail blindly in the dark. You would have been better served to read the rest of this thread before you started.
> Capitalism is a great thing.
In and of itself, it is a cruel monster with no sympathy for the common man. Big business a hundred years ago was proof of this. I will not go into detail AGAIN--it is your responsibility to read my lengthy posts on this. Suffice it to say capitalism would have turned America into an oligarchy by 1940 had not antitrust legislation, child labor laws, unions--all socialist measures--were not instituted.
The burden of proof is on you when you attack me. I encourage you to read the other many posts on this thread.
You should also know
> that FDR's New Deal was a failure.
I have at length admitted that the economy of the Great Depression did not ultimately turn around until WWII--but, if you think the WPA, which attempted to put millions to work on the infrastructure of this country while many millions more were being thrown out of work bybig business, was a failure, you're alone in your thinking. If you think Social Security, the first attempt in history of a country dealing with its elderly population, is a failure, then you owe it to your grandmother to rip her check out of her hands, tear it to shreds, and say God Bless America.
FDR never intended the New Deal to be the Perpetual Deal. Democrats and Republicans both are responsible for maintaining the system for 70 years, without revision.
These tenets of socialism are here to stay. Crying about it is futile. Just acknowledge it. If you want to do something about it, question your elected leaders. Calling me names is childish. Write your Congressman. I do.
He created a
> massive government that is still with us today.
Again, after 70 years, what have Republicans done to dismantle a system they say they hate?
> You and your friends should know that the government
> is not the answer to our problems but the cause of
> many of our problems. Ronald Reagan said that and I
> believe it.
And to an extent, he is right. A fat, undisciplined government is a horrible thing. However, I will agree to disagree with you--the entire meaning of government should be to better its citizens, to lift the entire society, and to not just give tax incentives to corporations. It owes its existence to 300 million people, not just the richest 5%. Democrats and Republicans are of equal blame here. However, since you brought it up, need I remind you that the largest expansion of the US government in decades has happened since 9/11? I know that contradicts what you were saying about big government, but Bush is guilty of creating the largest growth and revision of the makeup of the executive branch in years. I know you left that out by accident, not wanting to ruin your tidy little argument. If you simply forgot, you're welcome. No prob.>
>
> Well, the Kennedy brothers actually perpetuated
> racism in the South through their actions. You can
> look on the other pages on this forum, the US History
> forum and look for my post about Civil Rights and the
> two political parties. You may learn something.
So THAT'S why blacks mourned their deaths almost universally. So THAT'S why RFK was seen as a potential savior of the civil rights cause after King's assassination--it's because he was a racist. OK, thank you for clearing that up for me. You failed to mention Public Liberal Number One--Martin Luther King. Was he a racist too?
>
> You're not the first liberal with an agenda to
> exploit the 19th century and characterize Lincoln as
> a liberal.
And I surely will not be the last.
That is simply erroneous and you should be
> ashamed of yourself,
What's erroneous about this? The tradition in this country, circa 1860, was slavery. The abolition movement was a liberal movement, and I don't know how you can refute that. Lincoln would have been blasted today as a bleeding-heart liberal. By forcing through legislation something conservative plantation owners, who wanted to maintain the tradition of slavery perpetually, a liberal president did something 80 years of history was impotent to solve. No one else on this thread has argued this. Why are you?
but then again you're a liberal,
> so perhaps I'm asking too much of you.
Try me. Say something smart, and I will listen. Just one thing.
You CANNOT
> apply today's standards of a liberal and a
> Conservative to the 19th century.
Of course I can. It's called historical theory, and every philosopher worth anything has done just what I have. They have set up definitions and hypotheses as to why human nature is as it is. Marx said world history is based on class warfare. Sartre said everyone is completely singular and is responsible for his own actions without the benefit of context. Buddha said all human suffering is based on petty selfishness. Freud said all human activity is based on sex drives. I am saying human change is based on two competing notions--change toward an ideal (liberal) and change toward tradition (conservative). If you don't like my definitions, by all means, let's discuss it. Come up with better. Come up with a theory of your own. But crying because I have the audacity to postulate an historical theory and am trying to test it is futile unless you want to do more than chip away at it with namecalling and potshots. I hope you're better than that. Just because you don't have a theory and have never tried to see human history as a continuum doesn't mean I am wrong for trying to do so.
The issues which we
> face today were entirely different from those faced
> at that time.
True. But it's the METHODS for handling those issues that validates my theory. In any great issue of the day, any day, within its own context, what I am saying is there is an idealistic and transcendent way to look at it, and there is a realist and traditional way. For my money, I would rather be an idealist than a realist--but that is just me. It doesn't bother me at all if you disagree with me. But I am trying in this thread to look at history through this light. I am sorry if your blind rage for liberals prevents you from trying to see things my way, but that is your problem, not mine.
It is historically inaccurate to apply
> standards and widely accepted beliefs to a time in
> which the country was extremely different.
And yet every great historian and philosopher has done exactly that. Are you now saying there is something wrong with historical theory as a concept, or with every great philosopher in history who dared to explain human conduct as a continuum?
So, using your very words, that means Christianity is completely irrelevent to modern America, right? What a hippie said 2000 years ago has NOTHING to do with the world today? America 2003, I would think, is somewhat different from Judea 33 anno domini. There are about a billion Christians around the world that would hotly disagree with you on that one.
And it
> demonstrates your lack of knowledge concerning
> American history.
I disagree, and having answered you several times already, I do hope you are reading, and I don't have to say it over again.
That would be like me saying
> Wilson, FDR, and Truman were really Conservatives
> because they championed a strong military and a
> vigorous foreign policy.
Now, this is interesting. You are throwing out your own definition of conservativism, being a vigorous foreign policy. It's not the way I define it. But this could become a topic of interesting debate. Is such a foreign policy part of the conservative agenda? Perhaps it is. We can debate that. That is an excellent point. I disagree with it, but you do raise some interesting issues. Is the lib/con argument solely a domestic issue? Does conservativism necessarily mean being in perpetual war and becoming a Neo-Sparta? You raised interesting issues here. I don't think that's what you were trying to do, I think you were more interested in tearing me down that coming up with original commentary. But you do raise an interesting point about foreign policy.
If you wish to discuss that point further, let's. But please, let's do so without all the namecalling.
I believe that today Truman
> and Kennedy might very well be Republicans because of
> the change in the issues.
Again, we can agree to disagree. The coulda-woulda-shoulda approach to history is intriguing, but useless because it takes the people in question out of the context of their own times. I will say, however, that lumping party in with ideology, automatically saying Republicans are conservative and Democrats liberal, is dangerous and overly simplistic.
Please, don't distort
> history to assuage your decrepit and putrid liberal
> agenda. I've seen guys like you play this game for
> some time and I don't like it.
I have not distorted a single fact. I am merely suggesting a different analysis of those facts. That is why history is an art and not a science--were it a science, it would be archaeology. Everything is open to interpretation. Every generation has a bias. Every genius has a philosophy. I invite you to explore them all.
I don't really care what you like and what you don't like. Unless you come to my door and beat the snot out of me, what you like concerns me incredibly little.
I can only hope I am representing myself intelligently, honestly, and gentlemanly. If your venomous hate for liberalism on the whole prevents you from discussing my theories as an adult, I strongly urge you to quit posting here and seek therapy. I would love intelligent discussions. But all you have done is call me names. I hope I haven't done the same to you--if I have, I am sorry. But I am not the sort of liberal who thinks everything about the cause is correct. It is as flawed as every other theory. But on this thread I hope to have called a spade a spade, even if that means calling out my own.
>
> The mindless liberalism which you subscribe to is a
> deplorable and feckless ideology. This virulent
> strain of mindless liberalism suffesing this great
> nation will lead to our demise.
Again, I disagree. You're entitled to your opinions. But you have not refuted my theory at all, and as a result all you are doing is talking ugly.
Allow me to paraphrase your last paragraph. Liberalism is stupid, and it is deplorable and meritless. Your stupid theory is a plague that will cause the death of America.
You give not one iota of proof. Hence, you are just ranting.
I just don't understand why you think socialism is such a bad thing when it is part of the hybrid economies of virtually every country on earth, and it is intertwined in this country and has been for a century.
Now, if you have something to offer other than a trite cliche or more namecalling, I am all ears. I have already proven myself responsive to your suggestions and have even raved when you made an excellent point on foreign policy. Why would I stop now?
That is why I'm
> committed to exposing the fraud of the liberal
> agenda.
Committed is right.
Call it a fraud if you want. You are only lying to yourself the points I am making. Liberal thought is alive and well and will forever live in America, a place where a man can think his thoughts freely, as guaranteed by the Constitution. Liberals had their grand day in the 60's. The pendulum has definitely swung to the conservative side these days. Like all things, it will come back around. You'll see. Have faith.
>
> I wish you knew what you were talking about. But you
> don't.
And yet I can go an entire post without resorting to namecalling and, if by chance I did, apologizing for it.
You apparently are not used to people opposing you. That's a shame. In any good conversation there is always someone that says something unpopular. That does not mean it lacks merit. It means there is a new element to consider. I encourage you to consider what I am saying. You don't have to agree with it, but I do wish you would at least see the merit therein. It would show you as intelligent and wise and above pettiness.
In the end, you have your own agenda, and I have mine. Coexistence comes from understanding and intelligent dialogue. If you are incapable of that, then it is you with the problem, not me. All I did was present an argument, one you were unable to refute in merit. You had a couple of good points, but in the end you were unable to collapse it. I don't know why you want to try. No one gets a medal around here for tearing others down. There is no first prize.
I invite you to argue with me on any or all points. Please, though, I beg you to be adult about it.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,478
Registered:
10/6/01
|
|
(62 of 94)
Re: CRWIHFB re: your commentary
Jun 17, 2003 6:50 AM
|
Don't worry about the length of the post. I like to read long ones when they have something to say.
Can't argue with most of your points. Although, I do think Reagan was a great President with good leadership skills in that he delegated power very well. I, also, don't think he was as negative a person as you do. After all, a vast majority of the country voted for him.
You may believe that the Republican Party is run by its most extreme elements. However, that is what I think happened to the Democratic Party and led to its current state. Only now, with irrelevence starring them in the face, are they coming back to the center. Why does this happen? Because average Joes like you and I don't vote! If the 50% of people who don't vote would cast a ballot then the votes of a minority of radicals would not be that important to the respective parties. I know that I always vote. Others should do the same.
You won't be afraid if you use your mind and think - Jim Kirk, Star Trek TOS
|
|
|
Posts:
25
Registered:
5/8/03
|
|
(63 of 94)
Jun 17, 2003 10:41 AM
|
...said it was 'A Jewish swindle'. However, there is no doubt that he and most of his followers considered themselves to be Christians, and doing God's work. And Germany was and is a nation where most of the population was and is Christian. And Nazism was rather more popular in the Catholic south than in the Protestant/Lutheran north.
Today there is a fairly large Muslim majority living there now (Turks who immigrated to Germany afer WWII). The Jewish population is also making a comeback, mainly immigrants from Eastern Europe. Driving on the Autobahn last month, I saw several mosques. And finding synagogues isn't hard at all.
|
|
|
Posts:
12,357
Registered:
9/13/99
|
|
(64 of 94)
Jun 17, 2003 10:53 AM
|
>>>However, there is no doubt that he and most of his followers considered themselves to be Christians, and doing God's work.<<
There is indeed quite a bit of doubt since staunch Christians wouldn't compare their faith with the pox as Hitler did. Furthermore, one wouldn't consider the faith as making the nation weak as Hitler maintained as did other top Nazis. Again, I must point out that belief in God doesn't necessarily mean belief in Jesus Christ.
"It [the song chorus] doesn't mean anything. It's like ramalama ding dong, or give peace a chance." -Homer Simpson
|
|
|
Posts:
7,478
Registered:
10/6/01
|
|
(65 of 94)
Jun 17, 2003 2:01 PM
|
Hardcore Nazis were NOT Christians. They propogated a twisted form of Norse Mythology. In fact, Nazism persecuted many Christian Clerics.
You won't be afraid if you use your mind and think - Jim Kirk, Star Trek TOS
|
|
|
Posts:
129
Registered:
2/16/02
|
|
(66 of 94)
Jun 17, 2003 3:16 PM
|
|
I read through each of your erroneous arguments before I posted my response as a matter of fact. You have not answered the points I have brought up in any of your posts. I will help jog your memory by posting some of your statements...
First I will challenge your so called theological knowlege. Its always fun when someone pulls out a select few quotes from the Bible in order to get the power of God on their side. You said....
<<If Jesus were alive today, He would have been a hippie, not a yuppie. He would have been working class, not bourgeois. He would most likely be a socialist because He was far more into feeding the poor than praising the capitalists.>>
This is funny and sad. Jesus was not interested in giving a handout. He did not tell people not to work and rely on their neighbors for charity. He even made a point of telling his followers to pay their taxes like a good citizen and not mooch off the government. But thats not the major bone I have to pick with you.
You said...
<>
If you were aware of the context in which Jesus made that statement, it was not a blanket condemnation of capitalists or the wealthy, instead it was a warning to those people who worshipped money as their god, that a rich man can't buy his way into heaven. The rich man that tried to become a follower of Jesus whom he said that to was scolded not because he had money, which is by no means a bad thing, but instead because Jesus could tell that the rich man was more concerned about money than salvation.
I would also like you to explain how Jesus would have been in favor of abortion in his day, gay rights, or any other liberal agenda that has debuted in the past 30 years. Jesus was not for free love, he was not for people doing what makes them feel good, in fact he was diametrically opposed to all of this. If you hate Christian values and Christianity just come out and say it, but don't try to reconcile your contradictory opinions.
As for your defense of international marxism, you just wrote...
<>
If you recall I did not say that the fall of the USSR was the only example of the fall of socialism. I brought up the examples of the sagging economies of western Europe, with a particular emphasis on 1970s Britain as a failure of democratic socialism. The economy of Europe is down the tube and it is due to the extensive welfare benefits offered in those countries and a heavy tax on the wealthier citizens. Since you have brought up the USSR, I will remind you that Stalin and Lenin had their economic plans that basically reverted the country back to a capitalist economy in order to give the USSR the jump start it needed for socialization.
You also failed to acknowlege the fact that the discriminatory laws enacted after the civil war were by your liberal ancestors. The Dixiecrats, the George Wallaces, the Democratic southern governments were all part of your glorious ideology. Yet you tried to rewrite history for anyone gullable enough to accept your rantings as truth and paint these men as Republicans. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Finally, since you didn't bother to answer any of my rebuttals to your original post, I will shed some more light on your dreary socialist utopia. Taking earned money from one person and giving it to another, no matter what the reason, context, or purpose is called STEALING. Doing that on a macro scale does not make it moral, right, or just. Jesus certainly would disagree with your point of view on that one. Forcing someone to give to the poor is pathetic, if they choose to donate their money to someone who doesn't deserve it, it is their personal choice, not yours or your fellow ivory towered academics who sit around thinking, rather than getting involved in the real world.
"In our day no one has conceived anything great; it falls to me to give the example." -Napoleon-
|
|
|
Posts:
129
Registered:
2/16/02
|
|
(67 of 94)
Re: Good post, Octavius!!!
Jun 17, 2003 3:21 PM
|
Thanks. I find it my duty to rebuke marxist dinosaurs whenever possible, but I must confess, I do take joy in it as well.
"In our day no one has conceived anything great; it falls to me to give the example." -Napoleon-
|
|
|
Posts:
203
Registered:
6/13/03
|
|
(68 of 94)
Re: Believe it or not, I actually read your charming post
Jun 17, 2003 4:13 PM
|
|
Brilliant post. Touche
|
|
|
Posts:
203
Registered:
6/13/03
|
|
(69 of 94)
Jun 17, 2003 4:15 PM
|
|
Interesting point that I totally agree with. The economy of any state should be a blend of market economics and socialism to balance each other out. Socialism itself cannot last without supply and demand, and a totally capitalist system would leave a minority of rich with total economic power--kind of like fuedal lords.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,793
From:
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Registered:
12/6/00
|
|
(70 of 94)
So, if we are keeping score...
Jun 17, 2003 4:56 PM
|
We have two conservative posters who are so hung up in their own masrutbatory bliss that they refuse to consider the merits of two philosophies that are not only pure Americana, but will never go away.
On the other hand, I have seen about 20 others here, who have all been rather polite and we have had engaging discussion on these subjects. We don't always agree, but that is not the point.
Seeing as how Octavius and NYRep want to keep score in some way, the score is now:
INTELLIGENT DISAGREEMENT: 20
DISGRUNTLED HATE: 2
|
|
|
Posts:
453
Registered:
6/13/03
|
|
(71 of 94)
Jun 17, 2003 5:21 PM
|
You have the scoring system all wrong.
Conversative opinion: +5
Conservative opinion that doesn't make sense: +1
Conservative opinion that makes sense: +15
Conservative fact: +50
Liberal opinion: -5
Liberal opinion that doesn't make sense: -15
Liberal opinion that makes sense: that cannot be scored, does not exist
Liberal fact: that cannot be scored, does not exist
Hope that helps! 
Of what does a true kiss consist?
Ambrosia on which gods subsist,
Tremendous heat which sun can't give,
God's heaven in one moment lived...
|
|
|
Posts:
129
Registered:
2/16/02
|
|
(72 of 94)
Jun 17, 2003 5:35 PM
|
You are confusing Capitalism with feudalism. You can thank capitalism for the rise of the middle class, which, contrary to liberal dogma, is the majority of America.
"In our day no one has conceived anything great; it falls to me to give the example." -Napoleon-
|
|
|
Posts:
1,793
From:
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Registered:
12/6/00
|
|
(73 of 94)
Golly, you and I are so close on some of this
Jun 17, 2003 5:56 PM
|
|
I wish you were able to step outside of your hate-filled bias for a moment. If you could, you would see we are not that far off.
You said...
<>
If you were aware of the context in which Jesus made that statement, it was not a blanket condemnation of capitalists or the wealthy, instead it was a warning to those people who worshipped money as their god, that a rich man can't buy his way into heaven. The rich man that tried to become a follower of Jesus whom he said that to was scolded not because he had money, which is by no means a bad thing, but instead because Jesus could tell that the rich man was more concerned about money than salvation.
EXACTLY!!! That is exactly what I am saying. People that are more interested in perpetuating wealth and selfishly horde it are by the very nature of it pushing Christian ethics to the side. So I look around America today, and I see it a country far more based on materialism than spirituality. I don't think even you can deny we live in a commercialized society, where everything is for sale, where things we held as traditionally sacred are now up for auction. There was a car commercial not too long ago that suggested God made their car--the hand of God creating animals, then creating some SUV. If you are consistent, you have to find that utterly vulgar.
You are absolutely right, it is greed that makes riches evil, not the riches themselves. However, I do see capitalism as feeding off human greed in its base sense. I do see capitalism as undermining Christian thought. I see especially in a materialist America, in an obsession with physical beauty and sex and violence, all in the name of capitalism, as undermining the Christian foundation of this country. In a place where all media cater to the lowest common denominator, in an era where corporations "give the people what they want" in the form of sexually vulgar commercials, I don't think I am wrong when I use the camel reference.
I hope I answered you YET AGAIN. I'm sorry if you don't like the answers. Then again, I'm not sure what the question was.
You also failed to acknowlege the fact that the discriminatory laws enacted after the civil war were by your liberal ancestors. The Dixiecrats, the George Wallaces, the Democratic southern governments were all part of your glorious ideology. Yet you tried to rewrite history for anyone gullable enough to accept your rantings as truth and paint these men as Republicans. Sorry to burst your bubble.
I most certainly did answer this one--several times. First of all, it is false to simply slap conservative onto Republican and Democrat onto liberal. The lines have crossed and blurred several times over the decades. Those Dixiecrats you mentioned were all conservative in terms of civil rights--they all wanted the so-called n----- to be kept in his apartheid hell. There is a reason why Trent Lott was lambasted for praising Strom Thurmond as a segregationist. It's because such conservative notions would have perpetuated Jim Crow.
But as for your claim that liberals in the Reconstruction era are responsible for Jim Crow, I wonder if we are reading the same history books. In 1865, there was no tradition of emancipation in this country. Tradition takes generations to accrue. The tradition in 1865 was still slavery, and conservatives in the South sought to perpetuate it as best as they could. Liberals passed the amendment guaranteeing voting rights to blacks (I think it was the 14th Amendment), but conservative Southerners imposed any and all methods to intimidate and berate blacks into not voting--lynchings, poll taxes, literacy tests. Whites were not in fear of these things. The KKK was an ultraconservative attempt to perpetuate white dominance over the blacks. In essence, if southern conservatives couldn't keep them as slaves, they were going to keep them as slave-like as possible for as long as possible, and they would fight tooth and nail any legislation to the contrary. Plessy v. Ferguson in 1899 was the ultimate conservative statement to perpetuate keeping the races separate, hence to keep them second-class. Separate is not equal, and it took 55 years before the Supreme Court agreed.
Like I said, you have to get past party affiliation. You mentioned Wallace--Wallace was staunchly conservative in that he wanted to perpetuate the tradition--several generations old by the 1960's--of segregation.
There were Democratic conservatives as well as liberals, all throughout history. It's a blatant error to think otherwise. The Kennedys were liberal, King was a liberal, LBJ in terms of domestic affairs was liberal, and through them the system of Jim Crow was tossed out, real civil rights were put in place, and integration came slowly but surely.
As for your defense of international marxism, you just wrote...
<>
If you recall I did not say that the fall of the USSR was the only example of the fall of socialism. I brought up the examples of the sagging economies of western Europe, with a particular emphasis on 1970s Britain as a failure of democratic socialism. The economy of Europe is down the tube and it is due to the extensive welfare benefits offered in those countries and a heavy tax on the wealthier citizens. Since you have brought up the USSR, I will remind you that Stalin and Lenin had their economic plans that basically reverted the country back to a capitalist economy in order to give the USSR the jump start it needed for socialization.
At least we agree on the USSR.
As for the rest, I think you are splitting hairs again. The point I am making is virtually all of the world's stable economies are a mixture of capitalism and socialism. America is no different. Every country has its spells of recession. For varying reasons. The reason I keep pointing this out is because socialism is a vital component of the American economy. You can cry all you want about it, but you cannot deny that it is part of the hybrid economies all Western countries.
The mere fact that is so universally accepted, even in America, is proof that is thrives.
<<If Jesus were alive today, He would have been a hippie, not a yuppie. He would have been working class, not bourgeois. He would most likely be a socialist because He was far more into feeding the poor than praising the capitalists.>>
This is funny and sad. Jesus was not interested in giving a handout. He did not tell people not to work and rely on their neighbors for charity. He even made a point of telling his followers to pay their taxes like a good citizen and not mooch off the government. But thats not the major bone I have to pick with you.
What are you talking about? I remember parables of Jesus feeding the masses with loaves and fishes. I remember Jesus was a carpenter. I remember Jesus walking into a temple and crying out about it having been turned into a marketplace--MY TEMPLE SHOULD BE A HOUSE OF PRAYER, BUT YOU HAVE MADE IT A DEN OF THIEVES.
You floor me. I give actual scripture to back up my argument. I just did again. I gave actual acts of Jesus and things he said. You gave very broad generalizations. I backed up my arguments. You have the same obligation.
I would like to think of Jesus caring especially for the poor because he did feed the masses, and he did perform healings and miracles for all who asked. I guess you could call those handouts.
I don't know what Jesus you believe in. I believe in the Gospel Jesus.
That is not to say Jesus does not care for everyone. But I get the feeling he has a soft spot for the poor. Jesus never turned anyone away who was in need. Hence, saying he did not give handouts is in grave error.
Now, you said things you stereotypically see as liberal--telling people not to work. There is nothing in Christianity--or liberalism--to suggest that. I see your venom as misplaced. If you see socialism as merely sitting around while the government feeds you, you are blind. I do acknowledge there are people that try to cheat the system. I do see where you would blame socialists for it--it's wrong, just like it was wrong for fascists to blame the Weimar impotence concerning runaway inflation on the Jews. If someone can get something for free, they will. That is not socialist, that is human.
You keep demanding I answer questions, and I continue to do so, and though I am sorry you don't like my answers, I am answering so.
Finally, since you didn't bother to answer any of my rebuttals to your original post, I will shed some more light on your dreary socialist utopia. Taking earned money from one person and giving it to another, no matter what the reason, context, or purpose is called STEALING. Doing that on a macro scale does not make it moral, right, or just. Jesus certainly would disagree with your point of view on that one. Forcing someone to give to the poor is pathetic, if they choose to donate their money to someone who doesn't deserve it, it is their personal choice, not yours or your fellow ivory towered academics who sit around thinking, rather than getting involved in the real world.
The very fact that you pay income taxes without fuss is proof that you at least passively condone American socialism. You said, no matter what the reason, taking money from one person to give to another is STEALING. Hence, TAXATION IS STEALING. If you have a sincere problem with this, I encourage you to stop paying your taxes. If you think the government is stealing from you, give them the finger on April 15th. Otherwise, deal with it.
As for your thought that I think Jesus would condone taxation, you need to be reminded that throughout history, in every nation on earth, the state has exacted taxes from the people. According to you, this is all stealing. All of it. Never mind that there would be no schools, no police, no firefighters, no safety net, no freeways, no military, no defense contracts, without taxes. If Jesus were to address the taxation issue, he may have demanded those taxes go back to the people they came from instead of lining the pockets of the rich. If you are giving the taxes back to the people they originally came from, that is socialism, and yes, I believe if the issue of taxes came up, he would demand the bulk of the taxes went back to the poor they came from.
Again, sorry if you don't like my answers.
As for gay rights and abortion, we all can only guess. I think he would promote gay rights--if he had a soft spot for the poor and the lepers and the crippled, I think he would also have sympathy for gays. As for abortion, I think he would be against it in any case--however, considering how he rescued a prostitute from being stoned, I think he would be less hardline on the issue.
You wanted to know what I thought. There you go.
I will say this much--GOD WAS THE QUINTESSENTIAL CONSERVATIVE. I think it erroneous to pack the Old and New Testaments together. If God passed the Law to Moses and said an eye for an eye, but Jesus turns around and says to turn the other cheek, my personal theory is to believe the one most recent. Jesus was a Jew and a liberal who sought to change the order of Judaism, and to come up with a new Law.
I love Jesus. Jesus is the bomb. I don't know where you get the idea that I hate him. Maybe it would be convenient for you if I did. I think we each love Him, but for different reasons. I can accept why you love Him. Jesus would be heartbroken if you couldn't do the same.
I answered everything YET AGAIN. Look, if you want to continue to berate me, go ahead. You are only showing yourself as short-sighted, namecalling, and arrogant. I completely accept your views. That is a tenet of liberalism--acceptance and tolerance. Why can't you be the same?
But if you are so adamant about that, you should be able to answer this question, actually written in question form. Who is to blame for the bad reputation of the welfare state--is it the lazy arse who asks for a handout, or is it the government who gives him a handout. I have said the government all along. What do you think?
|
|
|
Posts:
1,793
From:
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Registered:
12/6/00
|
|
(74 of 94)
I'll assume that was a joke
Jun 17, 2003 5:57 PM
|
n/m
|
|
|
Posts:
1,793
From:
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Registered:
12/6/00
|
|
(75 of 94)
Jun 17, 2003 6:00 PM
|
Now, I will give you credit for a good point, that perhaps I am lumping two conservative notions together.
Feudalism is a caste system that kept the poor poor for generations.
Capitalism allows for a special handful with the right stuff to do so occasionally.
Socialism ought to be seen as a safety net so those who fall do not fall all the way. Even Reagan, Goldwater, and the Bushes would accept that much.
If you are going to accuse me of error, expect the same.
|
|
|
|
|
