|
|
Post by airburst on Nov 5, 2008 3:13:51 GMT -5
That election was over before it started.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Nov 5, 2008 3:27:29 GMT -5
That election was over before it started. dems got control of both the house and senate too, so things should get interesting, lol. |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Nov 5, 2008 3:43:53 GMT -5
yeah, we did
but, since things will get worse with the economy, obama will get the blame and it will be a big set back
|
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Nov 5, 2008 3:50:10 GMT -5
I have to radically disagree
its one thing to encourage/educate people to share of their own free will and and another to forcefully take them away from one group of people and give it to another
|
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Nov 5, 2008 3:51:01 GMT -5
yeah, we did but, since things will get worse with the economy, obama will get the blame and it will be a big set back hey, don't harsh my buzz tonite, lsdima.  |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Nov 5, 2008 4:10:21 GMT -5
don't worry - your buzz won't be affected by anything I say
|
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Nov 5, 2008 4:29:53 GMT -5
don't worry - your buzz won't be affected by anything I say lmao...hey, tonite's a night for partying.  |
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Nov 5, 2008 14:23:31 GMT -5
Mr Nice -----------------
I have to radically disagree
its one thing to encourage/educate people to share of their own free will and and another to forcefully take them away from one group of people and give it to another Notice I said nearer to.  The point was to draw the parallel between something the far right despises and fears and the guy in whose name they feel entitled to act. Christ wouldn't be into politics at all, but he'd be a damn sight more into people sharing everything between them than he would be into a competitive system. I think that much is pretty obvious. That's why it's sort of funny that it's the far right who claims the guy as their best friend, mentor, and inspiration. |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Nov 5, 2008 16:53:01 GMT -5
it is not obvious at all
there is world of difference between forceful sharing and sharing by free will
socialism is forceful sharing and
correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think there is anything in the bible that says that one person should take from another and share
P.S. this has nothing to do with the current breed of republican conservatives
|
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Nov 5, 2008 18:39:54 GMT -5
Mr Nice
it is not obvious at all
there is world of difference between forceful sharing and sharing by free will
socialism is forceful sharing and
correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think there is anything in the bible that says that one person should take from another and share
P.S. this has nothing to do with the current breed of republican conservatives Uh, yeah it is obvious, and you're being really weird about this. I don't think I can be any more clear, but let's try one more time, shall we? The Christ character in the New Testament would never support ANY form of government. He'd live in a commune in the off seasons, and the rest of the time he'd be living under a bridge and popping out to preach. I think he'd be something of an ultra-liberal nut, to be honest, and on the continuum between capitalism and socialism, I think he'd approve of a society of willing socialists than one of willing capitalists, though he wouldn't particularly care either way. Socialism does NOT necessitate violence; it could technically be accomplished by all people suddenly deciding that communal ownership would be way cool. What I'm talking about has EVERYTHING to do with Republican conservatives; the context is "would Jesus be a [edit: member of the far right]?" If you insist otherwise, you are having a different conversation that does not interest me. |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Nov 5, 2008 18:58:14 GMT -5
its not as obvious as you think
under socialism, you DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE about your money being taken away and redistributed
so far it always happened at gunpoint
I insist that jesus would favor free market capitalism over socialism
current republicans were moving us towards a fascist economic model (big business in partnership with the government) so I can't make a case in support of that, but I don't think jesus would be in favor of socialism
|
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Nov 5, 2008 19:14:20 GMT -5
Mr Nice ------------------
so far it always happened at gunpoint 100% irrelevant. Capitalism is enforced on people without their consent, too, unless you're going to argue that everyone wants it, or that it that it gives everyone what they want. No system does. Would Christ be happier if everyone decided of their own free will to share everything communally, or to continue to compete for limited resources? I maintain that the answer is fairly obvious. Mr Nice ---------------
I insist that jesus would favor free market capitalism (which is not what we have now) over socialism I don't agree. I support capitalism and meritocracy; I do not advocate socialism. I have no personal stake in this. As a non-Christian, I just don't have a need to imagine that Jesus would take my side on this--or the side of virtually anyone of those who feel moved to invoke his blessing as justification for their political beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Nov 5, 2008 20:26:38 GMT -5
if everyone decided of their own free will to share, we would not need socialism - it can happen under capitalism - you are free to do what you want with what you have, so if you and a bunch of other people decide to share - great
in one system you can chose to share or chose not to share
in the other you have no choice
in socialism is that a third party decides who gets to share how much and where those resources go and I am sure you don't mean in your example that everyone would, of their own free will, give everything they have to the government
|
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Nov 5, 2008 22:50:04 GMT -5
Mr Nice ----------------
in one system you can chose to share or chose not to share
in the other you have no choice This is a hypothetical. In it, an ancient demigod is living in the 21st century. We can safely say this is not a realistic scenario. Now, I repeat. I believe Christ would be happier if a group of people went off and, by common accord, began a socialist commune than if they all agreed to form a capitalist society. Mr Nice ------------------
in socialism is that a third party decides who gets to share how much and where those resources go and I am sure you don't mean in your example that everyone would, of their own free will, give everything they have to the government How would that not work in the scenario? "The government" can be any body instituted to maintain and distribute wealth and benefits. If Christ went out into the hills of West Virginia with a bunch of hippie disciples and formed a commune in which everything was shared equally between them after being brought to Jesus for redistribution at his discretion, that right there is a rudimentary form of what we would call socialism, is it not? I just can't imagine a scenario in which Christ would favor capitalism. This is a guy who supposedly lived on handouts and encouraged his followers to give up their possessions and rely on the good will of others, if I remember my Sunday school lessons. This is a guy who said it was a sin against God to be rich, and "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" in reference to money. So I think he'd actually be quite supportive of anyone who wanted to give all their possessions to the government, lol. He would never advocate the government forcibly taking from the people, but he would surely view capitalism, equally, as taking money from others for personal or corporate enrichment. Imagine that a whole bunch of people decided to donate all their belongings to a specially created government institution, in return for having the government distribute those resources equally among all participants. You think Christ would favor the choice to participate in capitalism over the choice to participate in socialism? Here is where the misunderstanding lies: I do not think, nor have I ever implied, that he would advocate a hostile rejection of capitalism, or the instigation of a socialist revolution, any more than he advocated forcibly stripping the rich of their earnings as a means of bringing them closer to God, or imprisoning/restraining violent people in order to keep them from slapping people on both cheeks. But that's far from a sign of favoring capitalism, accumulated wealth, or slapping. One can support free will to choose to do what is "right," without approving of the choice to do what is "wrong." I should also add that I think Christ would be quite ambivalent about government in general. I think he'd say that none of it is really worth worrying about, and people should be more focused on their personal relationship with God than anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Astroruss on Nov 6, 2008 23:53:06 GMT -5
i just got home from work and found out that for the first time in the history of our country we won't have a white male leader. (only a half white male leader, lol ) it's going to be interesting to see what obama's difference in perspective brings to the country's leadership. as a man who has lived in non-white skin, he has to understand what it means to NOT be one of the privileged class. and that has to mean more empathy towards the underprivileged in general (i hope). this is a very exciting time in history to be alive. Eh, I don't know. I don't think his ethnic background is so special or new. He's the first non-full white presdient. Big deal. Andrew jackson was the first common man President. Woodrow Wilson was the first academic/ abstract thinker President. Frank Roosevelt was the first crippled President. John Kennedy was the first non-Protestant president. Obama's set a new standard, true, but I don't think it's so incredible. We've been on an Everyman trend for about 200 years now. Slowly but surely. The next step is for a non-Christian president. Then maybe the first woman or Hispanic President. It'll happen eventually. Actually, from a purely potential standing, as far as expectations go Obama's gonna have the most pressure from so many different groups. I hope he can do it. I don't want to see him fail. |
|
The point was to draw the parallel between something the far right despises and fears and the guy in whose name they feel entitled to act.