Robert Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Well, yeah....Socialism is a redistribution of wealth and the socialism that is being used/talked about here in the US is one to alleveate the poverty of the masses [aka "middle income workers"]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 11, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 11, 2008 Quote: So? Socialism is better than Capitalism. At the heart of Capitalism is the principle of "I" - you know, that disease that Lucifer brought to the human race. Unless Capitalism has all sort of checks and balances (regulation) you get the rich (those in power) accumulating practically all the wealth. In the end Capitalism brings great wealth for a minority and poverty for the masses. Well, yeah....Socialism is a redistribution of wealth and the socialism that is being used/talked about here in the US is one to alleveate the poverty of the masses [aka "middle income workers"]. It can not function without capitalism...that "principle of I"... And, Robert, heaven's economy is totally different than the convoluted ecomony, and mass ideologies that seems to pervade one's thinking here.... The main problem with socialism is that it forces people to give up wealth that they have worked for, in the form of progressive taxation. It is not voluntary. It is a matter of the state believing it has a right to take what belongs to its citizens. The idea of progressive taxation for the purpose of redistributing wealth originated with and was propagated by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels in the book, Communist Manifesto. In 1848 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels frankly proposed "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax" as one of the measures by which, after the first stage of the revolution, "the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeois, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state." And these measures they described as "means of despotic inroads on the right of property, and on the condition of bourgeois production ... measures ...which appear economically insufficient and untenable but which, in the course of the movement outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production." John Stuart Mill described progressive taxation as "a mild form of robbery." Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 McCain has a big opportunity to distinguish himself. Obama is simply gaining the anti-establishment voters' support. That be me.... I wish Huchabee was on the ticket. In hindsight I liked his positions on immigration, trade and universal health coverage. I can't understand why he didn't get it instead of McCain! He wasn't Repub., even though he ran on the Repub ticket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 The main problem with socialism is that it forces people to give up wealth that they have worked for, in the form of progressive taxation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 11, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 11, 2008 Originally Posted By: John317 ...Would I favor doing harm to Obama? No. I would discourage anyone from doing that. I lived through the murder of one president already. I don't want to see another. But by repeating those false allegations of the Ayers connections as truthful, are you not culpable for inciting the anger of those anti-socialists? Are you not a part of the problem by hiding in Jesus? That is what I am refering to.... Oh, and when I use the word "you", I mean not just you specifically, but you generally..... I can understand that you do not like what I have posted about Obama being the most liberal Senator, but you have not produced evidence that I am wrong in what I have posted on that issue. His philosophy, his voting record, his speeches, the evidence of his campaigning for two socialists, and his associations, all show that he is a socialist. I don't see any arguments against it. In fact, it is being admitted that those things are true. Is anyone here denying that Obama is very liberal? What am I saying about Ayers and his association with Obama that is false? I believe that the American people should know about these things before they vote. I would never vote for a socialist but if the American people want one as president, that is up to them. But they should know what they are getting and not be surprised after it happens. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 11, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 11, 2008 .... you have to understand that for right wingers any Democrat seems like a socialist, if not a communist sympathizer... I have voted for many Democrats and was registered as a Democrat until 2000. Obama is the most liberal Senator. He is the farthest to the Left of any candidate for President, bar none. Obama campaigned for two socialists-- one in the US and one in Africa. He thinks and talks like a socialist, and there is good evidence that he is one. Did you see anything posted here about Obama that is untrue? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 11, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 11, 2008 Originally Posted By: Shane McCain has a big opportunity to distinguish himself. Obama is simply gaining the anti-establishment voters' support. That be me.... I wish Huchabee was on the ticket.... Of course, Huckabee believes in capitalism and is no socialist. There is a big difference between Huckabee and Obama. Huckabee wants McCain to win. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 11, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 11, 2008 It's true that communism is a failure, but it's important to remember that there are billions of people who still believe in it. The Chinese, Cubans, North Koreans, and Vietnamese still have not given up. And it is finding friends in South America. Socialism is viewed as a necessary step in the process of reaching communism. Communism is a far-off goal that has never been reached. It was a goal in the USSR, not a reality. "Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, it being the transitional stage between capitalism and communism." Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 11, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 11, 2008 You came out with the Ayers connection several month ago...only now, has it come out that there was NO connection.... Now, you claim he is a socialist, and was one of the most liberal senators on record. Do you deny that Obama is the most liberal Senator? (I never said "one of the most liberal Senators on record.") Link proving Obama most liberal Senator: http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/ What exactly is false about what has been posted on the thread about Ayers? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 What is wrong with liberal? I know I like liberal portions whenever I go to potluck. Isn't liberal a good thing. Pile on those mashed potatoes, please. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted October 11, 2008 Administrators Share Posted October 11, 2008 The problem is that when you use the word "liberal" it is with the clear implication that it is a bad word, an anti-American evil to be fought against. It is red meat only to the hardcore right wing. And by lumping liberal/Democrat together with socialism it plays into the fearfully anti-communists that know little about either and automatically confuse/associate them as one and the same. The Obama association with Raila Odinga of Kenya is a stretch and an exaggeration. Your source is largely the questionable and unsubstantiated work of the discredited extreme right wing nut-job, Jerome Corsi. And the association with Bill Ayers is inflammatory fear-mongering exaggeration and their connections are very tenuous at best. Ayers is an aging ex-hippie radical turned legitimate college academic. Whatever association of Obama with Ayers is with his present life. I don't mean to be unkind, BUT for you as a Republican to not get over Ayers' past and consider his reformed and rehabilitated life now is no different than to always and forevermore tag you with the most derogatory homosexual identity and labels of your past life that you have left behind. Have you changed from what you were in your past? It would seem that if you can change and leave your past life, certainly Bill Ayers would be able to leave his past too. Tom (An ex-hippie anti-war late Vietnam era type myself, now a semi-legit upstanding liberal Democrat American citizen...) Quote "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 11, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 11, 2008 What is wrong with liberal? I know I like liberal portions whenever I go to potluck. Isn't liberal a good thing. Pile on those mashed potatoes, please. There is nothing wrong with being liberal. There is nothing "wrong" with being of any political persuasion, including libertarian or whatever. All I am arguing here is that the American people should know where the candidates stand. Americans shouldn't vote for either candidate and not know what or who they are. You'll notice that at first, there was denial that Obama was the most liberal Senator or that he had campaigned for socialists. Now it is admitted and it is said that it is OK. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 11, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 11, 2008 The problem is that when you use the word "liberal" it is with the clear implication that it is a bad word, an anti-American evil to be fought against. It is red meat only to the hardcore right wing. Show where I have used liberal in that sense, that it is an evil thing. (I have never spoken of all Democrats as bad or of all liberals as bad. However, you have done this with "right-wingers." On this thread you made the following statement: ".. you have to understand that for right wingers any Democrat seems like a socialist, if not a communist sympathizer." That is not a true statement, nor is it a fair statement. I have never said such things about anyone of any political persuasion.) I am only saying that Americans have a right to know where Obama really stands, that he is the most liberal Senator. I notice that this was denied but is now apparently recognized and acknowledged. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 An uncle of mine who flew bombing missions in a B-24 and B-26 in both WW2 and Korea sent me the following FWD. See how much of it is valid. You can go to snopes and find out that all of these allegations are false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 11, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 11, 2008 The Obama association with Raila Odinga of Kenya is a stretch and an exaggeration. Your source is largely the questionable and unsubstantiated work of the discredited extreme right wing nut-job, Jerome Corsi. Let's talk about established facts regarding Raila Odinga and Obama. Are you saying any of the following is untrue-- 1) Obama campaigned for Raila Odinga and was in personal contact with him. 2) Raila Odinga is a socialist. He was educated in communist East Germany and is the son of the communist leader, Jarmogi Oginga Odinga. 3) Raila Odinga has said several times that he and Obama are related. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted October 11, 2008 Administrators Share Posted October 11, 2008 It is the associative buzz words you continually harp about. Obama = Democrat/liberal/socialist/Marzist/communist/anti-American/terrorist/.... It is just like the debate and campaign strategy of Obama/Biden to say McCain and Bush in the same sentence as often as possible. Soon it becomes automatic that the people will hear "McCain/Palin" they think "Bush/Chaney". So what if Obama IS LIBERAL! Only right wingers think that is all bad. Some of us think that is a good idea FOR A CHANGE. Quote "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 11, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 11, 2008 Originally Posted By: John317 An uncle of mine who flew bombing missions in a B-24 and B-26 in both WW2 and Korea sent me the following FWD. See how much of it is valid. You can go to snopes and find out that all of these allegations are false. Does snopes show that the following are untrue-- Obama is the most liberal Senator. He is the farthest to the Left of any candidate for President, bar none. Obama campaigned for two socialists-- one in the US and one in Africa. He thinks and talks like a socialist, and there is good evidence that he is one. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 11, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 11, 2008 It is the associative buzz words you continually harp about. Obama = Democrat/liberal/socialist/Marzist/communist/anti-American/terrorist/.... It is just like the debate and campaign strategy of Obama/Biden to say McCain and Bush in the same sentence as often as possible. Soon it becomes automatic that the people will hear "McCain/Palin" they think "Bush/Chaney". So what if Obama IS LIBERAL! Only right wingers think that is all bad. Some of us think that is a good idea FOR A CHANGE. Did Obama campaign for socialists? Is he the first candidate of the Democratic party for the Presidency to have done so? Is Obama the most liberal Senator in the Senate? If these things are true, and the American people know it and vote for Obama to be president, that is up to them. All I am saying is that they need to know it before they vote. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fccool Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 I think it's pretty low for McCain campaign all of a sudden latch on to his middle name. It was the same thing for labeling Kerry as "french". I don't think that either of these people were the best candidates for a job. There should be more options than Nader, but several friends that I know are voting for Nader to protest the other two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 11, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 11, 2008 It is the associative buzz words you continually harp about. Obama = Democrat/liberal/socialist/Marzist/communist/anti-American/terrorist/.... I think it is very important for American to know who Obama is and what his associations has been. The same with McCain. Americans need to know how liberal Obama is. They need to know what his voting record is and that he was only in the Senate for 130 days before he decided he should be president of the United States. They need to know such things as that he has had connections in the past with socialists and communists, people such as Jeremiah Wright, and that he has campaigned for Marxists and socialists. All I am saying is the American people have a right and duty to know these things before they vote. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 11, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 11, 2008 I think it's pretty low for McCain campaign all of a sudden latch on to his middle name. It was the same thing for labeling Kerry as "french". I don't think that either of these people were the best candidates for a job. There should be more options than Nader, but several friends that I know are voting for Nader to protest the other two. I just think it is very important for Americans to know all the information about all the candidates before they vote. Nader and Obama are very close on most things. Nader got into the election because Obama softened some of his positions, such as on Iraq. He also has come on strong against Iran and Pakistan. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin mccarty Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 How many of us would feel it was fair to judge us on our actions and views 20 years ago. Would you? mel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 11, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 11, 2008 It's not a matter of judging anyone by what happened 20 years ago. It's a matter that Americans need to know everything they can about a candidate, even things that happened 20 years ago. 20 years in the life of someone running for President is not all that long ago. I'm not sure if you are referring to Bill Ayers, but if you are, it has to be remembered that Billy Ayers has never said he is sorry for his bombing of the United States. He says he wishes he had bombed the US more often. Most of what we're talking about here regarding Obama only happened in the last 5 or 6 years, and much of it happened only 2 or 3 years ago. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 12, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 12, 2008 Originally Posted By: John317 However, it is true that Obama is a socialist. He is, after all, the first man running for president on a major ticket who has campaigned for socialists. So? Socialism is better than Capitalism.... Would you rather live under socialism than free enterprise? Socialism is where the government owns the means of production and manages the economy. Is this really want you have in mind? If the government does these things, it will also think that it has the right to tell you many other things, including matters of religion. Socialist governments have had a pattern of heavy taxation and of passing laws restricting religious expression, as well as other kinds of freedoms. Capitalism and a republican form of government have their problems but they leave people free to practice their religion according to their consciences. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil D Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 Did Obama campaign for socialists? Quote Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.  George Bernard Shaw  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.