PDA

View Full Version : Why is Socialism, Communism, Leftism, ect. unacceptable to you? (if it is)



Wei Wu Wei
01-26-2011, 04:22 PM
I don't intend to be critical here or act condescending. Everyone sees things differently but it seems there is a general consensus here that these anti-capitalist ideologies are totally unacceptable. Why is it for you?

Bailey
01-26-2011, 04:42 PM
This ought to be good....

Molon Labe
01-26-2011, 04:45 PM
one little word

Force

If you want to live in a truly free society then you cannot subsciibe to any of the above in any form or fashion.

Rockntractor
01-26-2011, 04:46 PM
Given time, it fails wherever it is tried, and treasure and lives are lost and then capitalists are asked to give of their treasure to bail them out!
Get a job you worthless bum, and have a nice day.:rolleyes:

Gingersnap
01-26-2011, 04:58 PM
I trust myself to make good decisions for myself but I certainly don't trust Average Joe's Collective Wisdom Shop to make decisions for me. The fact that I live in a society where some of these decisions are made for me and forced on me doesn't inspire a lot of trust.

There are a lot of problems with liberty but I prefer them to the problems of being a servant or slave to the State just as I preferred the problems of living on my own to living as a dependent in my family after a certain point..

Apache
01-26-2011, 05:05 PM
I don't intend to be critical here or act condescending. Everyone sees things differently but it seems there is a general consensus here that these anti-capitalist ideologies are totally unacceptable. Why is it for you?

This country was founded on doing for yourself, not handouts and gimmes...

Our Founding Fathers didn't want to be told what to do, or when to do it, by some faceless entity. They believed in the spirit of the individual not the letter of government. Thhat's why this is America not the colonies...

Rockntractor
01-26-2011, 05:11 PM
Wei, get a small boat wait for a nice day and load enough fuel on board to make it to Cuba.
You can live in glorious utopia for he rest of your life.

Arroyo_Doble
01-26-2011, 05:11 PM
one little word

Force

If you want to live in a truly free society then you cannot subsciibe to any of the above in any form or fashion.

In any society where there is competition for resources, force will be required; either as a constabulary protecting private property or a State preventing the establishment of private property.

Molon Labe
01-26-2011, 05:11 PM
What Ginger said....

Living under liberty is worth the inconveniencies that naturally occur.


I'll also add that there's this problem Socialists deny called the Economic calculation problem

I believe human nature places value on resources. Scarcity leads to changes in the value of resources. Change in value leads to price and eventually to the creation of a medium of exchange, (money).

Socialists live in the fantasyland that money causes scarcity when it's the opposite. Failed logic leads to failed economy.
Don't be duped to believe those great socialist utopias in Europe like Sweeden and such are bastions of "freedom". They are all also collapsing under the weight of the their cradle to grave care.

Molon Labe
01-26-2011, 05:13 PM
In any society where there is competition for resources, force will be required; either as a constabulary protecting private property or a State preventing the establishment of private property.

Uh....We're not talking about the use of force to protect one's life or property. I'm talking about the coecion and use of force used to make someone do something against their will. The State is illegitimate in those means. Being a lover of liberty does not a pacifist make.

Get a clue.

Arroyo_Doble
01-26-2011, 05:14 PM
Uh....We're not talking about the use of force to protect one's life or property. I'm talking about the coecion and use of force used to make someone do something against their will. Being a lover of liberty does not a pacifist make.

Get a clue.

I thought you were talking about the use of force. I did not realize it was limited to using force toward goals you dislike.

Molon Labe
01-26-2011, 05:17 PM
I thought you were talking about the use of force. I did not realize it was limited to using force toward goals you dislike.


lol..
Tell me how me protecting myself from you as a threat to my liberty and property is similar to a State system taking by force and murdering me for something which belongs to me.

Molon Labe
01-26-2011, 05:27 PM
In any society where there is competition for resources, force will be required; either as a constabulary protecting private property or a State preventing the establishment of private property.

So...we also established earlier that of these two scenarios above that the state cannot manage property for the very reason that it inevitably leads to the inibility to calculate costs; Therefore, It is inevitable that private entities must own property and protect said property. The state preventing private property is an illegitimate use of force. :cool:

noonwitch
01-26-2011, 05:28 PM
I'm a liberal, but I'm not a socialist. I think that capitalism/industry should be regulated by a democratically elected government, to prevent business interests from taking advantage of the general public. This means laws that protect communities from pollution, consumer protection laws, and other regulation designed to protect the common good.

But communism as practiced by the USSR and eastern european countries between WWII and 1989 was horrific-partly because of the combination of it with totalitarianism, as far as individual freedoms were concerned and partly because the government took over all industry, instead of simpling regulating the areas where business practices conflict with the common good. What ends up happening in a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is that there is no longer an incentive for people to be innovative, or to work hard for results that lead to material rewards. That is why China has dumped the old ways and is no longer sticking completely to the Maoist playbook when it comes to business practices (they still seem stuck in those ways when it comes to free speech issues).

When you talk with someone who is a self-admitting socialist, they will tell you that they oppose anything that puts individual rights and freedoms against those of the "collective". But they want to be the ones who decide what the collective wants and needs. That's when you get both stupid and silly crap like SF banning toys in Happy Meals, and dangerous crap like limiting free speech and open political discourse. I have a coworker who I like as a person, but she's the type who would like to mandate people's home lives-ban tobacco smoking even in private homes, ban all gun ownership (except for the cops, of course), and, as she's a vegetarian, she'd like to ban the sale of red meat.

Molon Labe
01-26-2011, 05:32 PM
When you talk with someone who is a self-admitting socialist, they will tell you that they oppose anything that puts individual rights and freedoms against those of the "collective". I have a coworker who I like as a person, but she's the type who would like to mandate people's home lives-ban tobacco smoking even in private homes, ban all gun ownership (except for the cops, of course), and, as she's a vegetarian, she'd like to ban the sale of red meat.

Noonwitch..that brings up two really good points. Socialists like to use the "use of force" to push the "collective good" on everyone else. The problem with central control needed to do this is that in societies where central authority is strongest, the crap in those societies usually get put in charge.

dixierat
01-26-2011, 06:19 PM
Communism, as practiced in the 20th century, killed millions of their own citizens. How many in China alone we'll never know. At LEAST 35 million in the old USSR. Socialism isn't any better. Remember the Nazi's and Fascists were both socialistic governments.

As to the brand of creeeping socialism that we see here, it's just as dangerous because it will cause the collapse of our capitalistic and free society in the long haul. JMO, YMMV.

:cool:

jawilljr
01-26-2011, 07:42 PM
Why is Socialism, Communism, Leftism, ect. unacceptable to you? (if it is)

Because I love...


FREEDOM!!!

Enuff said.

Jerry

Sonnabend
01-26-2011, 07:52 PM
"If you wish a vision of the future, picture the boot of the State, stamping upon the face of humanity, forever"

Zathras
01-26-2011, 08:39 PM
I don't like socialism, communism or leftism. They don't work because it forces equality on everyone in their sphere of operations. Guess what Wee Wee. All humans are not equal despite what you might think. Some are better than others. It's just a fact of life and to force those who are better down to the level of those who are not is doomed to failure. For any of the above to work properly, it requires those under said rule to be equal, often under the threat of imprisonment and even death.

Hawkgirl
01-26-2011, 09:10 PM
Because I want to be able to buy as many rolls of toilet paper and rice as I please.

NJCardFan
01-26-2011, 09:13 PM
Besides freedom, my central problem with it is that it's a pipe dream. It's wonderful to dream that we're all on an equal keel and everyone is giving an equal amount, but reality is that's not the case. What you end up with is a minority ends up propping up the majority. When that happens, you don't get more for all, you get less. Why do you think that most people living in socialist countries live such spartan lifestyles? Also, in both societies, you have the elites. People like wee wee like to cast aspersions at the so called wealthiest 1% but in a capitalist society like we have here, you have a wealthy 1%, and a 10% and a 20% and a 50%. You have levels of wealth. In communistic and socialistic societies, you have the 1% and the other 99% and the gap is as wide as Orion's Belt.

Odysseus
01-26-2011, 10:45 PM
I don't intend to be critical here or act condescending. Everyone sees things differently but it seems there is a general consensus here that these anti-capitalist ideologies are totally unacceptable. Why is it for you?
We've been through this before. My answer hasn't changed:


In the North Korea unveils heir, Kim Jong-un, and its military might thread, Wei did his usual drive by routine, demanding an answer to a question and then ditching the thread when he got an ahswer that he couldn't handle. The question came after he had been repeatedly spanked on the failures of Marxism in practice. Wei declared that "If the failures of Really Existing Communism are a result of the inherent nature of Marxist thought, then why are all of your arguments against nations, rather than the principles or arguments of Marxist thought themselves?" Of course, the failures of the practical applications of the theory ought to settle the issue, but Wei is retreating to the old Marxist trope about how Marx's theories have never been "done right" and therefore cannot be judged against the failures that claimed to have followed him. Thus, while Soviet (Marxist-Leninism), Chinese (Maoist-Marxism), Cambodian (Genocidal loon-Marxism), North Korean (Juche-Marxism), Cuban (Castro-Marxism) or Fredonian (Groucho Marxism) appications of Marx have failed, this cannot be blamed on Marx, but on his interpreters. To this, I say "Bull." Here is my response again. Maybe this time, Wei will respond, although I highly doubt it.


Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei
If the failures of Really Existing Communism are a result of the inherent nature of Marxist thought, then why are all of your arguments against nations, rather than the principles or arguments of Marxist thought themselves?
Because the proof of a theory is the result of its application. If it is viable, it works in practice. If not, it fails. The record of universal failure of Marxism in application should demonstrate to any rational person that it is unworkable.

Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei
I can say that the problem is with the failed interpretations of Marxist thought, manifested in the USSR and elsewhere, but you say that the problem is with Marxist thought itself, if that is truly the case, you should be presenting arguments against Marxist thought, not the nations which tried and failed to implement it. I can always say they weren't truly Marxist enough, so your job is to explain why Marxist thought itself is the problem, instead of arguing against the "bad apples" that failed at bringing Marxist theory to fruition.
Actually, my "job" is to build PowerPoint briefings that our CG uses to beat our nation's enemies into submission, but I can play. But remember, you asked for it.

Let's start with the most basic Marxist maxim, "From each, according to his ability. To each, according to his need." Sounds peachy, right? But how do you determine someone's ability? You can sometimes measure potential, but ultimately, that doesn't tell you what someone's output will be on a given day, nor does it take into account the effects of education, physical fitness, motivation, personality, or even just transitory moods (depression can severely impact ability). In short, ability is too vague a criteria to determine output expectations.

Need is also a problematical concept. First, let's remember that there are two ways to motivate people, reward and punishment. If the compensation is restricted to need, then there is no reward for harder or more innovative work, thus there is no reason for someone to work except avoiding punishment. How do we determine how much compensation you need vs. how much I need? Does the kind of work that I do determine how much food I need? If I pursue a physically intensive hobby, do I have a greater need for calories than a sedentary lump? How does a state determine that? It can't. So, we cannot measure need accurately.

The result is that Marxists expect people to put out maximum effort, but without any improvement in their material condition unless their "needs" increase (an odd position for a materialist philosophy, when you think about it). A worker's only motivation to work is therefore to avoid punishment, while his output is expected to be... what, exactly? You end up with a system of work quotas that treats every profession the same way, with people doing just enough work to avoid punishment. Naturally, nothing gets accomplished under such a system, and the owners of the means of production, the proletariat, or their representatives in the revolutionary vanguard, end up having to impose more draconian punishments in order to get results. A system in which people work as hard as they can in order to avoid increasingly vicious punishments, with no reward or potential of reward, is slavery.

So, on a fundamental level, Marx's most basic theory runs contrary to human nature. QED

Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei
So tell me, what do you consider the flaws in Marx's theory? What do you consider the flaws in contemporary Neo-Marxist theory?
You've cited a doozy below.

Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei
Do not confuse your initial assumptions with the intention of the Author. Marx predicted proletarian revolution, which would, eventually lead to classless society. However, how people would go about doing it, including their failures and lessons learned, were not able to be predicted by Marx.

So, Marx could predict an endstate, which contradicted every other social and economic organization in human history, but the means by which that endstate occurred were not predictable to him? My six-year-old believes that she will grow up to marry a prince and live happily ever after, and when questioned, she has lots of interesting theories on how this will occur. But, when those predictions are measured against objective reality, it seems far more likely that she's going to need some marketable job skills. Marx's utopian predictions are based on similar magical thinking. He wanted a classless society (one in which people who spent their lives in squalor while resenting the successes of others, i.e., people like him, would be on top), so he predicted it. But the devil is in the details, and the implementation of Marx's unworkable, grandiose theories has ruined more lives and nations than any force in history, including disco.


Originally Posted by Odysseus
No, but Marx promised a classless society. Didn't happen, did it?
Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei
Not yet, but I cannot imagine how this should NOT be the ideal of every person.
So, you don't believe that a person should be able to improve their material situation through their own efforts? That they should be able to move from poverty to success or, if they squander their inheritance, move from success to poverty? A classless society is a static society, in which achievers are seen by the state the same way that nails are seen by a hammer. The goal of any person who seeks a just society should be the mobility of people from one class to another by their own efforts, something that will happen anyway, because some people will be smarter than others or better looking. Some will be happy and content, while some will be curious and restless. A society that demands equality of result suprresses initiative and destroys creativity. People have different talents. If they didn't, there'd be no point in dividing labor. Some people are going to be artists, some will be writers, some will be mechanics.


In any society where there is competition for resources, force will be required; either as a constabulary protecting private property or a State preventing the establishment of private property.
A civil society is one in which competition is conducted without force or the threat of force, in which transactions are voluntary. A socialist state coerces transactions, which destroys the incentive to participate in commerce.

I thought you were talking about the use of force. I did not realize it was limited to using force toward goals you dislike.
The inability to distinguish between self defense and aggression is typical of socialists. If I protect myself, my family or the property that we have created or acquired through legal means and which sustains us from a thief, that is a morally defensible use of force. A thief who seeks to take what is not his, either by force orfraud, has no moral claim to the goods or lives that he threatens.

Jfor
01-26-2011, 11:21 PM
I don't intend to be critical here or act condescending. Everyone sees things differently but it seems there is a general consensus here that these anti-capitalist ideologies are totally unacceptable. Why is it for you?

weetard... you can ask us 10,000 different ways about how good you think a crap sandwich is and wonder why we don't like it. You can wax poetic about how you got a nice steaming pile of crap fresh from the cow and how great it tastes. What you will never do, is be able to convince me that a crap sandwich in any form is good.

Lanie
01-26-2011, 11:29 PM
Personally, I'd freak if we had a completely capitalist market.

With that said, I have two problems with flat out communism.

First, according to ideology, we have to kill most of the rich people and perhaps upper middle class. I'm not into that murder thing.

Second, to justify that ideology, we're supposed to believe that rich people are generally evil. I know that's not true.

Third (I guess I did have more than two), a completely communist economy wouldn't work. Ditto with complete socialism. I once heard somebody say that socialism is a nice idea that would never work.

Other than that, I don't have a big problem with things. I don't equate taxes with theft like some people do. I think that's over the top.

Lanie
01-26-2011, 11:34 PM
Given time, it fails wherever it is tried, and treasure and lives are lost and then capitalists are asked to give of their treasure to bail them out!
Get a job you worthless bum, and have a nice day.:rolleyes:

Demonizing the poor to justify complete capitalism is no better than demonizing the rich to justify complete socialism. I don't know your ideology, but that's how it comes off in that post to me. I might not be back until tomorrow.

PoliCon
01-26-2011, 11:35 PM
I don't intend to be critical here or act condescending. Everyone sees things differently but it seems there is a general consensus here that these anti-capitalist ideologies are totally unacceptable. Why is it for you?

Because I believe in individual liberty and private property. Socialism/communism/leftism deny both.

Jfor
01-26-2011, 11:37 PM
Demonizing the poor to justify complete capitalism is no better than demonizing the rich to justify complete socialism. I don't know your ideology, but that's how it comes off in that post to me. I might not be back until tomorrow.

There is no demonizing of the poor. What there is, is demonizing of the lazy. Those who would live off fo the hard work of others. That is why a lot of conservatives equate taxes to theft. That money is being taken from producers at the point of a gun only to be given to the moochers. Not to mention it is well outside of the federal governments responsibility to provide anything to the moochers.

Rockntractor
01-26-2011, 11:38 PM
Demonizing the poor to justify complete capitalism is no better than demonizing the rich to justify complete socialism. I don't know your ideology, but that's how it comes off in that post to me. I might not be back until tomorrow.

How am I demonizing the poor? Communism is a package deal by the way, the only reason they have a combo deal in China is that they are moving away from communism because it has made them poor.

txradioguy
01-27-2011, 12:39 AM
I don't intend to be critical here or act condescending. Everyone sees things differently but it seems there is a general consensus here that these anti-capitalist ideologies are totally unacceptable. Why is it for you?


Because they all go against everything this country was founded on.

Rockntractor
01-27-2011, 12:42 AM
Because they all go against everything this country was founded on.

He will be asking us basically the same question in two weeks, worded a little different but still the same damn question over and over........................

txradioguy
01-27-2011, 12:44 AM
Personally, I'd freak if we had a completely capitalist market.

Until FDR came along that's pretty much what we had. What is it about a free and open society that scares you so much.


With that said, I have two problems with flat out communism.

First, according to ideology, we have to kill most of the rich people and perhaps upper middle class. I'm not into that murder thing.

What do you think the left is doing right now in this Country?


Second, to justify that ideology, we're supposed to believe that rich people are generally evil. I know that's not true.

Lousy FReeper troll! :D


Third (I guess I did have more than two), a completely communist economy wouldn't work. Ditto with complete socialism. I once heard somebody say that socialism is a nice idea that would never work.

It works right up to the point where those in power run out of other people's money to spend.


Other than that, I don't have a big problem with things. I don't equate taxes with theft like some people do. I think that's over the top.

See hanging around here has been beneficial to you. I can remember a time when you'd have never said what you just did.

txradioguy
01-27-2011, 12:46 AM
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin. - Ronald Reagan

Odysseus
01-27-2011, 11:17 AM
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin. - Ronald Reagan

And a Democratic Socialist is a Communist who has run out of bullets.

Gingersnap
01-27-2011, 11:21 AM
And a Democratic Socialist is a Communist who has run out of bullets.

LOL! Good one! :D

Constitutionally Speaking
01-27-2011, 05:30 PM
I don't intend to be critical here or act condescending. Everyone sees things differently but it seems there is a general consensus here that these anti-capitalist ideologies are totally unacceptable. Why is it for you?


Because the sovereignty rests with the STATE instead of the individual. Because of this, all sorts of ills can be justified and ensured via force.

Molon Labe
01-27-2011, 05:44 PM
Because the sovereignty rests with the STATE instead of the individual. Because of this, all sorts of ills can be justified and ensured via force.

Be careful CS. Some of them get stumped when you use that word "force".

Constitutionally Speaking
01-27-2011, 07:05 PM
Be careful CS. Some of them get stumped when you use that word "force".

The truth hurts.

Troll
01-27-2011, 08:46 PM
A few reasons (it is). Not least among them is that usually when it's brought up, the conversation quickly turns to whether or not socialism/communism/leftism "work". Personally, I don't care whether these concepts "work" or not. I think too many conservatives get sucked into having arguments which boil down to "while my guy was in office, happiness was up 1000%, while your guy was in office, happiness was down 1000%."

So what you're doing is tacitly agreeing that it's the government's job to make people happy. Congratulations, even if you win the debate, you lose.

I'm an ideologue; I base my loathing of leftism strictly on my understanding of my own nature, and no matter what statistics are presented, it's never okay for the state to rob me or tell me how to live my life. I reject the very idea that the government is entitled to one penny of my money, even if them taking it causes unemployment to fall, roads to be paved, and kitties to smile.

Good government protects people from being deprived of their life, property or freedom. Leftist government demands an ever-increasing portion or sacrifice of all three.

Good government holds that the individual has rights simply because he is alive, and doing what works for you is the only reason you need for doing it. Leftist government boils down to people being too stupid to take care of themselves.

So there you go. Leftism is unacceptable to me because I feel no obligation to anyone except myself and my loved ones. I feel that I should have the only vote that counts as far as what I do. I don't care if the other 299,999,999 people in this country decide that my stuff belongs to them, their vote doesn't count. Leftism is cognitive dissonance parading as a political philosophy.

NJCardFan
01-27-2011, 10:32 PM
Until FDR came along that's pretty much what we had. What is it about a free and open society that scares you so much.
Because the thought that you have to provide for your own needs scares the crap out of people. This is why so many young people fall into the progressive BS machine.

PoliCon
01-28-2011, 01:56 AM
so in summary - Conservatives dislike leftism because we believe in private property and individual liberty. We all say it a little bit differently - but we all basically say the same thing.

AmPat
01-28-2011, 03:05 PM
Because I want to be able to buy as many rolls of toilet paper and rice as I please.
And not be FORCED to buy it for worthless do-nothings that leech off of society.

Lanie
01-28-2011, 06:19 PM
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin. - Ronald Reagan

Psssst! You have to read Marx and Lenin to understand them. Don't tell Reagan.

Actually, I got exposed to some of Marx and Lenin in college. I could tell people exactly what's wrong with it. For starters, Lenin had this idea that it was the rich who needed to decide what was best for the poor because the poor could only develop union consciousness. It actually all still comes back to the idea of the rich ruling the world and thinking they're better than others.

And what scares me about a completely capitalist market? No safety net. Before the industrial revolution, this wasn't nearly as big of an issue. As time went by and so did the exploitation, it was really important to develop some safety nets. I'd like to go back to a time when technology didn't happen because things would be less complicated. Of course more people would die due to a lack of technology. Crap. later.

Odysseus
01-28-2011, 07:17 PM
Psssst! You have to read Marx and Lenin to understand them. Don't tell Reagan.

Actually, I got exposed to some of Marx and Lenin in college. I could tell people exactly what's wrong with it. For starters, Lenin had this idea that it was the rich who needed to decide what was best for the poor because the poor could only develop union consciousness. It actually all still comes back to the idea of the rich ruling the world and thinking they're better than others.

And what scares me about a completely capitalist market? No safety net. Before the industrial revolution, this wasn't nearly as big of an issue. As time went by and so did the exploitation, it was really important to develop some safety nets. I'd like to go back to a time when technology didn't happen because things would be less complicated. Of course more people would die due to a lack of technology. Crap. later.

Not everyone who reads Marx and Lenin understand them. Those who read them and don't grasp the implications are communists, and those who do are anti-communists. But I won't tell Reagan, as he's been dead for several years.

Zathras
01-28-2011, 09:33 PM
Isn't it funny that Wee Wee has kept away from this thread?

Constitutionally Speaking
01-28-2011, 09:39 PM
Psssst! You have to read Marx and Lenin to understand them. Don't tell Reagan.

Actually, I got exposed to some of Marx and Lenin in college. I could tell people exactly what's wrong with it. For starters, Lenin had this idea that it was the rich who needed to decide what was best for the poor because the poor could only develop union consciousness. It actually all still comes back to the idea of the rich ruling the world and thinking they're better than others.

And what scares me about a completely capitalist market? No safety net. Before the industrial revolution, this wasn't nearly as big of an issue. As time went by and so did the exploitation, it was really important to develop some safety nets. I'd like to go back to a time when technology didn't happen because things would be less complicated. Of course more people would die due to a lack of technology. Crap. later.


That is the job of charity - and family, but our culture has destroyed the family and the largest institution for charity, the Christian Church.

Madisonian
01-28-2011, 10:29 PM
And what scares me about a completely capitalist market? No safety net. Before the industrial revolution, this wasn't nearly as big of an issue. As time went by and so did the exploitation, it was really important to develop some safety nets. I'd like to go back to a time when technology didn't happen because things would be less complicated. Of course more people would die due to a lack of technology. Crap. later.

The problem is too many people cannot tell the difference between a safety net and an apron string.
There have been safety nets through out our history. They were called charities and families.
Then about the 30's the government saw that it could control more people by providing for them and Roosevelt's New Deal began. Government was the savior, not your family, your neighbors, your churches or your community.
Only government could provide for the people. The CCC, the WPA, Social Security. Government to the rescue. Its funding was more stable than other relief avenues, it could print all it needed and bought the people away.

And the sheep started their path to the slaughter.

NJCardFan
01-28-2011, 10:44 PM
Isn't it funny that Wee Wee has kept away from this thread?

No because this is typical of him. He's a classic hit and run poster.

Lanie
01-28-2011, 11:24 PM
That is the job of charity - and family, but our culture has destroyed the family and the largest institution for charity, the Christian Church.

The Christian church is alive and well. Bush thought it would be a good idea to give money to faith based charities.

What do people here think of that?

Rockntractor
01-28-2011, 11:26 PM
The Christian church is alive and well. Bush thought it would be a good idea to give money to faith based charities.

What do people here think of that?

I think you should get , married pregnant and raise a family and not trouble yourself with politics, let your husband worry about it.

Lanie
01-29-2011, 02:23 AM
I think you should get , married pregnant and raise a family and not trouble yourself with politics, let your husband worry about it.

That is sooooo Thunderdome material. lol. :D

PoliCon
01-29-2011, 10:25 AM
I think you should get , married pregnant and raise a family and not trouble yourself with politics, let your husband worry about it.

is she allowed to wear shoes? :rolleyes:

Apache
01-29-2011, 12:24 PM
The Christian church is alive and well. Bush thought it would be a good idea to give money to faith based charities.

What do people here think of that?

I thoughht it was a lousy idea

AmPat
01-29-2011, 12:29 PM
The Christian church is alive and well. Bush thought it would be a good idea to give money to faith based charities.

What do people here think of that?

Terrible Idea that will eventually bring down the nation. CS and Madison both spoke the truth and in that lies the answer; We need to kill off (gradually) these give-a-ways and get back to the original charity, family and Churches.

Apache
01-29-2011, 01:04 PM
Terrible Idea that will eventually bring down the nation. CS and Madison both spoke the truth and in that lies the answer; We need to kill off (gradually) these give-a-ways and get back to the original charity, family and Churches.

Not to mention that once Federal money is given the churches must comply with the regulations that go with it.

Rockntractor
01-29-2011, 01:15 PM
is she allowed to wear shoes? :rolleyes:

NO!!!

AmPat
01-29-2011, 02:52 PM
NO!!!

Focus Rock, focus.:mad:

Rockntractor
01-29-2011, 03:08 PM
Focus Rock, focus.:mad:

Give them shoes , they want cars, give them cars and then you come home and no damn sandwich!:mad:

Constitutionally Speaking
01-29-2011, 11:49 PM
The Christian church is alive and well. Bush thought it would be a good idea to give money to faith based charities.

What do people here think of that?


Not really.

People SHOULD give more to faith based charities. Government shouldn't have the money to do so - nor a lot of other things it does.

PoliCon
01-30-2011, 10:18 AM
Not really.

People SHOULD give more to faith based charities. Government shouldn't have the money to do so - nor a lot of other things it does.

AGREED! BUT - as long as they are stepping out into these areas - the faith based charities have demonstrated themselves to be far more efficient at doing the work than are unionized bureaucrats.