Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Is Socialism The Answer if You Want To Help People?
33 views
Skip to first unread message
David Hartung
Jan 5, 2017, 5:24:26 PM1/5/17
to
Fred Oinka
Jan 5, 2017, 5:30:20 PM1/5/17
to
On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 5:24:26 PM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnJEUR0gkZo
>
> Apparently not.
It never worked anywhere
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnJEUR0gkZo
>
> Apparently not.
It never worked anywhere
Topaz
Jan 6, 2017, 6:00:41 AM1/6/17
to
On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 16:24:20 -0600, David Hartung
<david_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Apparently not.
If it's not they must be doing it wrong.
Socialism is a government doing something to help people.
Capitalism is the opposition to anything a government might do to help
people.
The most annoying thing about the USA is affirmative action. This
means that women and Black people get the jobs and scholarships even
if the White man is more qualified. America is founded on the idea
that the White man is to blame for everything bad. And every time
women or Black people get to be president or whatever it's called a
great achievement. This is known as political correctness or PC for
short.
The problem with the schools is that they are PC. But the Jews and
their minions cleverly twist it so that "Socialism" is the problem and
not PC. Communism may of course be trash but so is Capitalism. Here is
a quote from Mein Kampf:
"the Jew seized upon the manifold possibilities which the
situation offered him for the future. While on the one hand he
organized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate
degree of efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy
and his power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle
against himself. 'Against himself' is here only a figurative way of
speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies' knows how to appear in the
guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on others. Since he had the
impudence to take a personal lead among the masses, they never for a
moment suspected that they were falling prey to one of the most
infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it actually
was."
www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org
http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
<david_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Apparently not.
If it's not they must be doing it wrong.
Socialism is a government doing something to help people.
Capitalism is the opposition to anything a government might do to help
people.
The most annoying thing about the USA is affirmative action. This
means that women and Black people get the jobs and scholarships even
if the White man is more qualified. America is founded on the idea
that the White man is to blame for everything bad. And every time
women or Black people get to be president or whatever it's called a
great achievement. This is known as political correctness or PC for
short.
The problem with the schools is that they are PC. But the Jews and
their minions cleverly twist it so that "Socialism" is the problem and
not PC. Communism may of course be trash but so is Capitalism. Here is
a quote from Mein Kampf:
"the Jew seized upon the manifold possibilities which the
situation offered him for the future. While on the one hand he
organized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate
degree of efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy
and his power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle
against himself. 'Against himself' is here only a figurative way of
speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies' knows how to appear in the
guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on others. Since he had the
impudence to take a personal lead among the masses, they never for a
moment suspected that they were falling prey to one of the most
infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it actually
was."
www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org
http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
Gronk
Jan 8, 2017, 1:24:43 AM1/8/17
to
OVER HERE! FREE BREAD AND FISH!
DoD
Jan 8, 2017, 3:10:34 AM1/8/17
to
"Ted" <sam.m....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:954348981505555096.51954...@news.easynews.com...
> fish-and-bread program by forcibly taxing the populace, then appointing a
> bureaucracy to manage it and hiring a police force with swords ready to
> enforce it.
Nice Ted.... I thought you were a self described leftist.... lol
David Hartung
Jan 8, 2017, 6:20:47 AM1/8/17
to
On 01/08/2017 02:03 AM, Ted wrote:
> Uh huh. And afterward, Jesus directed the apostles to continue his "free"
> fish-and-bread program by forcibly taxing the populace, then appointing a
> bureaucracy to manage it and hiring a police force with swords ready to
> enforce it.
Do you get the idea that Gronk has no idea what he is talking about?
> fish-and-bread program by forcibly taxing the populace, then appointing a
> bureaucracy to manage it and hiring a police force with swords ready to
> enforce it.
David Hartung
Jan 8, 2017, 1:45:52 PM1/8/17
to
On 01/08/2017 07:28 AM, Ted wrote:
> Being a pastor, and so much more familiar with the Bible than I am, you'd
> understand that even more than I do. But it doesn't take a scholar to know
> that Jesus's fish-and-bread miracle in no way advocated socialism.
True, which means that Gronk's post is a clear indication that he has no
idea what Socialism actually is.
> understand that even more than I do. But it doesn't take a scholar to know
> that Jesus's fish-and-bread miracle in no way advocated socialism.
True, which means that Gronk's post is a clear indication that he has no
idea what Socialism actually is.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Jan 8, 2017, 1:52:03 PM1/8/17
to
it, then they wouldn't be supporting it.
--
That's Karma
David Hartung
Jan 8, 2017, 3:00:29 PM1/8/17
to
> first assumed.
Maybe both?
Steve
Jan 8, 2017, 4:02:08 PM1/8/17
to
I'm pretty sure that Jesus was not a fan of big government...
The entire leftist agenda revolves around the ridiculous premise that they
have a right to be taken care of by other persons.
DoD
Jan 8, 2017, 9:45:06 PM1/8/17
to
"Steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in message
news:55a57cpgu6pp2rqpd...@4ax.com...
government and people worship that government.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Jan 9, 2017, 3:18:48 PM1/9/17
to
On 01/08/2017 09:58 PM, Ted wrote:
> God's Kingdom wouldn't need one.
>
Neither does Obama's.... just a pen and a phone.
--
That's Karma
>
Neither does Obama's.... just a pen and a phone.
--
That's Karma
Dänk 42Ø
Jan 12, 2017, 3:20:15 PM1/12/17
to
>> I'm pretty sure that Jesus was not a fan of big government...
>
> Especially a government that behaves as god towards people e.g. a socialist
> government and people worship that government.
Though I can't speak for him myself, I'm pretty sure what Jesus had in
>
> Especially a government that behaves as god towards people e.g. a socialist
> government and people worship that government.
mind was charity; that is, giving YOUR money to the poor (with no
expectation of anything, such as tax deductions or bragging rights) in
return. Having someone who not only pays zero taxes but is on the dole
himself voting to force other people to donate to the poor is not what
he had in mind.
DoD
Jan 12, 2017, 3:26:56 PM1/12/17
to
"Dänk 42Ø" <da...@coffee.amsterdam.net> wrote in message
news:QOKdne4OPaRneerF...@earthlink.com...
> On 01/09/2017 02:45 AM, DoD wrote:
>>
>> "Steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in message
>>> I'm pretty sure that Jesus was not a fan of big government...
>>
>> Especially a government that behaves as god towards people e.g. a
>> socialist
>> government and people worship that government.
>
> Though I can't speak for him myself, I'm pretty sure what Jesus had in
> mind was charity; that is, giving YOUR money to the poor (with no
> expectation of anything, such as tax deductions or bragging rights) in
> return.
From what I read he didn't like people that bragged.. There was the story
>>
>> "Steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in message
>>> I'm pretty sure that Jesus was not a fan of big government...
>>
>> Especially a government that behaves as god towards people e.g. a
>> socialist
>> government and people worship that government.
>
> Though I can't speak for him myself, I'm pretty sure what Jesus had in
> mind was charity; that is, giving YOUR money to the poor (with no
> expectation of anything, such as tax deductions or bragging rights) in
> return.
where
he said he you fast, don't puff out your cheeks like you are advertising to
the world
of what you are doing... Do it quietly and not make a fuss about it... The
story went something
like that.
>Having someone who not only pays zero taxes but is on the dole
> himself voting to force other people to donate to the poor is not what
> he had in mind.
was a big
Free Will kind of guy, so I would guess he would have wanted charity to be
of free will
and not coerced by the government.
Dänk 42Ø
Jan 12, 2017, 4:33:02 PM1/12/17
to
privately. No giving to the poor just to brag about it, and no
praying in public "like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing
in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others."
Ironically, this passage is followed by the Lord's Prayer, which
Christians love to chant in public.
Topaz
Jan 12, 2017, 4:34:39 PM1/12/17
to
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 20:20:06 +0000, Dänk 42Ø
<da...@coffee.amsterdam.net> wrote:
>
>Though I can't speak for him myself, I'm pretty sure what Jesus had in
>mind was charity; that is, giving YOUR money to the poor (with no
>expectation of anything, such as tax deductions or bragging rights) in
>return. Having someone who not only pays zero taxes but is on the dole
>himself voting to force other people to donate to the poor is not what
>he had in mind.
By Seun Osewa
<da...@coffee.amsterdam.net> wrote:
>
>Though I can't speak for him myself, I'm pretty sure what Jesus had in
>mind was charity; that is, giving YOUR money to the poor (with no
>expectation of anything, such as tax deductions or bragging rights) in
>return. Having someone who not only pays zero taxes but is on the dole
>himself voting to force other people to donate to the poor is not what
>he had in mind.
Until a few days ago, I considered myself a libertarian, but then
someone asked me a question "without social security, who's going to
care for very old people who have no money and no family?"
I couldn't find a good answer to that question. Yes, they should have
saved while they were working. But now that they are old and too weak
to work to pay for the high level of attention they need, should we
just let them die? The answer was "no". Yet a libertarian economy the
only hope they have is charity. One could plausible argue that charity
is unreliable, but that's not my greatest concern.
My concern is what happens to people who engage in a lot of charity vs
people who are amoral and just don't care about others. Capitalism
concentrates power in the hands of the amoral.
Imagine two people who are very similar to each other and enter a free
market the same day. One is amoral and only cares about wealth and
himself while the other one likes to help others who are unable to
help themselves and are never able repay him back. Over several years,
the amoral one will most likely be much richer than his friend. He'll
explore morally questionable opportunities that the other won't be
able to explore and this will add up over time.
Fraud and theft are not supposed to be in a free market, so I'm not
talking about crime lords. I'm talking about people who are not
interested in helping others unless they have something to gain from
it. People who won't give unless it's a PR opportunity. People who
won't assist economically useless, bedridden old people in their last
days on earth. People who will always free-ride when given the
opportunity. These people will become richer and pass the riches to
heirs who have been trained in their ways.
So over several generations, in a tax free society, wealth will be
concentrated in the hands of selfish, amoral people. The good
samaritans will be generally poorer because:
1) They give away their wealth: money, time, attention, services
in charity.
2) They can't explore certain opportunities (not theft, not
fraud) that they think are unfair to others.
It seems to me that in order to 'help the helpless' in a society while
also preventing wealth from being concentrated in the hands of people
who don't care (vs. those who are charitable), there has to be a tax
that takes money from everyone equally and gives it to those who would
die because they are not able to offer services to others who have
wealth. Like those old people with no relatives or savings...
(orphans) , and the disabled.
Or what do you think? If people are unable to obtain food, do we just
let them die or use a system that makes poorer those who can't bear to
see them die?
DoD
Jan 12, 2017, 4:39:45 PM1/12/17
to
news:keidnT4FMoaUa-rF...@earthlink.com...
Yeah...IIRC, doesn't he tell them to pray the Lord's Prayer in the home or
bedroom or closet? One of those?
bedroom or closet? One of those?
Topaz
Jan 12, 2017, 4:57:41 PM1/12/17
to
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:26:53 -0600, "DoD" <danski...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>True, but your first part was more correct.... Jesus, from what I understand
>was a big
>Free Will kind of guy, so I would guess he would have wanted charity to be
>of free will
>and not coerced by the government.
wrote:
>True, but your first part was more correct.... Jesus, from what I understand
>was a big
>Free Will kind of guy, so I would guess he would have wanted charity to be
>of free will
>and not coerced by the government.
Gronk
Jan 15, 2017, 1:51:08 AM1/15/17
to
Gronk
Jan 15, 2017, 1:51:42 AM1/15/17
to
0 new messages