| Users Online Now: 1,389 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 322,669 | |
| Pageviews Today: 428,573 | Threads Today: 132 | Posts Today: 1,922 |
| 03:42 AM | ||
| Users Online Now: 1,389 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 322,669 | |
| Pageviews Today: 428,573 | Threads Today: 132 | Posts Today: 1,922 |
| 03:42 AM | ||
Pope Francis preaches pure Marxism | |
Manu-Koelbren  User ID: 31976657  Spain12/16/2013 08:50 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Manu-Koelbren You know the problem, most people won't embark in your utopian quest based on nothing but wishful thinking. Thus you probably use your voting power to elect people who will make sure those "disbelievers" who fail to comply will be forced to. And you probably go to sleep feeling content with your dark authoritarian heart because you are convinced that your motives are so pure that it ok to force people to accept them. I am sure you'd be willing to kill as well if you had to promote your pure, loving beliefs. If I told you that you had to kill all people who don't agree with you but that you'd attain your objectives wouldn't that be just a small sacrifice for the greater good? That's how authoritarian genocidal psychopaths are made. All of them started like you, thinking that oppression was justified for the attainment of a greater good for society, a greater good which never arrived btw. You are putting words in my mouth and misreading me. I'm an Anarcho-syndicalist, not a statist. I think Marx was largely correct in his critique of capitalism, but not in his "dictatorship of the proletariat." Sorry, but capitalism is not freedom, it is tyranny. And please don't confuse capitalism with commerce; owning a small business that you work at isn't capitalism. I'm a small business owner myself, and my business is organized under the anarcho-syndicalist mode of production. It works. I am all for small business myself and I have anarchic tendencies myself. The problem is that if you allow freedom in society and someone creates a product so successful that people buy it in such degree that turns that person into a very wealthy person, and their business into something beyond a small business, I don't see any valid reproachable argument to coerce that successful business owner to not be able to reap the reward for their efforts. I don't see wealth as intrinsically evil as you seem to do. I see undeserved, unmerited wealth as evil. I don't see wealth as intrinsically evil, but I do think that wealth has a integral social component that transcends the individual. A wise businessman doesn't let a little wealth go to his head, if you know what I mean. I think that a society that is much less coercive and alienating than the one we have at present would greatly encourage and inspire people to conduct business and life in general in a way that upholds social responsibility as a value equal in importance to personal responsibility. Whatever your views on how society should be, you should have a right to express, preach and attempt to convert other people to them, AS LONG as you don't foment the existence of oppressive entities who force everyone to fit these views you express. I may agree with you that it would be desirable that everyone had a more conscious social outlook in life, but I will defend to the death the right of people to be greedy if they want to as long as they don't use corrupt methods to attain their wealth/possessions. People should never be forced to sacrifice themselves for others, this will either happen through conscientization or it will not happen at all. Banned as usual. “It is far easier to be a weakling than to be a Real Man. Were the Earth less harsh or the circumstances of life less austere, man would destroy himself before the shrine of the languid goddess. Only Real Men can with safety destroy the tangled forests and wilderness of Earth and make from them gardens, but will those who inherit the gardens be Real Men? The law decrees that they must be, or the wilderness will reclaim its own.” |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 41650285  United States12/16/2013 08:52 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 41650285 That society has no right to oppress the individual is precisely why I advocate the abolition of capitalism, private property, and the state, as these are all tools of oppression. Of course, when I say private property, I don't mean personal property; but rather the ownership of the means of production used to exploit the labor of the propertyless for personal gain. Not being allowed to be a billionare is not oppression; lack of access to food, housing, and medical care, in a wealthy society, is. The problem Karl, is that the means of production didn't magically appear there, they were created by people. If the means of productions would have existed before people existed and were always there and offered by mother earth to her human children as a gift, then I'd agree with you that no one had a right to usurp them for their own gain, but that's not how life works. You could usurp the means of production now and give them to the workers, but if the workers failed in handling these means of production or society grew larger and needed more means of production, who would create them? and how without capital? You see, means of production don't make themselves. And the fact is that there's no intrinsic writing in the air that tell us everyone deserves access to food, housing and medicine. People deserve these things as long as they can find a way to make themselves worthy in any way to be able to offer something in return for them. That's reality, anything else is just the deranged desires of idealists to have some illusory heaven on earth. I believe that in a wealthy society, everyone has the right to the basic essentials of life. Rights aren't something written in the air, in your words; rather, rights are a human social construct. They derive from the social contract and that contract can be amended as society sees fit. Abolishing capitalism doesn't mean there wouldn't be capital. It would mean that the economic bottom line would be maximizing the efficient use of resources, including human resources, rather than maximizing the efficient use of capital. By emphasizing capital over all other concerns, resources are squandered and goods are overproduced but undervalued. This is just one of the many internal contradictions of capitalism that ultimately undermine social values and capitalism itself, thus justifying my prediction that capitalism's days are numbered. Exactly, and why do you think nowadays the social contract is enforced by the threat of force? because the state knows that most productive members of society would refuse to pay taxes to support the wealth redistribution that goes on (both at the corporate level and at the social welfare level). Most people would still pay taxes for common infrastructure maintenance but the government knows all the rest wouldn't be supported by the people. So the question is, are you willing to allow people to individually choose what part of the so called social contract they support, even when it may not yield the type of social contract you'd like? IF you're not then you're an authoritarian. I think that taxation is a rather clunky way of paying for the social aspects of society. I think that authoritarian state functions can be replaced by voluntary, non-hierarchical collective organization for the benefit of all involved. Sure, people could choose to opt out if they wish, but I think most people wouldn't want to do that when they saw the benefits of participating in a non-authoritarian, non-alienating society that exists for the benefit of all who choose to participate. |
| Kirk User ID: 49863729 United States12/16/2013 08:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Kirk User ID: 49863729 United States12/16/2013 08:56 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Manu-Koelbren The problem Karl, is that the means of production didn't magically appear there, they were created by people. If the means of productions would have existed before people existed and were always there and offered by mother earth to her human children as a gift, then I'd agree with you that no one had a right to usurp them for their own gain, but that's not how life works. You could usurp the means of production now and give them to the workers, but if the workers failed in handling these means of production or society grew larger and needed more means of production, who would create them? and how without capital? You see, means of production don't make themselves. And the fact is that there's no intrinsic writing in the air that tell us everyone deserves access to food, housing and medicine. People deserve these things as long as they can find a way to make themselves worthy in any way to be able to offer something in return for them. That's reality, anything else is just the deranged desires of idealists to have some illusory heaven on earth. I believe that in a wealthy society, everyone has the right to the basic essentials of life. Rights aren't something written in the air, in your words; rather, rights are a human social construct. They derive from the social contract and that contract can be amended as society sees fit. Abolishing capitalism doesn't mean there wouldn't be capital. It would mean that the economic bottom line would be maximizing the efficient use of resources, including human resources, rather than maximizing the efficient use of capital. By emphasizing capital over all other concerns, resources are squandered and goods are overproduced but undervalued. This is just one of the many internal contradictions of capitalism that ultimately undermine social values and capitalism itself, thus justifying my prediction that capitalism's days are numbered. Exactly, and why do you think nowadays the social contract is enforced by the threat of force? because the state knows that most productive members of society would refuse to pay taxes to support the wealth redistribution that goes on (both at the corporate level and at the social welfare level). Most people would still pay taxes for common infrastructure maintenance but the government knows all the rest wouldn't be supported by the people. So the question is, are you willing to allow people to individually choose what part of the so called social contract they support, even when it may not yield the type of social contract you'd like? IF you're not then you're an authoritarian. I think that taxation is a rather clunky way of paying for the social aspects of society. I think that authoritarian state functions can be replaced by voluntary, non-hierarchical collective organization for the benefit of all involved. Sure, people could choose to opt out if they wish, but I think most people wouldn't want to do that when they saw the benefits of participating in a non-authoritarian, non-alienating society that exists for the benefit of all who choose to participate. Monopolies have government behind them. Industry flourishes or is killed by legislation SIGs negotiate. Government is a body largely ungoverned. |
| Kirk User ID: 49863729 United States12/16/2013 08:57 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Just reading the first page and can't help but having these thoughts: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 41237090 According to this post: 1) ONLY politicians should have a political opinion. 2) Limbaugh's opinion is valid (even thought he is one of the elite's mouthpieces) and ironically he is no politician. 3) There is no grey area with Marxism, is bad, was always bad, will always be bad... like Communism and Socialism. Seriously reading ppl's opinion on GLP is sometimes worse than the attitude of the sheep, at least they don't know, in here is filled with ppl that think that know and in some subjects they can be enlightening, from the first page of this thread is obviously not the case. PPL forget that the NWO (their version) and the NWO (the ppl's version) are very similar in many cases, which is used to scared ppl off, just like Freemansory and other cults have important relevant info, they are all just labeled as evil and ignored when they actually have a lot a of answers to help explain the paradigm and how to counter it. ^this^ Government is a body largely ungoverned. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 41650285 United States12/16/2013 08:59 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 41650285 You are putting words in my mouth and misreading me. I'm an Anarcho-syndicalist, not a statist. I think Marx was largely correct in his critique of capitalism, but not in his "dictatorship of the proletariat." Sorry, but capitalism is not freedom, it is tyranny. And please don't confuse capitalism with commerce; owning a small business that you work at isn't capitalism. I'm a small business owner myself, and my business is organized under the anarcho-syndicalist mode of production. It works. I am all for small business myself and I have anarchic tendencies myself. The problem is that if you allow freedom in society and someone creates a product so successful that people buy it in such degree that turns that person into a very wealthy person, and their business into something beyond a small business, I don't see any valid reproachable argument to coerce that successful business owner to not be able to reap the reward for their efforts. I don't see wealth as intrinsically evil as you seem to do. I see undeserved, unmerited wealth as evil. I don't see wealth as intrinsically evil, but I do think that wealth has a integral social component that transcends the individual. A wise businessman doesn't let a little wealth go to his head, if you know what I mean. I think that a society that is much less coercive and alienating than the one we have at present would greatly encourage and inspire people to conduct business and life in general in a way that upholds social responsibility as a value equal in importance to personal responsibility. Whatever your views on how society should be, you should have a right to express, preach and attempt to convert other people to them, AS LONG as you don't foment the existence of oppressive entities who force everyone to fit these views you express. I may agree with you that it would be desirable that everyone had a more conscious social outlook in life, but I will defend to the death the right of people to be greedy if they want to as long as they don't use corrupt methods to attain their wealth/possessions. People should never be forced to sacrifice themselves for others, this will either happen through conscientization or it will not happen at all. I think people will eventually discover that there is far greater benefit for an individual to be a part of a wealthy, well-functioning society than to simply hoard wealth for themselves while so many of their fellow humans are lacking the basic essentials of life. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 51634634  South Korea12/16/2013 09:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Manu-Koelbren I am all for small business myself and I have anarchic tendencies myself. The problem is that if you allow freedom in society and someone creates a product so successful that people buy it in such degree that turns that person into a very wealthy person, and their business into something beyond a small business, I don't see any valid reproachable argument to coerce that successful business owner to not be able to reap the reward for their efforts. I don't see wealth as intrinsically evil as you seem to do. I see undeserved, unmerited wealth as evil. I don't see wealth as intrinsically evil, but I do think that wealth has a integral social component that transcends the individual. A wise businessman doesn't let a little wealth go to his head, if you know what I mean. I think that a society that is much less coercive and alienating than the one we have at present would greatly encourage and inspire people to conduct business and life in general in a way that upholds social responsibility as a value equal in importance to personal responsibility. Whatever your views on how society should be, you should have a right to express, preach and attempt to convert other people to them, AS LONG as you don't foment the existence of oppressive entities who force everyone to fit these views you express. I may agree with you that it would be desirable that everyone had a more conscious social outlook in life, but I will defend to the death the right of people to be greedy if they want to as long as they don't use corrupt methods to attain their wealth/possessions. People should never be forced to sacrifice themselves for others, this will either happen through conscientization or it will not happen at all. I think people will eventually discover that there is far greater benefit for an individual to be a part of a wealthy, well-functioning society than to simply hoard wealth for themselves while so many of their fellow humans are lacking the basic essentials of life. This is you guy's greatest failure. You think that humans can somehow in and of themselves come to this "Realization" and eventually evolve into caring individuals when even the best people whom we regard as the great people are flawed and selfish individuals. I may not be religious anymore, but if it's one thing the bible got correct, it's that humans are intrinsically flawed and fallen creatures and whether it's capitalism or whatever system these libtards are preaching nowadays, corruption will ALWAYS be apart of it. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 51635595 United States12/16/2013 09:03 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | that was the reason for forming the Romish church. The powers in Europe wanted a religion that preached favorably to them. The early church was the Orthodox church. They didn't control that. This is one very stupid comment. The Orthodox recognize the Papacy and recognize the Pope as the head of the Church, they disagree with what that means (first among equals). They do not see the "Romish church" as being formed as a political church, heck, Constantinople became a Patriarch out of politics, but not Rome! And finally, the Orthodox are the ones who were political (Caeserapapism) |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 50650716 United States12/16/2013 09:12 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Manu-Koelbren That sounds great in paper but in reality you have people to deal with, people with self interests and objectives, people who want their privacy and to obtain things for themselves, and who won't just be full of "love" as you'd like them to be. You need to find some way to keep them being able to exist in society and have a way to trade their abilities while being as free from the ever impending threat of tyranny as possible. Certainly. I just don't think that's as unobtainable as you apparently do. Today most people feel a deep sense of alienation from society, for a whole host of reasons. I really don't think it has to be that way, though I'm not saying it will be easy. You know the problem, most people won't embark in your utopian quest based on nothing but wishful thinking. Thus you probably use your voting power to elect people who will make sure those "disbelievers" who fail to comply will be forced to. And you probably go to sleep feeling content with your dark authoritarian heart because you are convinced that your motives are so pure that it ok to force people to accept them. I am sure you'd be willing to kill as well if you had to promote your pure, loving beliefs. If I told you that you had to kill all people who don't agree with you but that you'd attain your objectives wouldn't that be just a small sacrifice for the greater good? That's how authoritarian genocidal psychopaths are made. All of them started like you, thinking that oppression was justified for the attainment of a greater good for society, a greater good which never arrived btw. You are putting words in my mouth and misreading me. I'm an Anarcho-syndicalist, not a statist. I think Marx was largely correct in his critique of capitalism, but not in his "dictatorship of the proletariat." Sorry, but capitalism is not freedom, it is tyranny. And please don't confuse capitalism with commerce; owning a small business that you work at isn't capitalism. I'm a small business owner myself, and my business is organized under the anarcho-syndicalist mode of production. It works. Dont flatter yourself, youre nothing more than a child demanding someone provide for you and legitimizing theft from those that would naturally ignore your rambling demands. In the end, nature is capitalist, in the end nature is not socialist. There is only providing for oneself, nobody provides for you without taking something more valuable from you first. Those things you would erroneously claim as socialist in nature are in fact dictatorial monarchies, there is no choice in any of them, and if a member steps out of line and fails to produce they are terminated. There is only freedom of a sort with true capitalism. There is never any freedom with socialism, or anarchobullshitism or any childlike pseudointellectual sophistry/ |
| Manu-Koelbren User ID: 31976657 Spain12/16/2013 09:14 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 41650285 I don't see wealth as intrinsically evil, but I do think that wealth has a integral social component that transcends the individual. A wise businessman doesn't let a little wealth go to his head, if you know what I mean. I think that a society that is much less coercive and alienating than the one we have at present would greatly encourage and inspire people to conduct business and life in general in a way that upholds social responsibility as a value equal in importance to personal responsibility. Whatever your views on how society should be, you should have a right to express, preach and attempt to convert other people to them, AS LONG as you don't foment the existence of oppressive entities who force everyone to fit these views you express. I may agree with you that it would be desirable that everyone had a more conscious social outlook in life, but I will defend to the death the right of people to be greedy if they want to as long as they don't use corrupt methods to attain their wealth/possessions. People should never be forced to sacrifice themselves for others, this will either happen through conscientization or it will not happen at all. I think people will eventually discover that there is far greater benefit for an individual to be a part of a wealthy, well-functioning society than to simply hoard wealth for themselves while so many of their fellow humans are lacking the basic essentials of life. This is you guy's greatest failure. You think that humans can somehow in and of themselves come to this "Realization" and eventually evolve into caring individuals when even the best people whom we regard as the great people are flawed and selfish individuals. I may not be religious anymore, but if it's one thing the bible got correct, it's that humans are intrinsically flawed and fallen creatures and whether it's capitalism or whatever system these libtards are preaching nowadays, corruption will ALWAYS be apart of it. I believe the same and furthermore I believe it's more profitable to learn to cope with our limitations than to seek after utopias. But then again if someone wanted to foment a system which voluntarily allowed people to opt in and contribute to take care of those most vulnerable in society I wouldn't see anything wrong in it. If the system was being abused and corrupted people would simply have the option to opt out and de-fund them. The problems come when they turn corrupt and you have no way to stop them from continuing to take your money. Btw if that system proved to be effective I would probably opt in myself. Last Edited by Manu-K on 12/16/2013 09:14 AM Banned as usual. “It is far easier to be a weakling than to be a Real Man. Were the Earth less harsh or the circumstances of life less austere, man would destroy himself before the shrine of the languid goddess. Only Real Men can with safety destroy the tangled forests and wilderness of Earth and make from them gardens, but will those who inherit the gardens be Real Men? The law decrees that they must be, or the wilderness will reclaim its own.” |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 50650716 United States12/16/2013 09:14 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Marxism is force at every level, especially force against Christians. Liberalisms primary and only goal has always been destruction of Christianity. |
| Saddletramp User ID: 1052341  Puerto Rico12/16/2013 09:16 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Just another Latino Marxist that says he's not a Marxist... They want to believe they've come up with something new you see... "And how can a man die better than facing fearful odds, for the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods..." ~ Horatius "Because he told the truth, and once you've heard the truth, everything else is just cheap whiskey..." "We don't rent pigs!" |
| Manu-Koelbren User ID: 31976657 Spain12/16/2013 09:17 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Put quite simply, as soon as you initiate force against others you are no longer following original Christian teachings. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 50650716 Marxism is force at every level, especially force against Christians. Liberalisms primary and only goal has always been destruction of Christianity. Christianity is now technically destroyed, so they are coming after everyone else. Banned as usual. “It is far easier to be a weakling than to be a Real Man. Were the Earth less harsh or the circumstances of life less austere, man would destroy himself before the shrine of the languid goddess. Only Real Men can with safety destroy the tangled forests and wilderness of Earth and make from them gardens, but will those who inherit the gardens be Real Men? The law decrees that they must be, or the wilderness will reclaim its own.” |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 36997606 United States12/16/2013 09:19 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 50650716 United States12/16/2013 09:24 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Put quite simply, as soon as you initiate force against others you are no longer following original Christian teachings. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 50650716 Marxism is force at every level, especially force against Christians. Liberalisms primary and only goal has always been destruction of Christianity. Christianity is now technically destroyed, so they are coming after everyone else. Those that felt the Christianity was a threat to their own entitlement to automatic ownership of the planet are now making a play for taking possession of all their 'precious' since in their belief, that's all there is, and it's all theirs. |
| Manu-Koelbren User ID: 31976657 Spain12/16/2013 09:27 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The catholic church can start by redistributing its own wealth then. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 36997606 Isn't it ironic that the Church is calling for "the governments of the world" to redistribute their wealth (meaning the wealth that their working classes produce, which is already being redistributed through taxation) while they who are wealthy beyond measurement are not walking their own talk? They want to take more taxes from your already emptied pockets, these wealthy elitist fuckers are pulling this shit off and some sheeple are applauding. this world has no fixing ,we're doomed by morons. Banned as usual. “It is far easier to be a weakling than to be a Real Man. Were the Earth less harsh or the circumstances of life less austere, man would destroy himself before the shrine of the languid goddess. Only Real Men can with safety destroy the tangled forests and wilderness of Earth and make from them gardens, but will those who inherit the gardens be Real Men? The law decrees that they must be, or the wilderness will reclaim its own.” |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 50650716 United States12/16/2013 09:37 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The catholic church can start by redistributing its own wealth then. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 36997606 Isn't it ironic that the Church is calling for "the governments of the world" to redistribute their wealth (meaning the wealth that their working classes produce, which is already being redistributed through taxation) while they who are wealthy beyond measurement are not walking their own talk? They want to take more taxes from your already emptied pockets, these wealthy elitist fuckers are pulling this shit off and some sheeple are applauding. this world has no fixing ,we're doomed by morons. Like others have said, all these official "Christian" organizations are really ignoring Christs direct teachings and instead attempting to restore Pharaseeic Theocracy, with them at the top and benefiting for themselves as well as continuing to destroy the tenets of the original teachings as well. There would be no Catholic church if they did not function hand in glove with other forms of hereditary monarchy and claims of world rule by royal edict. The Catholic church is to the medieval world what the FED is the the US and by extension to the remainder of the world as well. |
| BattlesightZero User ID: 50716210 United States12/16/2013 09:45 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I can't believe you guys are using the formula "Rush Limbaugh said" plus "Time Magazine Picture" in an attempt to come up with anything. Limbaugh is a blowhard, and [Wasting] Time magazine is a rag... both worthless except as proof of exactly what angle the MSM manipulators are working on via two particular demographics. Seriously, folks? This is GLP. I thought we were made of firmer stuff... |
| Saddletramp User ID: 1052341 Puerto Rico12/16/2013 09:48 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The catholic church can start by redistributing its own wealth then. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 36997606  Lead by example... Last Edited by Saddletramp on 12/16/2013 09:48 AM "And how can a man die better than facing fearful odds, for the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods..." ~ Horatius "Because he told the truth, and once you've heard the truth, everything else is just cheap whiskey..." "We don't rent pigs!" |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 50650716 United States12/16/2013 09:54 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The catholic church can start by redistributing its own wealth then. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 36997606 :jay: Lead by example... There would be no Vatican, and no Holy Roman Empire without forced conversions and wars of conquest perpetrated with imperialist conversion and taxation as the only real goal. That doesnt mean that Catholics are bad people, it just means their heirarchy was born of corruption and remains corrupt. There is none of the Catholic churches heirarchy recommended or encouraged in the very book they claim is their ticket to exist. Official churches were the Global Warming of their time, a way to create an alternative path to worldly power and riches for those with no other access. It doesnt mean that much of the original intent in the OT doesnt get included along the way, but it does mean that it's only bait for you and entitlement for those that claim authority to control and tax you for their own benefit |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 51225186 United States12/16/2013 09:56 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| KimmieAnnaJones User ID: 35744535 United States12/16/2013 09:58 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation |  "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come." - I AM Vote for people that have a track record for loving your Constitution or lose your country forever!!! Put down the damn touchy feely koolaid and WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!! :militia: |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 51637119  Austria12/16/2013 09:59 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 33509203  Canada12/16/2013 10:00 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 51637249  Indonesia12/16/2013 10:10 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | .... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 51465644 Google "GLP PREDEV" and hang on to your hats, if you think this is a haven of anti-establishment freedom. Interesting indeed the real story? must be as its completely ignored Very interesting indeed. Maybe we're all part of the hoax. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 50650716 United States12/16/2013 10:11 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Perhaps Rush should read the Bible. Jesus said some pretty revolutionary things that made him crucifiable -- and a lot of them were about upending the power of the rich and the status quo. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33509203 Maybe you should read it for the first time yourself. There is no coersion in it, it's all about not contributing to evil and not creating evil of your own. Clearly you have not read the source material. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 51638368  Brazil12/16/2013 10:30 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I'm not a Marxist (but I do know some nice ones), insists the Pope as he responds to criticism of papal documents that commented on 'economy of exclusion' Pope Francis said in a newspaper interview yesterday that he is not a Marxist but that even they can be good people. Responding to conservative criticisms that his economic and social ideas smack of communism Francis also denied reports that he would name a woman cardinal. Last month, American radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who has a huge following in the United States, railed against the pope for written comments made on the world economy. Limbaugh, who is not Catholic, said that parts of the document were 'pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope' and suggested that someone else had written the papal document for him. He also accused the pope of going 'beyond Catholicism' and being 'purely political'. Asked about the accusations, which sparked a debate in the media last month, Francis, a member of the all-male Jesuit order associated with progressive social policies, told La Stampa: 'Marxist ideology is wrong. But in my life I have known many Marxists who are good people, so I don’t feel offended.' In his response to the critics, Francis said he was not speaking 'as a technician but according to the social doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and this does not mean being Marxist'. He said he was just trying to present a 'snapshot of what is happening' in the world today. [link to www.dailymail.co.uk] case closed |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 51635595 United States12/16/2013 10:39 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Perhaps Rush should read the Bible. Jesus said some pretty revolutionary things that made him crucifiable -- and a lot of them were about upending the power of the rich and the status quo. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33509203 Maybe you should read it for the first time yourself. There is no coersion in it, it's all about not contributing to evil and not creating evil of your own. Clearly you have not read the source material. If you read the OT, actually, the punishment of Israel came as a result of the lack of justice in Israel. And God did command "charity": Deuteronomy 15:11 ESV / 36 helpful votes For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’ Malachi 3:5 ESV / 32 helpful votes “Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the Lord of hosts. Matthew 25:40 ESV / 24 helpful votes And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 1482458 United States12/16/2013 10:40 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I'm not a Marxist (but I do know some nice ones), insists the Pope as he responds to criticism of papal documents that commented on 'economy of exclusion' Quoting: Anonymous Coward 51638368 Pope Francis said in a newspaper interview yesterday that he is not a Marxist but that even they can be good people. Responding to conservative criticisms that his economic and social ideas smack of communism Francis also denied reports that he would name a woman cardinal. Last month, American radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who has a huge following in the United States, railed against the pope for written comments made on the world economy. Limbaugh, who is not Catholic, said that parts of the document were 'pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope' and suggested that someone else had written the papal document for him. He also accused the pope of going 'beyond Catholicism' and being 'purely political'. Asked about the accusations, which sparked a debate in the media last month, Francis, a member of the all-male Jesuit order associated with progressive social policies, told La Stampa: 'Marxist ideology is wrong. But in my life I have known many Marxists who are good people, so I don’t feel offended.' In his response to the critics, Francis said he was not speaking 'as a technician but according to the social doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and this does not mean being Marxist'. He said he was just trying to present a 'snapshot of what is happening' in the world today. [link to www.dailymail.co.uk] case closed |
| Theobromine User ID: 19876247 United States12/16/2013 10:51 AM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Manu-Koelbren Charity is sharing with the poor, love is not an empirical objective concept tard. No, charity is caritas, caritas is LOVE. Charity is agape, agape is love. Sorry, you don't even know the source of the word of charity, and instead, redefine it to turn charity into an institution of anti-charity. Charity is evil in that it allows the underlying system based upon exploitation to continue. All material wealth in society is created by the earth and the working class and thus rightly belongs to society. It shouldn't be something for private individuals to accumulate and to fetishize. WRONG. Wealth is what individuals create through their labor and as not all individuals labor as hard or ingeniously then their rewards for their labor can't be somehow "equalized". That's the fallacious premise you lefties are so in love with and that is the base of your failure. If an individual gains wealth through the voluntary exchange of the product they offer with their buyers, without any violent compulsion involved, then it's their right to hoard as much as they want. It is only through undesirable government expansion that the detrimental crony capitalism that exists today has been able to come to existence. "What are you helping with all this helping?" Buddhist saying |
