Christian Communists: The political party of the future!
duncvis wrote:
TAFKASH wrote:
Ahhh - I see... We do have them in the UK too, but over here they call themselves the "Monster Raving Loony Party".
The Natural Law Party was funnier though. Creating 'babbling bliss' through 'yogic flying' was the backbone of their election platform as I remember... Oh yes - watching 'yogic flying' in action was definitely the funniest thing I've ever seen.....
_________________
"Heeeeeeeeeeeeere's Johnny!"
1PeaceMaker wrote:
TAFKASH wrote:
Ahhh - I see... We do have them in the UK too, but over here they call themselves the "Monster Raving Loony Party".
And just what makes them so loony?
Hmmmm?
Who, the Libertarians or The Monster Raving Loony Party? If its the latter, they call themselves "loony" for Pete's sake..... If its the former, then partly the fact that removing all government interventions from contracts would be a preposterous idea, but mainly due to the fact that comparing them to the Monster Raving Loonies was funny.....
_________________
"Heeeeeeeeeeeeere's Johnny!"
TAFKASH wrote:
Who, the Libertarians or The Monster Raving Loony Party? If its the latter, they call themselves "loony" for Pete's sake..... If its the former, then partly the fact that removing all government interventions from contracts would be a preposterous idea, but mainly due to the fact that comparing them to the Monster Raving Loonies was funny.....
"removing all government interventions from contracts"
What? I don't wanna seem dense, but what you said made no sense to me. Or, too ambiguous to me to make sense.
Anyway, I smell an insult, and I am not in the mood to mud wrestle. See ya around.
Peace
1PeaceMaker wrote:
TAFKASH wrote:
Who, the Libertarians or The Monster Raving Loony Party? If its the latter, they call themselves "loony" for Pete's sake..... If its the former, then partly the fact that removing all government interventions from contracts would be a preposterous idea, but mainly due to the fact that comparing them to the Monster Raving Loonies was funny.....
"removing all government interventions from contracts"
What? I don't wanna seem dense, but what you said made no sense to me. Or, too ambiguous to me to make sense.
Anyway, I smell an insult, and I am not in the mood to mud wrestle. See ya around.
Peace
What? No insult was intended in any way, matey - I was merely doing a precis of the apparent Libertarian policy of "we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals", which, while wonderful in theory, could never work in practice (exactly as per Communism). I'm not here to go barneying with anybody (contrary to some apparent opinion
_________________
"Heeeeeeeeeeeeere's Johnny!"
TAFKASH wrote:
1PeaceMaker wrote:
TAFKASH wrote:
Who, the Libertarians or The Monster Raving Loony Party? If its the latter, they call themselves "loony" for Pete's sake..... If its the former, then partly the fact that removing all government interventions from contracts would be a preposterous idea, but mainly due to the fact that comparing them to the Monster Raving Loonies was funny.....
"removing all government interventions from contracts"
What? I don't wanna seem dense, but what you said made no sense to me. Or, too ambiguous to me to make sense.
Anyway, I smell an insult, and I am not in the mood to mud wrestle. See ya around.
Peace
What? No insult was intended in any way, matey - I was merely doing a precis of the apparent Libertarian policy of "we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals", which, while wonderful in theory, could never work in practice (exactly as per Communism). I'm not here to go barneying with anybody (contrary to some apparent opinion
I'm sorry, but Libertarianism does work in practice, and works well. If you need proof of this look at the early history of the USA.
axelkat wrote:
i prefer the anti-authoritarian, humanitarian persona, long live Lenin and the red bolsheviks.
A
A
You do realize Stalin was a monster, right? Like Hitler, Stalin was one of the 20th century's most notorious evildoers. Head's up: some people on this board may take offence at your avatar. Communism results in millions of deaths and unspeakable evil. Why would anyone admire it?
And Christian Communism?
Quote:
Nonsense - true communism is basically just Christianity without the sucking up to God bits -
You need to research both Christianity and Communism before you really embarass yourself, sparky. This has to be the most ignorant sentence I have ever read.
Sucking up to God?!
Complete your education before writing on these topics.
axelkat wrote:
i prefer the anti-authoritarian, humanitarian persona, long live Lenin and the red bolsheviks.
A
A
here here comrade!
there's not supposed to be Christian Communists
it was one of the things being a communist you didn't believe in
(and still is)
if your a Christian communist-your basically just saying-
yeah I want everyone to be equal, but listen to a sky man and praise him unquestionably
Dan wrote:
We know from the CNN polls, and from posts like the recent one from NeantHumain in "Who should be the next President of the United States?", that liberals tend to think that the only "real issues" are the economic ones. On the other hand, conservatives tend to vote based on social issues, even if it goes against their financial self-interest.
Therefore, if there were a candidate who was pro-labor and pro-socialized health care but also pro-life and anti-gay marriage, they would win in a landslide.
Right?
Therefore, if there were a candidate who was pro-labor and pro-socialized health care but also pro-life and anti-gay marriage, they would win in a landslide.
Right?
Eugene V. Debs (19)'04!
communism-as we know it
has always had a few fatal flaws
it was only ever in control of very poor countries
they kept currency
they approached it right away-it is something that needs to be eased into
and they had leaders
and having Stalin as an avatar is not very different then a King of England (remember the Crusades?)
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Stifles any attempts of democracy within it? Unless your buying some of those 'Dibolt and Jed Bush rigged the 04' election' type theories, I'm lost.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/d ... dded_video
They do rig the elections, as you see, they've admitted it. Let me explain how this works.... Various international organizations and corporations have our politicians, and in fact both major political parties, in their back pockets. The candidate who raises most money for corporate lobbyist wins the election. Only "votes" that in any way count, are from the electoral colledge, which is another heavily funded and financed establishment that can be (and is) bought. Our "vote" is an illusion, all it does is empowers those corporations by keeping this illusion of "vote" alive. Name one point in history where "voting" has changed anything? When, has "voting" ever stopped anything bad from happening?
People are made to "vote" for their dictators in violent dictatorships too. People "voted" for Saddam, Stalin, Hitler even, not because they had a chance, but because if they didn't, they'd be killed.
snake321 wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Stifles any attempts of democracy within it? Unless your buying some of those 'Dibolt and Jed Bush rigged the 04' election' type theories, I'm lost.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/d ... dded_video
They do rig the elections, as you see, they've admitted it. Let me explain how this works.... Various international organizations and corporations have our politicians, and in fact both major political parties, in their back pockets. The candidate who raises most money for corporate lobbyist wins the election. Only "votes" that in any way count, are from the electoral colledge, which is another heavily funded and financed establishment that can be (and is) bought. Our "vote" is an illusion, all it does is empowers those corporations by keeping this illusion of "vote" alive. Name one point in history where "voting" has changed anything? When, has "voting" ever stopped anything bad from happening?
People are made to "vote" for their dictators in violent dictatorships too. People "voted" for Saddam, Stalin, Hitler even, not because they had a chance, but because if they didn't, they'd be killed.
What about the abolishment of American slavery? The idea had sufficient popularity to make it a reality. Voters changed history in that instance, didn't they?
BTW I admire your optimism and faith in humanity. Tony Robbins could take a page from your book.
slowmutant wrote:
snake321 wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Stifles any attempts of democracy within it? Unless your buying some of those 'Dibolt and Jed Bush rigged the 04' election' type theories, I'm lost.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/d ... dded_video
They do rig the elections, as you see, they've admitted it. Let me explain how this works.... Various international organizations and corporations have our politicians, and in fact both major political parties, in their back pockets. The candidate who raises most money for corporate lobbyist wins the election. Only "votes" that in any way count, are from the electoral colledge, which is another heavily funded and financed establishment that can be (and is) bought. Our "vote" is an illusion, all it does is empowers those corporations by keeping this illusion of "vote" alive. Name one point in history where "voting" has changed anything? When, has "voting" ever stopped anything bad from happening?
People are made to "vote" for their dictators in violent dictatorships too. People "voted" for Saddam, Stalin, Hitler even, not because they had a chance, but because if they didn't, they'd be killed.
What about the abolishment of American slavery? The idea had sufficient popularity to make it a reality. Voters changed history in that instance, didn't they?
BTW I admire your optimism and faith in humanity. Tony Robbins could take a page from your book.
They didn't stop segregation because of protests, they stopped segregation for their own benefits, just like when they abolished slavery. Lincoln abolished slavery for himself, not for them.
