Religion and Socialism

[Kenny]

Destroying businesses is bad. But property can be rebuilt. Hopefully the owners have insurance and can be compensated.

Wanting to overturn elections and wanting civil war is quite a bit worse in my view. Not to mention that Jan 6 “incident.” I saw that live, not on the news but live-streamed by the very people storming the place
MAGA extremists still come out looking worse

I think it is wrong to give a pass on radical leftist whose aim is to destroy the political system. It is just a back door of the same coin. IMO

 

[SomeRandom]

I think it is wrong to give a pass on radical leftist whose aim is to destroy the political system. It is just a back door of the same coin. IMO

I disavow extremists regardless of their political affiliation.
Left, right, centrist, don’t really care.

Unfortunately in conversations the other “sides” faults are brought up in response to criticism of a political party’s actions.
Just an observation, not accusing you of doing that. Just to be clear
But I’m sure both of us can agree that extremism is bad all around

 

[F1fan]

I think it's consistent with the general trend of Republicans, conservatives, and capitalists overall wanting to return to the 19th century. That's also part of what pushed the drive towards outsourcing and free trade, since they couldn't have sweatshops in America. So they opened sweatshops overseas. Even Democrats and liberals went along with this.

Capitalists won't be happy until America has a plantation economy which depends solely on imports for manufactured goods.

This is the America that capitalists want:

It is lucky that the USA has impoverished countries to our south. Imagine what our food would cost to harvest without migrant labor. Of course republicans complain about migrants living here, they don't mind migrants doing the cheap labor.

What often gets me about how conserbvatives ay the poor should just pull up their bootstraps and make more money. But I notice many of these same conservatives living as middle class people. Damn, why don't they work harder and become millionaires since it's just as easy as that to move up in the economic strata. It's because they can't move up any easier or probable than people in poverty moving up. If millions of middle class people moved u to upper class, then there would be social pressure for the poor to move up due to labor needs. But then, where's the money coming from for the millions of middle class moving up to upper class? There's only so much money out there and the wealthy are not eager to let it go.

 

[F1fan]

Hmmm... it is still social. The only difference between what you are saying and what I am saying is that instead of me paying the difference, they take it out of one's paycheck automatically. You still pay for it (unless you are unable to have income - so you qualify for Obamacare and Medicare anyway)

So screw poor people if they can;t afford insurance. I guess you are opposed to emergency rooms being morally obligated to treat people in medical crisis even if they can't afford it, yes or no?

One reason there is so much chronic illness among the poor is because they have no access to medical care until it becomes critical, and then it is more severe and more expensive. It would be cheaper to just offer free healthcare as a right. Let the wealthy buy health insurance as a bonus of their wealth. Some estimates that what people save on insurance will be higher than the added tax burden to cover healthcare. So you could have more money in your pocket with a universal healthcare policy. You might hate the politics, but you'd probably love the money more. plus, think of your moral improvement as more of your fellow citizens have access to essential healthcare. Jesus would be proud of you. Trump wouldn't. But which one are you following?

Did you read what I just said? I said "It happened to me" while I was talking to my doctor. Did you want me to get a notarized copy of said conversation?

No, you said it happened in Fl. Florida? I have no idea what you are saying hapened in Florida without a citation.

Only legal immigrants, through tightly controlled borders
The Republican Party supports reforming the immigration system to ensure that it is legal, safe, orderly and humane. It also supports measures to ensure that the immigration system is structured to address the needs of national security.

Yet they did nothing with Trump in power. They did break federal and international crimes with how they treated migrants. They separated children from the parents and many still have not been reunited because the Trump administration did not keep records. The gop platform is not legitimate when facts are applied to what they did under Trump, and his rhetoric. Remember border agents removing water and food left for migrants under orders? Humane?

To better ensure that immigrants enter the United States only through legal means that allow for verification of their identity, reconnaissance cameras, border patrol agents, and unmanned aerial flights have all been increased at the border. In addition, Border Patrol agents now have sweeping new powers to deport illegal aliens without having first to go through the cumbersome process of allowing the illegal alien to have a hearing before an immigration judge. We support these efforts to enforce the law while welcoming immigrants who enter America through legal avenues.

Republican Party on Immigration

By law anyone can enter the USA and apply for asylum. There is a lawful process to manage these applicants, and they get court dayes. Our system i highly abused and flawed, and both parties have not formed a solution. They cannot be treated inhumanely by federal and international law.

I don't support Obama's putting children in cages.

The Obama administration faced a huge increase in immigration because migratnts expected a more lenient administration to their cases for asylum. That meant way too many people to process at border entries, so they built temporary holding areas, called cages by some, as these folks were processed. These were only meant as temorary, a few hours.

As we know the Trump administration left people in these cages for multile days, with no bathroom facilities, little water and food. And they were given little to keep warm as they slept. This was a gross violation of federal and international law. The Trump administration tried to keep the press away but the press found out. It was yet another huge scandal. Trump blamed the migrants for coming, which isn't a crime. Just another reason why Trump was rejected in 2020.

Obama never had this problem, yet we see conserative media accuse Obama for the cages. Well Obama had a temorary, ethical use, but it was Trump who used them inhumanely.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immi...f96f3c-1532-11eb-82af-864652063d61_story.html

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have heard that socialism, or should be classless society. If so, it can't have a king. But maybe my definition for socialism is outdated.

Why? Societies need leaders. In india, we had many kind of democracies. Elected by people, elected by the oligarchs or hereditary - like you have in United Kingdom, Japan and other countries.

Janapada: region tread by a people.
In Pāṇini's "Ashtadhyayi", Janapada stands for country and Janapadin for its citizenry.
Panini: Sanskrit grammarian (around 400 BCE)

"Two of the Mahājanapadas were most probably gaṇasaṅghas (oligarchic republics) and others had forms of monarchy. Ancient Buddhist texts like the Anguttara Nikaya make frequent reference to sixteen great kingdoms and republics which had developed and flourished in a belt stretching from Gandhara in the northwest to Anga in the eastern part of the Indian subcontinent. They included parts of the trans-Vindhyan region, and all had developed prior to the rise of Buddhism in India.
Mahajanapadas - Wikipedia

By Avantiputra7 - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, File:Mahajanapadas (c. 500 BCE).png - Wikimedia Commons

 

[Kenny]

I disavow extremists regardless of their political affiliation.
Left, right, centrist, don’t really care.

Unfortunately in conversations the other “sides” faults are brought up in response to criticism of a political party’s actions.
Just an observation, not accusing you of doing that. Just to be clear
But I’m sure both of us can agree that extremism is bad all around

Agree totally.

LOL A caveat: what part is extremism? When someone says you are being extremist because you don't recognize my position that I am a cat because I identify myself as a cat.

Is the one who just won't yield to that person's right to be a cat the extremist or is the person who say she is a cat the extremist. Each may have a different perspective and accusing the other as "extremist".

 

[SomeRandom]

Agree totally.

Cool
Then we agree

LOL A caveat: what part is extremism? When someone says you are being extremist because you don't recognize my position that I am a cat because I identify myself as a cat.

Is the one who just won't yield to that person's right to be a cat the extremist or is the person who say she is a cat the extremist. Each may have a different perspective and accusing the other as "extremist".

Indeed for a human to identify as a completely different species might draw in some folks working in mental health, no?
One might call that an extreme position to have, I suppose.
To deny that to the person’s face, I don’t think is extremists per se. But I don’t know what that person’s doctor/s would say about that reaction. It could be that it’s not helpful in the slightest. Maybe it is.
Regardless I tend to side with medical professionals on issues such as that, since I know I’m an idiot.

What does the medical profession say about such phenomenon? Do you know the studies?

And for my own caveat. Do you think it an extreme position to directly oppose the observed outcome into a specific phenomenon, even when multiple scientific fields agree on said outcome?
The shape of the earth for instance? Do you consider someone who thinks of the earth as flat to be an extremist? Even when multiple disciplines of science directly disagrees with that?

 

[1213]

Why? Societies need leaders.
...

I think some people want leaders, but it is not the same as "Societies need leaders". Often leaders only magnify their own errors to everyone, which is why I think every human should have only power over their own life.

But, if we speak about socialism, it can mean nowadays many things. Karl Marx thought it is basically the same as communism, which doesn't have social classes that I think a king would make.
Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal')[1][2] is a far-left[3][4][5] sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology and current within the socialist movement[1] whose goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange—allocating products to everyone in the society.[6][7][8] It also involves the absence of social classes, money,[9] and the state.
Communism - Wikipedia

Because today socialism can mean almost anything, it is actually not very useful word.

 

[Stevicus]

It is lucky that the USA has impoverished countries to our south. Imagine what our food would cost to harvest without migrant labor. Of course republicans complain about migrants living here, they don't mind migrants doing the cheap labor.

What often gets me about how conserbvatives ay the poor should just pull up their bootstraps and make more money. But I notice many of these same conservatives living as middle class people. Damn, why don't they work harder and become millionaires since it's just as easy as that to move up in the economic strata. It's because they can't move up any easier or probable than people in poverty moving up. If millions of middle class people moved u to upper class, then there would be social pressure for the poor to move up due to labor needs. But then, where's the money coming from for the millions of middle class moving up to upper class? There's only so much money out there and the wealthy are not eager to let it go.

The irony is that America was on the rise in the decades following World War 2, with working people moving out of the crowded tenements and Hoovervilles and into relatively nice suburban homes. It wasn't just due to bleeding heart liberalism, but it was also out of practical necessity, since the US leadership needed a content and politically supportive populace to be able to engage in their international militaristic activities. Plus, it was a point of national pride, to prove that the American way of life was superior to that of other parts of the world.

U.S. policy wasn't really socialistic, but more Keynesian - a mix between capitalism and government intervention in markets when necessary. It seems it should have been the best of both worlds, with the working classes getting a steadily improving standard of living, while the capitalists could still enjoy their property, wealth, and luxurious bourgeois lifestyles.

For whatever reason, that just wasn't good enough for the capitalists, and they wanted more - much more. They became more enamored with the policies of Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan, who was a disciple of Ayn Rand. Their idea of national pride was a cheap Japanese knockoff. They are the primary authors of America's current economic maladies.

 

[metis]

But wasn't it the left leaning that destroyed blocks and business in the name of Black Lives Matter et al?

But why do you say "left", whereas rioting like this is not a political statement but a greedy one. BLM didn't and doesn't advocate looting and burning.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Because today socialism can mean almost anything, it is actually not very useful word.

Socialism as I understand is the responsibility of the Government and the rich people to make life easier/bearable for poor people. It is not communism.

 

[F1fan]

The irony is that America was on the rise in the decades following World War 2, with working people moving out of the crowded tenements and Hoovervilles and into relatively nice suburban homes. It wasn't just due to bleeding heart liberalism, but it was also out of practical necessity, since the US leadership needed a content and politically supportive populace to be able to engage in their international militaristic activities. Plus, it was a point of national pride, to prove that the American way of life was superior to that of other parts of the world.

U.S. policy wasn't really socialistic, but more Keynesian - a mix between capitalism and government intervention in markets when necessary. It seems it should have been the best of both worlds, with the working classes getting a steadily improving standard of living, while the capitalists could still enjoy their property, wealth, and luxurious bourgeois lifestyles.

For whatever reason, that just wasn't good enough for the capitalists, and they wanted more - much more. They became more enamored with the policies of Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan, who was a disciple of Ayn Rand. Their idea of national pride was a cheap Japanese knockoff. They are the primary authors of America's current economic maladies.

Right. Back in post war America pretty much everyone was on the same page of making America great, meaning corporations had a fair ethic of paying livable wages. Of course life was not as expensive as it is today. Butcorporartyions have learned that they can exploit the system, government, workers, etc. to make higher profits, and that leads the way into politics and gaining favor on that level. The system has been allowed to become corrupt. This doesn't mean illegal, it is just skewed to the wealthy and the middle class and poor struggle over the table scraps. Looking at the Bush and Trump tax cuts shows us who benefitted the most, and who lost. The Bush tax cuts (along with two wars to pay for) was offset with massive cuts to the budget, namely education. Along with the need to improve facilities on campuses, this started the trend of college costs blowing up, and now we see millions of students burdened with absurd amounts of debt. But corporations and the wealthy got tax cuts. They were supposed to reward new college educated folks with higher wages to offset the higher costs, but as we know trickle down economics has never worked.

The government should subsidize education again, but it lacks the revenue and has had the burden of bailing out corporations, and even some well off individuals with the ppp loans over the pandemic. Biden offering to cut $10,000 off of loans has gotten a lot of criticism, but that assumes that the system that is exploiting students is just and fair.

 

[Kenny]

So screw poor people if they can;t afford insurance. I guess you are opposed to emergency rooms being morally obligated to treat people in medical crisis even if they can't afford it, yes or no?

I subscribe to the position that whoever comes into the emergency room should get treatment even if they can't afford it. It is the good Samaritan way.

One reason there is so much chronic illness among the poor is because they have no access to medical care until it becomes critical, and then it is more severe and more expensive. It would be cheaper to just offer free healthcare as a right. Let the wealthy buy health insurance as a bonus of their wealth. Some estimates that what people save on insurance will be higher than the added tax burden to cover healthcare. So you could have more money in your pocket with a universal healthcare policy. You might hate the politics, but you'd probably love the money more. plus, think of your moral improvement as more of your fellow citizens have access to essential healthcare. Jesus would be proud of you. Trump wouldn't. But which one are you following?

No, Yes, no, yes, no.

NO: I don't believe that there is so much chronic illness because they have no medical care until it become critical. It isn't a one size fits all. We pump our bodies with artificial colors, soda, cigarettes, drugs, processed foods, dyes, over eat, et al and that is why we have chronic illness.

YES: there is free healthcare for children and even help for dentists. There are WIC coupons, help for pregnancies, food stamps - a variety of social helps.

NO: I don't hate politics or love money more.

YES: All hospitals should accept people that are in emergency (They already have to, thought you might have already known)

Getting emergency care

In an emergency, you should get care from the closest hospital that can help you. That hospital will treat you regardless of whether you have insurance. Your insurance company can't charge you more for getting emergency room services at an out-of-network hospital.

Yet they did nothing with Trump in power. They did break federal and international crimes with how they treated migrants. They separated children from the parents and many still have not been reunited because the Trump administration did not keep records. The gop platform is not legitimate when facts are applied to what they did under Trump, and his rhetoric. Remember border agents removing water and food left for migrants under orders? Humane?

Yes, there is always room for improvement...

But was it "migrants" or illegal crossing of the border? I believe we still were and are the biggest immigration country in the world.

By law anyone can enter the USA and apply for asylum. There is a lawful process to manage these applicants, and they get court dayes. Our system i highly abused and flawed, and both parties have not formed a solution. They cannot be treated inhumanely by federal and international law.

Agree. Although applying for asylum is also being abused.

The Obama administration faced a huge increase in immigration because migratnts expected a more lenient administration to their cases for asylum. That meant way too many people to process at border entries, so they built temporary holding areas, called cages by some, as these folks were processed. These were only meant as temorary, a few hours.

I disagree that is was only a few hours. But more importantly we crucify Trump for separating children from parents while on the flip side we say "cages for children without parents" was acceptable for Obama... why is that?

As we know the Trump administration left people in these cages for multile days, with no bathroom facilities, little water and food. And they were given little to keep warm as they slept. This was a gross violation of federal and international law. The Trump administration tried to keep the press away but the press found out. It was yet another huge scandal. Trump blamed the migrants for coming, which isn't a crime. Just another reason why Trump was rejected in 2020.

Actually, no. and again, previous question on the above paragraph.

 

[metis]

But was it "migrants" or illegal crossing of the border? I believe we still were and are the biggest immigration country in the world.

Such as when our European ancestors came here unwanted and took over the vast majority of the New World from Amerindians?

 

[Kenny]

But why do you say "left", whereas rioting like this is not a political statement but a greedy one. BLM didn't and doesn't advocate looting and burning.

I guess it is as much wrong to say "left" as it was to say "right" - and paint a broad brush. My error.

 

[Kenny]

Such as when our European ancestors came here unwanted and took over the vast majority of the New World from Amerindians?

LOL... And what problems did that cause? Can we learn from it?

 

[metis]

LOL... And what problems did that cause? Can we learn from it?

Well, some don't seem to have.

BTW, since I'm a Me'tis, which means I'm part European and part Amerindian, therefore I can stay, and you should go back!

 

[Kenny]

Well, some don't seem to have.

BTW, since I'm a Me'tis, which means I'm part European and part Amerindian, therefore I can stay, and you should go back!

My wife is part indian... (not from India) - I have been accepted into the tribe. (ok... so she is part S. American indian - but they are hooked together )

 

[metis]

My wife is part indian... (not from India) - I have been accepted into the tribe. (ok... so she is part S. American indian - but they are hooked together )

OK, then we should just deport you and keep her!

 

[Muffled]

is religion a socialist type organization and if so, why would a religious person be against socialism but utilizing social programs; such as....police, fire, military and education programs?

I believe Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is His.