Socialist Netflix propaganda at it's 'Best'.

[metis]

Yes, capitalism without love is not correct. Thus, capitalists should have philanthropic efforts. But socialism doesn't really accomplish that love.

Take Bernie Sanders, for an example, as the reason why it doesn't work:

"Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker gave more than 2 percent of their total incomes, according to their returns."

How Much Money Democratic 2020 Candidates Gave to Charity in 2018

Hypocrisy defined by Merriam-Webster :

: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel

So, here we have a socialists claiming to want to help the need and give more opportunity to those with less and gives between 2% to 3% of his income.

If you look at those who have much, preaching how unfair things are and how the masses need more help, will always follow the position of not giving towards what they believe. In the end, they will still have (as the leaders) and everyone else will still be in the "have not" category.

Cases: "Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea". Countries that begin to go to capitalism always improve the overall status of its citizens.

The reason why this surfaces, is because they preach that they want to help the needy and the needy do need help but the hypocrisy of what they are preaching is that they really don't live or do what they say and thus, when in power, the needy remain needy.

On the other extreme, capitalism without love, can also give the same results. The rich who have no skin in helping the poor. We see corporations that have done just that.

IMV, it is capitalism without love that gives place for the thought of socialism/communism. But both are extremes. Thus Jesus wanted the rich to help the poor (and not ROB, RANSACK AND FORCIBLY TAKE FROM THE RICH AND GIVE IT TO THE POOR).

the Apostle Paul understood this:

1 Tim 6:17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; 18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; 19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

Notice, it says for those who have the capacity to create wealth to have love and give. But he didn't say "forcibly take away".

Two points, with one of them being that what candidates may or may not spend on charity is their business, not mine. The issue of "socialism" is really a separate issue altogether because we're dealing with a countries economic system.

Secondly, the best combination overall has pretty well been established, and that is "mixed economies", which are a blend of both socialistic and capitalistic programs. Because they are a mix, different countries have worked on different combinations that hopefully worked for them as a "one-size-fits-all" approach rarely works out well.

Here in the States, we have numerous socialistic programs that we basically accept almost without question, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the United States Armed Services (ya, think about that for a second ), etc. Obviously, most of our economics is tied up in private investments (roughly 5/6) but with usually significant regulations.

So, my point was that we just cannot accurately bad-mouth nor applaud any one system as pretty much all countries today have mixed economies.

However, I can bad mouth you.

Take care, my friend.

 

[metis]

Notice, it says for those who have the capacity to create wealth to have love and give. But he didn't say "forcibly take away".

Jesus said "render unto Caesar...", one interpretation of which can be "just pay your taxes as there are greater concerns you should have".

Also, under Jewish Law, one did pay taxes, and they were mandated as such, and there's no indication that I can read or even hypothesize why Jesus would somehow be opposed to that. The Parable of the Widow's Mite indicates that he accepted that Law and felt that it's better for us to actually go beyond basic tithing.

However, before you give all your wealth away to our government, just a reminder that the tithing two centuries ago paid for much of what we pay in secular taxes today, so you can keep some of your immense wealth, OK?

 

[Nakosis]

Opinion | The AOC documentary "Knock Down The House" caught lightning in a bottle

So busy prepping the socialist Democrats media darling , and their goal for a socialist takeover.


Ocasio-Cortez Has Turned Corporate Media Into an Agent of Socialist Change

What a pile of bull****. What's next? A mandatory parade trotting her likness down Red... I mean Times square?

Capitalism, to me, is an ideology of capital. The most important thing is the concentration of capital, and it means that we seek and prioritize profit and the accumulation of money above all else, and we seek it at any human and environmental cost… But when we talk about ideas for example like democratic socialism, it means putting democracy and society first, instead of capital first.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez explained democratic socialism and capitalism at SXSW

Ok, AOC, just keep in mind that you need capital for your social programs to work. No capitalism, no social programs.

 

[sun rise]

That's because it's an accurate assessment.

Your top Contender for example....
https://nypost.com/2016/01/16/dont-be-fooled-by-bernie-sanders-hes-a-diehard-communist/

He's not MY top contender. I don't have one yet.

And as Will Rogers said in the 1930's: "I Am Not A Member Of Any Organized Political Party -- I'm A Democrat"

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, capitalism without love is not correct. Thus, capitalists should have philanthropic efforts. But socialism doesn't really accomplish that love.

Take Bernie Sanders, for an example, as the reason why it doesn't work:

"Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker gave more than 2 percent of their total incomes, according to their returns."

How Much Money Democratic 2020 Candidates Gave to Charity in 2018

Hypocrisy defined by Merriam-Webster :

: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel

So, here we have a socialists claiming to want to help the need and give more opportunity to those with less and gives between 2% to 3% of his income.

If you look at those who have much, preaching how unfair things are and how the masses need more help, will always follow the position of not giving towards what they believe. In the end, they will still have (as the leaders) and everyone else will still be in the "have not" category.

Cases: "Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea". Countries that begin to go to capitalism always improve the overall status of its citizens.

The reason why this surfaces, is because they preach that they want to help the needy and the needy do need help but the hypocrisy of what they are preaching is that they really don't live or do what they say and thus, when in power, the needy remain needy.

On the other extreme, capitalism without love, can also give the same results. The rich who have no skin in helping the poor. We see corporations that have done just that.

IMV, it is capitalism without love that gives place for the thought of socialism/communism. But both are extremes. Thus Jesus wanted the rich to help the poor (and not ROB, RANSACK AND FORCIBLY TAKE FROM THE RICH AND GIVE IT TO THE POOR).

the Apostle Paul understood this:

1 Tim 6:17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; 18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; 19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

Notice, it says for those who have the capacity to create wealth to have love and give. But he didn't say "forcibly take away".

I kind of like this. Not that I believe there is a God to depend on but, lets by all means encourage the rich to be philanthropists, not demonize them for their ability to make money.

Better to encourage goodwill among all humans, even the rich.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Now Netflix is socialistic?

 

[Kenny]

Two points, with one of them being that what candidates may or may not spend on charity is their business, not mine. The issue of "socialism" is really a separate issue altogether because we're dealing with a countries economic system.

I don't agree, I believe they are intertwined... hear me out.

I'm a pastor... so let's say from the pulpit I am promoting helping the hungry and our obligation not to forget those who are hungry but no where in my personal finances do I even acknowledge the hungry... do I really mean it? Is it hypocritical?

As they say, show me your checkbook and I will show you where your heart is at.

So, if Bernie Sanders is "I'M ALL IN FOR SHARING" and he doesn't do it now... do you think he will do it in the country's economic system? I trow not!

Secondly, the best combination overall has pretty well been established, and that is "mixed economies", which are a blend of both socialistic and capitalistic programs. Because they are a mix, different countries have worked on different combinations that hopefully worked for them as a "one-size-fits-all" approach rarely works out well.

Which we already are.

Here in the States, we have numerous socialistic programs that we basically accept almost without question, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the United States Armed Services (ya, think about that for a second ), etc. Obviously, most of our economics is tied up in private investments (roughly 5/6) but with usually significant regulations.

So, my point was that we just cannot accurately bad-mouth nor applaud any one system as pretty much all countries today have mixed economies.
.

OHHH but I CAN! Just watch me... Strictly socialist and strictly capitalist systems are BAD! But socialism is by far the worse of the two.

Nicaragua is going through it right now and the people, as it is in Venezuela, are being robbed, killed and subjected to socialism.

But look at Social Security for a minute. GREAT idea! SUPPORT the idea! But who controls it? The government! And when they tried to privatize it? The government said "NOW WAY! " How are they doing? It is already spent and the "It will run out in 2025" is purely a paper figure. They have already spent it!


.

However, I can bad mouth you.

Take care, my friend.

My mom has a bar of soap for you!

 

[Twilight Hue]

Didn't I prove to you that the same policies of controlling bags were adopted by conservative counties and states?

All you see are red and blue. Could you be considered an extremist given all this exaggerated rhetoric?

You obviously didn't notice me proving you wrong in the same fell swoop.

You can't exaggerate what's actually going on right now.

 

[suncowiam]

You obviously didn't notice me proving you wrong in the same fell swoop.

You can't exaggerate what's actually going on right now.

You proved me wrong?

Oh god... You somehow proved a list of conservative counties and states that adopted the same ban on bags, to be wrong? Ok, why don't you refresh my memory as to how you proved this list wrong...

 

[Twilight Hue]

You proved me wrong?

Oh god... You somehow proved a list of conservative counties and states that adopted the same ban on bags, to be wrong? Ok, why don't you refresh my memory as to how you proved this list wrong...

Go back to the revelant thread. I'm not doing homework for you.

 

[suncowiam]

Go back to the revelant thread. I'm not doing homework for you.

Because you didn't...

I quoted actual data on the counties and states that adopted the ban on bags. And some of those counties and states were definitely conservative. How then, could you have refuted this data?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Because you didn't...

I quoted actual data on the counties and states that adopted the ban on bags. And some of those counties and states were definitely conservative. How then, could you have refuted this data?

And I pointed out a republican repeal on the same data that you provided in that same thread. Debate it more on that thread. This one is about AOC , the Socialist media darling being propped up by the latest propaganda.

 

[suncowiam]

And I pointed out a republican repeal on the same data that you provided in that same thread. Debate it more on that thread. This one is about AOC , the Socialist media darling being propped up by the latest propaganda.

Republican repeal from areas that consist of a majority of conservatives? That is your proof?

[Edited]

This is tangent to your claims of AOC. You exaggerate your claims on socialism and to show so, I am using our past conversations to prove the point. Mind you, I'm not a socialist. I'm quite the opposite. But your claims do not actually describe a trend in socialism.

 

[metis]

I'm a pastor... so let's say from the pulpit I am promoting helping the hungry and our obligation not to forget those who are hungry but no where in my personal finances do I even acknowledge the hungry... do I really mean it? Is it hypocritical?

That's fine, but I still feel squeamish when it comes to the issue of charity. Taxes is another matter.

OHHH but I CAN! Just watch me... Strictly socialist and strictly capitalist systems are BAD! But socialism is by far the worse of the two.

Various socialistic models were developed and employed by virtually all countries as lassez faire capitalism proved too unstable and utterly brutal and inhumane as it is a form of "Social Darwinism". Do you honestly think Jesus would have approved of that dog-eat-dog approach? The gospels indicate he wouldn't, and charity alone has never proven to be able to handle the needs of those left behind.

Nicaragua is going through it right now and the people, as it is in Venezuela, are being robbed, killed and subjected to socialism.

These are controlled by self-serving tyrants, which is not at all what most forms of socialism are about. Marxism was not built on these previous models as it was a philosophical approach that included many facets designed by Marx and Engels. Engels was so upset with Marx's radicalism that he left him and the two became bitter enemies.

Also, the vast majority of those who have favored socialism wanted a system that was humanitarian and would help all, not dominate and kill innocent people such as with the gulags. "Social Democracy" was and is designed to help all, not just some. But none of them today want a complete government control of the economy, nor do I as I prefer most emphasis to be with the private sector.

But look at Social Security for a minute. GREAT idea! SUPPORT the idea! But who controls it? The government! And when they tried to privatize it? The government said "NOW WAY! " How are they doing? It is already spent and the "It will run out in 2025" is purely a paper figure. They have already spent it!

In a democracy (republican form in our case), we are the government. Social Security is easily salvageable simply by raising some additional revenues-- the money doesn't disappear, and the "multiplier effect" can actually be beneficial to the economy.

And imagine if in 2008-9 most of our Social Security monies were tied up in private stocks & bonds. When our economy took a heavy noser, the DOW was cut more than half, and you and I could have been watching the t.v. news whereas our Social Security was flying off into the sunset. A beautiful view, eh? I don't think so.

Can you imagine what the panic would have been like? And what would people do? Probably pull even more of their money out of the market and maybe even banks to try and safeguard it, right? Imagine the fear as we saw our retirement flittering away along with other savings we had, thus reminiscent of 1929.

We should never completely trust the government, but at least we can control it in a democracy. But what we can't control is an economic system in a "freefall" as we watch the stock market(s), our Social Security, and maybe even our savings collapse in front of our eyes. Remember, it happened before, and almost happened again ten years ago.

 

[Woberts]

No capitalism, no social programs.

Only true in the sense that in a socialist country they wouldn't be considered social programs.
Learn how this works, please.

 

[Nakosis]

Only true in the sense that in a socialist country they wouldn't be considered social programs.
Learn how this works, please.

What socialist country?

 

[Woberts]

What socialist country?

Any socialist country. Social programs are incorporated into socialism. Hence there is no capital needed.

 

[Valjean]

Hardly. It's a clear and direct symptom of a serious threat to this country. Namely socialist Democrats in their attempts to pave the way to a deep state infrastructure.

What sort of threat, and what do you mean by a "deep state infrastructure?"
Things can be run by a power elite (monarchy), by corporations (oligarchy) or by ourselves (democracy/socialism). How is democracy a threat to the country?

Since my extended family come from Venezuela... let me translate this into reality... and remove the words Democrat and Republican..

It isn't sharing and caring, it is robbing an uncaring...

What isn't sharing and caring?
Robbing and uncaring is anti-social; it's the opposite of socialism.

It's corporations that seek to extract as much profit as possible. It's the Republican "trickle up" policies that are eroding the middle class, destroying unions, and producing stagnant wages. The system you seem to endorse is competitive; dog-eat-dog -- with everyone exploiting everyone else. It's an uncaring, sink-or-swim system.
Socialism is family values, with everyone working together for the common good. What's wrong with that?

The whole point of a society is co-operation rather than competition or exploitation. Socialism doesn't rob. On the contrary, it seeks to provide the necessities of life wholesale, to everyone, as a non-profit co-op.

It isn't sharing your Thanksgiving, it is standing in long lines to get whatever is on the government menu and empty shelves.

What are you talking about? Socialism shares and cares.It makes sure everyone has enough. I think you're mistaking socialism with the economic privations of the Soviet totalitarian state.

The majority of Democrats do care as do the majority of Republicans but Socialism is not the answer.

So what is the answer? Monarchy? Tyranny? Oligarchy? Corporatocracy?

 

[Valjean]

Conspiracy theories are for weirdos. Stop believing them.

When did the notion that people conspired become an absurdity?
Conspiracy is just co-operation, it's planning, it's working together towards a mutually beneficial end.
Conspiring is what people do, it's what distinguishes us from the apes.

 

[tytlyf]

Ok, AOC, just keep in mind that you need capital for your social programs to work. No capitalism, no social programs.

Wrong. Capitalism is all about greed at the expense of others. Reduce safety laws and oversight on corporations = enhance profits at the expense of safety for the American people.
Why do you think republicans think climate change is a hoax? Capitalism. Lie, deny the problem exists for profit reasons. Who suffers? The American people.
Hell no don't raise the minimum wage! Capitalist position. Paying American workers a decent wage would hurt profits, it's easier to lobby to make sure laws don't change.

That's the problem with the republican party, the wealthy elite who want to cheat the system as much as possible. For greed reasons.

Not all billionaires support the republican party, I'd still call them capitalists. Just not to the extreme of hurting American people in the process for wealth creation.