Nice article on socialism

[findingZzero]

BS

Well I guess you got me there...lol..

 

[jamil]

Now, Jamil, you knew this was coming..lol..Unless this is a chess match and you're leading into a 'check-mate.'

Capitalism w/o socialist based restraints (child labor laws, union won contracts, etc.) gave 'evil' people a mechanism to exploit the vulnerable as well.
I'm going to the dog park now, brrrrrr...

You act like those solutions that for that problem are the only solutions. Unions? I'm in favor of people forming associations to have greater bargaining power than an individual would have alone. Did we need to enable a new powerful mechanism that attracts those who like to weild power for their own gain? Child labor laws? Do we really need an exceptionally big buearocracy to prevent people from exploiting children? Why not just pass a law that makes child exploitation illegal? And then prosecute people who break that law. No big government agency reqired. Just call the cops.

 

[Alpo]

Why don't we make a law the prevents criminals from possessing firearms Jamil? Laws work so well, don'tcha know.

 

[Alpo]

ps. The cops are a socialist program. (Castle Rock v Gonzales)

 

[MisterChester]

You act like those solutions that for that problem are the only solutions. Unions? I'm in favor of people forming associations to have greater bargaining power than an individual would have alone. Did we need to enable a new powerful mechanism that attracts those who like to weild power for their own gain? Child labor laws? Do we really need an exceptionally big buearocracy to prevent people from exploiting children? Why not just pass a law that makes child exploitation illegal? And then prosecute people who break that law. No big government agency reqired. Just call the cops.

To add to what you're saying, Unions are nothing more than a group of people who are capitalizing their work in a capitalist society. I don't understand all the hate for unions since they are just as capitalistic as the people they work for. All the laws against unions, like so called "right to work" are not just a symptom of big government, but are also messing with the free market.

 

[2A_Tom]

Well I guess you got me there...lol..

Every time I hear the statement that Christians killed so many people my mind goes right to the most recent wholesale killings by the catholic church, the infamous crusades.

Or the Reconquista.

Here is a site that if you have any intellectual curiosity at all you will at least scan it to realize that what you believe was an atrocity was actually a counter attack against the atrocities committed against Christians and catholics by their conquerors. BTW I am not catholic and will not defend their positions on the Bible, but If you physically attack them because of their beliefs I will step in to help them.

Islam and Europe Timeline (355-1291 A.D.)

Here are just two cites from the site.

724: Under the command of Ambissa, Emir of Andalusia, Muslim forces raid southern France and capture the cities of Carcassone and Nimes. Primary targets in these and other raids are churches and monasteries where the Muslims take away holy objects and enslave or kill all the clerics.

737: Charles Martel sends his brother, Childebrand, to lay siege to Avignon and drive out the Muslim occupiers. Childebrand is successful and, according to records, has all the Muslims in the city killed.

What a sight that must have been.

 

[findingZzero]

Every time I hear the statement that Christians killed so many people my mind goes right to the most recent wholesale killings by the catholic church, the infamous crusades.

Or the Reconquista.

Here is a site that if you have any intellectual curiosity at all you will at least scan it to realize that what you believe was an atrocity was actually a counter attack against the atrocities committed against Christians and catholics by their conquerors. BTW I am not catholic and will not defend their positions on the Bible, but If you physically attack them because of their beliefs I will step in to help them.

Islam and Europe Timeline (355-1291 A.D.)

Here are just two cites from the site.

724: Under the command of Ambissa, Emir of Andalusia, Muslim forces raid southern France and capture the cities of Carcassone and Nimes. Primary targets in these and other raids are churches and monasteries where the Muslims take away holy objects and enslave or kill all the clerics.

737: Charles Martel sends his brother, Childebrand, to lay siege to Avignon and drive out the Muslim occupiers. Childebrand is successful and, according to records, has all the Muslims in the city killed.

What a sight that must have been.

A much better answer than "B.S."
You miss my point though. I don't mean to attack GOD or Christianity, just folks with 'evil' intentions.

 

[2A_Tom]

A much better answer than "B.S."
You miss my point though. I don't mean to attack GOD or Christianity, just folks with 'evil' intentions.

When you say that Christians killed, you are attacking Christianity. Just like the Donald attacked CF's Looks and said it was her persona he was attacking. In the instance of the crusades to say that Christians, catholics, soldiers or leaders were guilty of murder, when they were fighting a conquering army for re acquisition of land and liberty is totally wrong. (I add this line because some one will say it, There were mistakes made, specifically faulty intelligence about Jews in particular, this need not be said to thinkers but...) It is intellectually dishonest to say otherwise. It is the same as when a liberal or Westboro Baptist attacks a soldier.

It is difficult to know what to say to someone who does not realize that the progressive revisionist history is BS, besides BS.

BTW this is the last I have to say in this thread about Christianity. I apologize to all for this short thread jack. It just ticks me off that anyone would compare Christianity to socialist/communist atrocities.

 

[jamil]

ps. The cops are a socialist program. (Castle Rock v Gonzales)

I am not a purist. I'm not an anarchist. We need some governemnt but I think the government should be powerful enough to protect citizens rights and weak enough not to infringe upon them itself. But as I said earlier, I am practical enough to understand it can never be how I want it. Other people get a vote too. And I can advocate for much less socialism than we have rather than creating more socialism.

To add to what you're saying, Unions are nothing more than a group of people who are capitalizing their work in a capitalist society. I don't understand all the hate for unions since they are just as capitalistic as the people they work for. All the laws against unions, like so called "right to work" are not just a symptom of big government, but are also messing with the free market.

WTF? I'm okay with employees forming associations for better bargaining power. Today's unions go so far beyond that I am okay with government telling them they can't force everyone to join their unions.

 

[2A_Tom]

WTF? I'm okay with employees forming associations for better bargaining power. Today's unions go so far beyond that I am okay with government telling them they can't force everyone to join their unions.

Whoever made the statement that right to work laws are socialism is off by a long shot. to say that you must be a member of a modern Socialist Unions inorder to work is absolute socialism, like Illinois.

 

[oldpink]

Anyone who honestly believes unions, which are forced monopoly of a workforce within an industry, is capitalism, has no clue what capitalism even is.

 

[Smokepole]

Tis a testament to how effective the Progressive misinformation campaign of the last 70 or so years (accelerated in the last 35) has been.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Every time I hear the statement that Christians killed so many people my mind goes right to the most recent wholesale killings by the catholic church, the infamous crusades.

Or the Reconquista.

Here is a site that if you have any intellectual curiosity at all you will at least scan it to realize that what you believe was an atrocity was actually a counter attack against the atrocities committed against Christians and catholics by their conquerors. BTW I am not catholic and will not defend their positions on the Bible, but If you physically attack them because of their beliefs I will step in to help them.

Islam and Europe Timeline (355-1291 A.D.)

Here are just two cites from the site.

724: Under the command of Ambissa, Emir of Andalusia, Muslim forces raid southern France and capture the cities of Carcassone and Nimes. Primary targets in these and other raids are churches and monasteries where the Muslims take away holy objects and enslave or kill all the clerics.

737: Charles Martel sends his brother, Childebrand, to lay siege to Avignon and drive out the Muslim occupiers. Childebrand is successful and, according to records, has all the Muslims in the city killed.

What a sight that must have been.

Not sure if srs, or don't own a globe and pays little attention to what happens in the rest of the world.

 

[bulletsmith]

I am not a purist. I'm not an anarchist. We need some governemnt but I think the government should be powerful enough to protect citizens rights and weak enough not to infringe upon them itself. But as I said earlier, I am practical enough to understand it can never be how I want it. Other people get a vote too. And I can advocate for much less socialism than we have rather than creating more socialism.



WTF? I'm okay with employees forming associations for better bargaining power. Today's unions go so far beyond that I am okay with government telling them they can't force everyone to join their unions.

"Right to work" laws in Indiana go far beyond telling them they can't force everyone to join their unions. Combined with existing laws, "right to work" has created an scenario where a union must represent an employee who has chosen to not participate in the union. If a person chooses to not join a union it's his right and choice, but don't create a situation where the union must provide protection without compensation. Human nature is going to dictate that people will try to get as much as they can for as little as possible. Nice tactic to gut the organization from the inside.

 

[oldpink]

"Right to work" laws in Indiana go far beyond telling them they can't force everyone to join their unions. Combined with existing laws, "right to work" has created an scenario where a union must represent an employee who has chosen to not participate in the union. If a person chooses to not join a union it's his right and choice, but don't create a situation where the union must provide protection without compensation. Human nature is going to dictate that people will try to get as much as they can for as little as possible. Nice tactic to gut the organization from the inside.

And you see nothing wrong with compulsory membership in an organization as a condition of gaining employment, even when said organization uses your dues to propagate a political agenda to which you are diametrically opposed?

 

[2A_Tom]

Not sure if srs, or don't own a globe and pays little attention to what happens in the rest of the world.

?

 

[bulletsmith]

And you see nothing wrong with compulsory membership in an organization as a condition of gaining employment, even when said organization uses your dues to propagate a political agenda to which you are diametrically opposed?

I would be against that. If it actually existed. But the Taft Hartly act of 1947 eliminated the "closed shop" relationship in America. Again, Right to Work laws have little to nothing to do with a person's ability to work.

As far as unions and capitalism goes; Is skilled labor not a commodity? If it is, do the possessors of that commodity have the right to charge what the market will pay for it?

 

[oldpink]

I would be against that. If it actually existed. But the Taft Hartly act of 1947 eliminated the "closed shop" relationship in America. Again, Right to Work laws have little to nothing to do with a person's ability to work.

As far as unions and capitalism goes; Is skilled labor not a commodity? If it is, do the possessors of that commodity have the right to charge what the market will pay for it?

You can go on about the Taft-Hartley act all you want, but anyone who knows anything about how unions operate knows that the odds of getting the portion of your dues used to advance Democrats or the anti-gun agenda are just about impossible to overcome.
And I haven't even gotten to the part where the union bosses, always so well known for their civility and unwillingness to use violence against anyone who challenges them, will "persuade" you not to make waves.

 

[bulletsmith]

You can go on about the Taft-Hartley act all you want, but anyone who knows anything about how unions operate knows that the odds of getting the portion of your dues used to advance Democrats or the anti-gun agenda are just about impossible to overcome.
And I haven't even gotten to the part where the union bosses, always so well known for their civility and unwillingness to use violence against anyone who challenges them, will "persuade" you not to make waves.

No offense, but that sounds a lot like something out of the handbook. Or you have some very specific experience with the union bosses.

I'm afraid we have crossed the hijack line on this thread. Sorry.

 

[MisterChester]

I am not a purist. I'm not an anarchist. We need some governemnt but I think the government should be powerful enough to protect citizens rights and weak enough not to infringe upon them itself. But as I said earlier, I am practical enough to understand it can never be how I want it. Other people get a vote too. And I can advocate for much less socialism than we have rather than creating more socialism.



WTF? I'm okay with employees forming associations for better bargaining power. Today's unions go so far beyond that I am okay with government telling them they can't force everyone to join their unions.

I think the free market would weed these kinds of unions out. Government intervention doesn't sound necessary here.