[besson3c]

There is nothing godly about capitalism. The most ideal form of government imaginable is a benevolent dictatorship, but the only truly benevolent dictator worthy of this responsibility is God/Jesus themselves - such leadership doesn't exist otherwise. However, such a leadership is also closer to socialism than it is to capitalism. God is all about helping out your fellow man, right?

[besson3c]

I'm thinking of starting a thread called "besson3c beclowns himself", but I'm not really sure whether I know what beclowing is, and how it differs from my usual behavior?

[hyteckit]

The church is a socialist establishment, where people donate money to it and the establishment redistributes the money and it sees fit.

[Chongo]

It's done by choice, and not by the force of law. If you don't like what is being done with the money, you can stop donating.

[hyteckit]

Doesn't matter if the money or capital invested into the church is optional or required. The Church is still a socialist establishment.

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Doesn't matter if the money or capital invested into the church is optional or required. The Church is still a socialist establishment.

You don't understand free will at all do you?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

You don't understand free will at all do you?

Yes, I understand free will.

You don't understand socialism do you?

[besson3c]

It's not governed like a socialist government, but the establishment (i.e. design) of how that money works is socialist. I wonder whether this argument is really all that relevant though... It seems mostly academic, and an attempt to perpetuate the idea of socialism as a wedge issue.

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Yes, I understand free will.

You don't understand socialism do you?

That is the problem with you. You are trying to argue a point that isn't there. It might be a socialist institution, but I have no obligation to participate. With the Government, I have no FREE WILL.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

That is the problem with you. You are trying to argue a point that isn't there. It might be a socialist institution, but I have no obligation to participate. With the Government, I have no FREE WILL.

Okay, so you admit the church is a socialist organization. That was my point. Thank you very much.

The argument was whether Jesus Christ was a socialist and whether the Church was a socialist organization.

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Okay, so you admit the church is a socialist organization. That was my point. Thank you very much.

The argument was whether Jesus Christ was a socialist and whether the Church was a socialist organization.

No, you are assuming it is because money gets spread around when people participate. One can choose to give their money to an organization because they know where the money is being spent and how. If they disagree, they are allowed to stop giving their money, and if enough people choose to do so, the organization, church or not, goes away.

That doesn't work with the government. You are forced to give them YOUR money, with no thought or insight as to where it will be spent. You are told that this is for the good of all, whether or not you agree that it is a worthy cause, or does what it is intended to do.

You are trying to relate two things that have no relation to each other.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Jesus Christ was against building up of the establishment? Really?

Jesus Christ is the reason for the organized establishment called Christianity.

Organize religion and individuality don't mix. You follow the doctrines of the religion.

Christianity is largely a misinterpretation of Jesus' teachings, the establishment of a power structure based on his principles is misguided. Jesus never advocated organized faith, he sought to destroy the temple and relocate it within the hearts and souls of mankind.

Obviously, Paul was wrong about many things.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

No, you are assuming it is because money gets spread around when people participate. One can choose to give their money to an organization because they know where the money is being spent and how. If they disagree, they are allowed to stop giving their money, and if enough people choose to do so, the organization, church or not, goes away.

That doesn't work with the government. You are forced to give them YOUR money, with no thought or insight as to where it will be spent. You are told that this is for the good of all, whether or not you agree that it is a worthy cause, or does what it is intended to do.

You are trying to relate two things that have no relation to each other.

See. That is the problem with you. You are trying to argue a point that isn't there.

We are not arguing whether socialism works for the government.



Macrobat made a political joke about the difference between Obama and Jesus Christ.

I made a political joke about the difference between Obama and Jesus Christ. The difference is that Jesus Christ was a socialist.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Christianity is largely a misinterpretation of Jesus' teachings, the establishment of a power structure based on his principles is misguided. Jesus never advocated organized faith, he sought to destroy the temple and relocate it within the hearts and souls of mankind.

Obviously, Paul was wrong about many things.

So the Church and the organize religion of Christianity is making a mockery and a farce about Jesus Christ's teachings.

Good for Jesus Christ. Shame on Christianity.

[Shaddim]

Jesus never supported any form of government. He instructed his followers to obey the law (and pay the taxes they owed), but that was the extent of his political involvement.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

So the Church and the organize religion of Christianity is making a mockery and a farce about Jesus Christ's teachings.

Good for Jesus Christ. Shame on Christianity.

Mockery? No. It's simply misguided. Largely their works are good, but Jesus never sought to establish a centralized source of religious authority.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Where is Obama's Couric interview?

Yes, I agree. Where is the interview with Obama where he's given loaded questions and quizzed on stuff like "The Bush Doctrine"? I don't remember it when he first hit the campaign trail and I don't remember it any time after. Could you point me in the direction of such an interview, because that's pretty much all Palin got.

The hardest interview I saw him do was with O'Reilly during the Republican convention when he knew it would get the least play. That's the one where O'Reilly got him to admit that he was wrong about the surge and McCain was right and Obama really didn't sound all that sure about any of his answers.

What I see now is a lot of teleprompter and apparently pre-selecting reporters to ask questions, quite possibly because either they know the types of questions the specific reporter will ask, or they don't expect any curveballs from them. Not all that impressive really. All hype and no substance.

Whenever I've seen Obama not have prepared material, I see a guy struggling for answers or saying some pretty dimwitted things. The Tonight Show debacle is pretty much indicative of that. Bush wasn't the best communicator in the world, but Obama isn't doing much to make him look really bad which shouldn't be that hard of a task.

[ort888]

Don't you ever get tired of this stuff?

Do you even post anywhere besides the PWL on MacNN?

Who are you trying to convince? Because I'm pretty sure all of your tirades are falling on deaf ears. It seems like a colossal waste of time and energy.

[hyteckit]

Yet Obama kicks McCain's ass during the presidential debates.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Yet Obama kicks McCain's ass during the presidential debates.

Your opinion is noted. I thought it was pretty even, and even at that Obama (and McCain actually) pretty much just relied on the stump speeches they'd given for a thousand years. Neither of them just started making sh!t up like Biden did though, so everyone else gets bonus points for that I suppose.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Don't you ever get tired of this stuff?

Do you even post anywhere besides the PWL on MacNN?

Who are you trying to convince? Because I'm pretty sure all of your tirades are falling on deaf ears. It seems like a colossal waste of time and energy.

So you say, Mr. Pot.

You can lead a horse to water......

[ort888]

I just come in here because you amuse me. I belong to this board because I'm a Mac enthusiast. Why are you here?

I've never seen you post outside of the PWL. Ever.

Why did you pick the MacNN PWL lounge of all places to unload your tirades against the grand liberal conspiracy? What an odd choice.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I just come in here because you amuse me. I belong to this board because I'm a Mac enthusiast. Why are you here?

I've never seen you post outside of the PWL. Ever.

I read a lot of the other threads but don't reply. I like to debate. There's really not much more to it than that.

Why did you pick the MacNN PWL lounge of all places to unload your tirades against the grand liberal conspiracy? What an odd choice.

Why worry about my choice of forum? If you don't like my posts, skip them when you see my user name. It's pretty simple really.

[ort888]

No. I love your posts. You are the only reason I visit the war lounge.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm thinking of starting a thread called "besson3c beclowns himself", but I'm not really sure whether I know what beclowing is, and how it differs from my usual behavior?

It's a military expression meaning to make yourself look like you don't know what the hell you're doing.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

The church is a socialist establishment, where people donate money to it and the establishment redistributes the money and it sees fit.

The church and Christianity are NOT Christ himself, they are creations of humans, so your entire line of "reasoning" is flawed.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Okay, so you admit the church is a socialist organization. That was my point. Thank you very much.

The argument was whether Jesus Christ was a socialist and whether the Church was a socialist organization.

This is your habit, you cannot argue the point, so you attempt to change it. There was no argument that the church was socialist. As you have been told, a socialist society TAKES involuntarily, then redistributes. The church is capitalist. It offers its services for DONATED wealth then spends it on projects it deems worthy.

All of that had NOTHING to do with whether Christ - HIMSELF - was a socialist, which was your ridiculous assertion. You lost that one in the first counterpost, so morphed your "argument."

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Yes, I agree. Where is the interview with Obama where he's given loaded questions and quizzed on stuff like "The Bush Doctrine"? I don't remember it when he first hit the campaign trail and I don't remember it any time after. Could you point me in the direction of such an interview, because that's pretty much all Palin got.

The hardest interview I saw him do was with O'Reilly during the Republican convention when he knew it would get the least play. That's the one where O'Reilly got him to admit that he was wrong about the surge and McCain was right and Obama really didn't sound all that sure about any of his answers.

What I see now is a lot of teleprompter and apparently pre-selecting reporters to ask questions, quite possibly because either they know the types of questions the specific reporter will ask, or they don't expect any curveballs from them. Not all that impressive really. All hype and no substance.

Whenever I've seen Obama not have prepared material, I see a guy struggling for answers or saying some pretty dimwitted things. The Tonight Show debacle is pretty much indicative of that. Bush wasn't the best communicator in the world, but Obama isn't doing much to make him look really bad which shouldn't be that hard of a task.

Simple enough, whenever Obama actually GETS a tough question, he either gets snippy or refuses to answer.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

The difference is that Jesus Christ was a socialist.

Jesus Christ was nothing of the sort. A socialist will advocate you pay whatever you can into a system that will disseminate it however they wish while evading the tax themselves. Jesus gave of himself first. Jesus asked that you give to the poor and care for the least of these, joyfully. He did not say I'm going to take from you this much and give it unto a system that will provide just enough to the poor to perpetuate their misery in bolstering an ever-increasing dependancy class. That's why the tax collector who walked with Jesus stopped collecting taxes.

This is also why Christians and Conservatives tend to donate much more to charity than their godless leftist counterpart who believes giving is the government's job.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Jesus Christ was nothing of the sort. A socialist will advocate you pay whatever you can into a system that will disseminate it however they wish while evading the tax themselves. Jesus gave of himself first. Jesus asked that you give to the poor and care for the least of these, joyfully. He did not say I'm going to take from you this much and give it unto a system that will provide just enough to the poor to perpetuate their misery in bolstering an ever-increasing dependancy class. That's why the tax collector who walked with Jesus stopped collecting taxes.

This is also why Christians and Conservatives tend to donate much more to charity than their godless leftist counterpart who believes giving is the government's job.

My bad.

Jesus is not a socialist.

Jesus is a communist.

[besson3c]

I didn't know there was a tax collector in the bible, I guess I missed that chapter. What was his name?

Does this explain the whole tax cut fetish?

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I didn't know there was a tax collector in the bible, I guess I missed that chapter. What was his name?

Does this explain the whole tax cut fetish?

His name was Matthew, he became a disciple. Has a whole book named after hm in the New Testament. Truly an obscure reference, huh?

And no, actually stimulating the economy instead of government is what the tax cut "fetish" is about.

In different news, hope none of you has any copyrighted materials you haven't paid for:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHzKxtwuGzo

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

His name was Matthew, he became a disciple. Has a whole book named after hm in the New Testament. Truly an obscure reference, huh?

And no, actually stimulating the economy instead of government is what the tax cut "fetish" is about.

In different news, hope none of you has any copyrighted materials you haven't paid for:

YouTube - Obama passing new law to allow searching of PC's, Laptops, and media devices

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) supports the agreement, and has given input and suggestions to the creation of ACTA

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

His name was Matthew, he became a disciple. Has a whole book named after hm in the New Testament. Truly an obscure reference, huh?

He might have been thinking about Zacchaeus.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There is nothing godly about capitalism.

The concept of working hard to earn a decent living for yourself and your family isn't capitalist? The idea that someone who works hard deserves more than someone that is lazy is very prevalent in the Bible. I thought that was the very basis of capitalism.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

He might have been thinking about Zacchaeus.

There's more than one tax collector in the Bible?!?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

The concept of working hard to earn a decent living for yourself and your family isn't capitalist? The idea that someone who works hard deserves more than someone that is lazy is very prevalent in the Bible. I thought that was the very basis of capitalism.

I think you've done a great job of exposing a kind of absurd, but popular notion of those too dug into an ideology; unable to discern between reasoned dissent and self-indulgence.

Next up... little puppy dogs are evil.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

The concept of working hard to earn a decent living for yourself and your family isn't capitalist? The idea that someone who works hard deserves more than someone that is lazy is very prevalent in the Bible. I thought that was the very basis of capitalism.

That is one skewed, incomplete way of looking at modern capitalism that is only true part of the time.

Capitalism doesn't always award those who work the hardest. In many cases it simply picks winners and losers. For example, why do hard working artists often make less than hard working lawyers and bankers, for instance? Either society places more value in these things, it is easier to monetize these trades, or both. In this case winners are chosen. You don't become a sculptor, for instance, to make money, but there are likely countless lazy, bad lawyers that do better for themselves.

In some cases, capitalism works when others fail and are ignored. Honesty is not strictly required.

I don't mean to pick on lawyers, nor do I mean to quantify how often this occurs or even assess whether it is "right". I'm just saying that there are aspects of capitalism that are very ungodly. That's not a slight towards capitalism necessarily though, as I'm not saying that there would not be ungodly aspects to any other form of government. Like I said, we have not figured out how to create ungodly governments yet.

In the same breath, it is silly to think of capitalism as some moral ideal like some do. It is simply the best of the poor options we have. Wasn't this the basis of some famous American presidential quote?

[Chongo]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

or

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

[besson3c]

It's Winstin Churchill... something about it's the least ___ out of all of the options that have been tried. Sorry, I know that Churchill was not American

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That is one skewed, incomplete way of looking at modern capitalism that is only true part of the time.

Is there an economic structure that fits the concept of "work hard and earn a good living for yourself" better?

[besson3c]

Laminar: is that question supposed to be related to the point I'm trying to make?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That is one skewed, incomplete way of looking at modern capitalism that is only true part of the time.

Yet is possible for anyone, any time. There are simply too many examples for it to be ignored.

Capitalism doesn't always award those who work the hardest.

Working the hardest does not necessarily mean throwing your jewels to swines. Anyone can commit themselves to serving ungrateful people. Don't think for a minute that people in most cases haven't chosen what they thought was most comfortable at the time. IMO, it's easy that society would reward those with the courage to rely on an unquestionable work ethic in seeking out the best opportunities for themselves. This includes difficult choices that stretch you and make you work harder at times than you thought you could. A breakthrough here is a breakthrough into the type of ideal we're talking about.

In many cases it simply picks winners and losers.

Nature picks winners and losers. Governance in conflict with nature creates nothing, but "hard workers" with neither winners nor losers IMO. Indicting "capitalism" for human nature assumes you can define greed so one-dimensionally.

For example, why do hard working artists often make less than hard working lawyers and bankers, for instance?

I think you're asking the wrong question. Don't they need one another more as they become more successful? A poor lawyer trying to build a practice from scratch is not inclined to drop $750.00 on a Homer Simpson made of paper clips just as that artist will likely never need a lawyer, except to get out of that traffic violation, or defend his pound of weed.

Either society places more value in these things, it is easier to monetize these trades, or both. In this case winners are chosen. You don't become a sculptor, for instance, to make money, but there are likely countless lazy, bad lawyers that do better for themselves.

I think there's a lot of crappy artists and shoddy lawyers because there's too many of them in general. At some point, society will in fact determine their value, but why is "better for themselves" always defined in terms of dollars? Some bad lawyers do well for themselves and some crappy artists do well for themselves, both with equal propensity to be miserable or happy. Society will reward them on their own merit and/or their ability to convince you of their merit.

In some cases, capitalism works when others fail and are ignored. Honesty is not strictly required.

It is up to you whether or not this dishonesty has power over you. What is the antithesis of capitalism and what of it makes you feel that these traits of human nature don't exist? I think what you find distasteful is that capitalism can thrive regardless of the fact that people are failing and are ignored, but what is failure in this capitalist society? If it is only in terms of dollars as they equate to material wealth, the average person living in poverty has two vehicles, at least one gaming system, cable or satellite television, a roof over their head (unless they're mentally ill) with more sq footage than an average European, refrigerator, microwave, air conditioning, and health care. Artists or otherwise.

I don't mean to pick on lawyers, nor do I mean to quantify how often this occurs or even assess whether it is "right". I'm just saying that there are aspects of capitalism that are very ungodly. That's not a slight towards capitalism necessarily though, as I'm not saying that there would not be ungodly aspects to any other form of government. Like I said, we have not figured out how to create ungodly governments yet.

In the same breath, it is silly to think of capitalism as some moral ideal like some do. It is simply the best of the poor options we have. Wasn't this the basis of some famous American presidential quote?

I see what you're saying with all this and you're likely frustrated that I asked you how any other ideal is better, but see it's not enough to pop in and say that capitalism is ungodly. Human nature is ungodly. This would be something akin to me saying "government aid is ungodly". This means nothing unless there's something I see now that I'd like to see less of without offering an alternative.

In short, the sentiment you're expressing has been used to demonize an ideal in order to replace it with something else without any evidence to suggest that model is more effective. If this is not your general mindset, disregard.

[Chongo]

South Park strikes again.

[besson3c]

ebuddy: I'm not offering an alternative because I don't know of one. Given that capitalism and its alternatives have ungodly sides, why tie any form of government to God? That's my point... None are godly, so there is no point in talking about them this way.

[Chongo]

More beclownment
YouTube - Has Barack Obama become George Bush???

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ebuddy: I'm not offering an alternative because I don't know of one. Given that capitalism and its alternatives have ungodly sides, why tie any form of government to God? That's my point... None are godly, so there is no point in talking about them this way.

You had gone into enough detail regarding the drawbacks to capitalism that I thought it worth addressing. Your point is noted.

[besson3c]

Monday March 30, 2009:

Dear diary, that crazy besson3c made a good point today, so I thought i would note it here. What an awesome guy that besson3c! He's always right about stuff, and is a great guy whom I deeply admire. I cherish my time spent with besson3c on MacNN.

Well, I'm signing off for today diary... Until tomorrow,

- ebuddy

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Monday March 30, 2009:

Dear diary, that crazy besson3c made a point today. It wasn't a particularly strong one, but it was a point none the less so I thought i would note it here.

- ebuddy

I mean... in the interest of accuracy.

[turtle777]

Monday March 30, 2009:

Dear diary, I pooped on my kitchen floor today. Again. It was fun. Then I asked in some random-ass thread if someone had sex with some random-ass subject. All in all, it was a successful day.

- besson3c

[besson3c]

I like my version better.

I'm not feeling very much love here right now. I think turtle hates me.