- AARP Online Community
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Invest, Diversify, Integrate Your Financial Life
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Reveal Your Travel Secrets Sweepstakes
- Home & Family Forums
- Dogs, Cats and Pets
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Love, Sex & Dating
- Our Front Porch
- Random Thoughts and Conversations
- Singles Perspective Revisited
- Comunidad Hispana de AARP
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Rewards for Good
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Caregiving Forums
- Grief & Loss
- Caregiving Contest
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
Community Current Events
03-21-2017 04:33 PM
 Not in the all encompassing way you infer in a false equivalency, once more. I do think my post was clear on this point and that you deliberately distorted and dissembled in order to contend. Do you want to keep talking or not?
 See...I think 'absolute' freedom is a right and I also think that along with that right comes 'absolute' responsibility that belongs to you or anyone else exercising that right. Now, IF you chase that rabbit to the end of his burrow, you'll find he and 'the golden rule' are exactly the same color.
That 'golden rule' is a shared thing in virtually all major religions. Sort of an ethic standard, if you want to call it that.
Contend all you want. Predatory Capitalism is not a component of the 'golden rule'. Never has been. Never will be. Capitalism in a different form from what we got could work and work well. It just has to adopt a different set of ethics than we see in practice.
We are in agreement as to the golden rule. Where the disagreement arises is whether it is an individual demand or a collective demand.
We are also in agreement regarding predatory capitalism. As I have often posted, I believe that the ideal economic model is a free market approach with it's freedom assured by regulation such as anti-trust laws.
An economic system that applies ethics only to that which contributes to 'their' bottom line has little credibility with me. Marx and Das Kapital don't do the job either. Unmitigated self-interest simply does not work. At some point, altruism must enter into the equation, even though that characteristic is only qualitative and is not quantifiable.
Jesus is closer to being right about the combination of economics and ethics than any of the 'isms'. What he actually said is being perverted with purpose, just as what he actually did NOT say is perverted with purpose. You know precisely what I refer to.
It's been that way since people bothered to listen to what it was he had to say regardless of the context in which he said or didn't say it. Word meaning elsewhere is also perverted for purpose. That practice, by my observation, occurs more in the 'so-called' conservative camp, than in the 'so-called' liberal camp. I won't bother to belabor the specifics of that with you or anyone else. It is what it is. As I said above....you know precisely what I refer to.
03-21-2017 03:51 PM - edited 03-21-2017 03:53 PM
myexper--seems some will do anything to shy away from the fact that we are, as Christians, as Muslims, as Jewish, Hindu, as human beings- responsible for each other. When the theory of individuals helping others was raised, along with a few examples in question form, (eg. have you ever bought groceries for a needy family), questions were ignored, diversions given.
Greed and denial are terrible things, and with each passing year, the Republicans and some of their followers-- seem to become more greedy-(no one with a brain would need examples here) and more Unchristian like (again no examples should be needed for any one of even below normal intelligence.)
You are correct, Paul Ryan is not a Christian. He may be religious, but his religion seems to be one of greed and denial.
03-21-2017 03:49 PM
This conversation reminds me of Animal Farm. Once the animals overthrew the farmer, Jones, I believe, Who represented Stalinism, they created a state of the purest of Marxist beliefs. But then greed got in the way,and the leaders, Who claimed that their intelligence was superior to all others, and; therefore, they were entitled to more while others should have increasingly less became the 1% of today, as all others suffered at their hands.
Rulers of 1% in Orwells novel book were pigs. I think that the top pig even looked and acted like trump, the little one who spun his web of lies could pass for Spicer, and all the followers of Napolean--the pig leader-the workhorse who actually worked himself to death and the one little mare who looked away because all she just wanted was to look pretty are represented in present day Trump followers of the blue collar persuasion. That upper echelon were right there along with pig Naloleon raping the "lesser animals."
Whoever would've thought that George Orwell could look into the future and see Trump and his fellow greedy idiots?
Orwell and the actual meaning of Animal Farm seem to have been missed by some. Maybe they really did think it was a children's story or perhaps it was missing from the 'Humanities' program in that 'liberal elite indoctrination mill' they couldn't get into. It could be they missed 1984 as well.
I suppose that could explain some of it.
03-21-2017 03:26 PM
To begin with, if there was one flaw or error - omission made by our founders and the related documents it is this: (Im paraphrasing the words of an instructor-professor at National War College, Dr. Alan Gropman here...While the founding documents go into great and specific detail about individual and States' rights and powers, the word or term "responsibility" is conspicuous by its absence. Is that because the founders did not believe citizens had any responsibiliity toward their government? Perhaps, but, far more likely that, at that time, individual responsibility toward family community, common interests was a "given" and was assumed to the p[oint that calling it out in the founding documents would likely have been considered redundant, unnecessary and possibly even insulting as a means of talking down to some of the citizens. Thus, today, we have those who believe they have all these "rights (many of which are nowhere mentioned in the founding documents) and that they have no responsibility toward their fellow man, government, obedience of tghe laws of the land, respect for authority, etc., etc.
OK...I understand, I think. What you paraphrased may or may not be accurate, but that is somewhat irrelevant to the gist of the paragraph. Would it surprise you to know that, to a large extent, I agree so far? Not totally you understand. Certain of your 'presumptions' do not allow for for that. Case in point...not all rights that belong to "the People" are enumerated in the founding documents. Some rights are implicit....others derive from and are dependant upon rights that are, in fact, recognized and a rational extension from them. That's what courts are for.
Hence we have a population of snowflakes who believe the world owes them - ath schools, colleges and universities - and by extension their futur work places, and anywhere they happen to travel, visit, recreate, etc. they are entitled to "safe spaces" wherin they will never have to hear or entertain thoughts, words, utterances, opinions, or anything else that they - as individuals - might find "ofensive" and "hurtful" as they define it.
To be sure "you" understand "me". The word 'snowflake' is a word manufactured to convey a pejorative meaning not at all a part of the defined defintion of the word. It has no place in a rational discussion which you represent to be what you intend. You use it that way for a reprehensible purpose. After doing that you demean an entire sector of the population that you cannot possibly know personally and imply to them motives and characteristics that cannot possibly be shared by the entirety of that population.
I have no first hand knowledge of your 'qualifications'. Your claiming them to establish authority of argument is specious. Any meanings of whatever I say can be found in Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary if you should happen to need a definition. That includes the Founding Documents of the Nation.
Understand, I am not defending those you have characterized as you have. I am taking considerable issue with how you do it.
Not sure what happened to 1st Ammendment and freedom of speech in the context of "I may strongly disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it???" 1st Ammendment is there to protect what may be offensiv e speech so that we might have a dialogue and diversity of views. And no, I don't believe that allows someone to make threats of violence or cry fire in a crowded theater.
I agree. Anyone putting anything 'out there' is also fully and absolutely responsible for the TRUTH of what they say or write AND to accept full responsibility for any and ALL consequences. Do I make myself clear?
Having graduated college in the mid 70s and graduate school in DC in 1990 I saw the gradual and then accelerating suppression of non-liberal, Markxist thought begin, take hold and then accelerate until we are where we are today...sad, very sad.
I addressed this directly above.
And for those who wonder what I mean by Markxist or Socialist - I mean a Nation and governm,ent where the individual is in all things subservient to and useful only as a servant of the state with the individual's only purpose being to advance the interests of the State, as that State's leaadership defines it with no regard for individual rights, hopes, desires, etc. as those are unimportant compared to the role of being a faithful servant of the State.
Understand once more, I do not defend what it is you attack. Your attack mischaracterizes and misrepresents the actual philosphies. I understand your objections to them, but what you say is not wholly true.
And yet, this is the condition the snowflakes who have embraced their indoctrination in our universities and colleges, public and elite pprivate as well, want us to move toward so that our society can become "enlightened" and more "fair" to all.
Well...see...'condition' is what you put forward in the preceding paragraph. You once more use the pejorative 'snowflake' and enlarge that to say they have 'embraced' their 'indoctrination' and you attribute the indoctrination to institutions that may well be undeserving of your rancor nor be culpable of that with which you charge them. Much of what you say of them may not apply to them at all in any way. Your closing attribution of motive seems sarcastic. I will interpret it that way unless you wish to clarify.
Not, I don't think, what Kennedy had in mind when he said "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask rather what you can do for your country." And, yet, the Markxist perversion of that concept is where the Left has been dragging us lo these many years. Not really something to be proud of. We have moved from a nation of self-sufficient rugged individualists to a nation of sheep looking for the government to be our shepherd and to care for us, all the while being led to slaughter like the lambs we have become...
See...Your first sentence is incomplete in form and meaning. That is not picking nits...there really is alternative meaning that can be attributed to what you wrote. I think you should do these things with a responsibility consistent with the qualifiations you claim. Marx was not alive at the Kennedy said that. Neither he nor his philosophy could be a perversion of what Kennedy said. Therefore, you must be referring to the Left as a monlithic entity with the intent you attribute to them. That simply is not accurate. Your next pronouncement is neither accurate nor specific enough to evaluate for validity.
You didn't mention if a thesis was part of your post-graduate work or if you completed it satisfactorily. IF it was rejected, your expressed displeasure with the institutions you cite is understandable. A bit misplaced, though...they were just doing their job. If it was accepted AND the institution deserved its accreditation it seems you may have lost something since then.
03-21-2017 05:51 AM
Mr. Kristof, you make a very good point. Jesus did command us to help our fellow man - and we certainly should.
Yet your posts clearly suggest otherwise.
On the other hand, those who follow the teachings of Karl Marx rather than Jesus command us to put in place a government that will seize the property of the productive and redistribute among the others.
Nobody is following the teachings of Karl Marx here as you fallaciously claim.
But what your Republicans are looking to do is "seize" what little the poor and middle class have left and give it to the most wealthy ..... more and more welfare for the already wealthy at the expense of ALL other Americans!
Slightly different concepts.
And a gross false equivalency!
One said that people have an obligation to help their fellow man. The other said that the government should control such actions. I'll leave it up to you as to whose philosophy you are following.
There is a limit on what one individual person can do to help all people as no one person has unlimited resources. And that is where government needs to step in .... to do for its citizens what they are unable to do by themselves.
It is interesting that individuals do not have the resources to do what is needed but the government does. I guess the bureaucrats in DC go down to Tidal Basin an pluck those dollars right of the money trees.
The government does have the resources .... and is responsible to do for its citizens what they cannot do for themselves.
Instead of your sarcastic "guess" .... how about:
- Stop spending money on an already bloated military budget .... highest of all nations on earth and higher than the next 10 nations combined.
- Stop Republican budgets which annihilate safety nets for the poor, taxes the middle class to death and grants the already wealthy millions in tax cuts ...... I.E. Reverse Robin Hood .... Rob from all other Americans to give more money to the most wealthy.
- Stop corporate welfare (tax loopholes).
Try to focus. The subject is the teachings of Jesus, not Marx. And BTW,
A demand better directed to yourself as YOU are the person constantly introducing Marx into the teachings of Jesus.
the government does not "have it". The government must "take it" from some.
Well then the Republican government should stop "taking it" from the poor and middle class to give the wealthy more money!
It would help if you could provide quotes from Him about the government taking from the 47% that pays no taxes.
Jesus didn't specifically say anything about Trump and other wealthy Americans who pay no or very little tax relative to their massive incomes.
HE did however say this:
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
So perhaps the rich should shed a great deal of their wealth by sharing it with the less fortunate.
03-21-2017 05:31 AM
My error. I thought I had seen a constant attack on the 1%ers here. I wonder where I got that idea.
Perhaps from listening to RW extremist media.
Do you really consider posts here to be "RW extremist media".
Your post could be .... as I clearly stated in my answer to your "wondering where".
Those attacks are common here.
You're conflating "attacks" with facts.
That one comment indicates an interest in fighting, not discussing.
Actually, your comment "on the 1%ers here" followed by an invitation to attack that comment "indicated an interest in fighting".
Is it your point that the 1%ers are not a constant target here?
It's the constant demand by the RW to give the 1%ers more money that is the target here.
It would be useful if you could provide quotes from Jesus about the government taking the money from the successful.
Actually, It would be more useful if you stopped putting your words into my comments, as I NEVER stated that which you accuse me of.
I actually stated that the RW is GIVING THE 1%ers money ... NOTHING about government taking it away from them as you falsely stated.
03-21-2017 05:13 AM
Paul Ryan is not now and has not been the kind of practicing Christian whose life, actions, and speech is guided by the words of Jesus - rather his life is guided by the words, desires and unreported "influence" of dishonest Repubican/Conservative politicians - for the last fifteen years - ever since he prostituted himself to the Repubican Party.
Back to the basics - do you suppose the teachings of Jesus instructed us to help our fellow man individually or to elect politicians to practice Marxism?
The teachings of Jesus instructed us to help our fellow man in ANY capacity .... individually or in government .... and
NOTHING to do with Marxism as you fallaciously introduced.
Could you offer a quote to make your point of collective responsibility vs individual responsibility?
No need to as Jesus made no exceptions to governments for the responsibility of helping our fellow man. And per Webster, government is: the group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc.
Still people .... still responsible ..... no waivers of responsibility to help when part of a collective agency.
03-20-2017 07:14 PM - edited 03-20-2017 07:45 PM
It would help if you could provide quotes from Him about the government taking from the 47% that pays no taxes.
There's a problem with finding historically factually documented quotes from "Him" - it seems that all of the bible is unverifiable hearsay.
03-20-2017 06:58 PM
Cent-so sad some feel all people are looking for is a free handout. I agree there is generational welfare. But, there are also people who just need help along the way. I will never understand the lack if empathy--lack of a heart it seems, in some.
i hope, truly, that should people like this ever need help, it takes a GOOD LONG TIME TO ARRIVE.
True - it is a shame that we have evolved from a "help you neighbor" society to a "go take the money from those guys and spread it around, just leave me alone" society.
But yet you have not once spoken negatively about the taking from the middle class and below and giving it to the upper 1%. That is exactly what happened between the 70's and today. Again, you have never spoken negatively about that..... why is that?
"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"