Post by Terry GivenPost by R. Steve WalzPost by Terry GivenPost by R. Steve WalzPost by Tom MacIntyreJust because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?
Tom
reverse your argument, and apply it to your statement re. forced > servitude.
-------------------
You mean having to work for a living? That's not forced servitude,
in serfdom/slavery/servitude you are NOT PAID! In Socialism/Communism
you simply have to work for a living, or else starve! Just like in
real life on earth!
again, too literal. First DMO'C implies Dems are socialists because they
promote mandatory service, and forced servitude is common in socialist
countries.
-------------
That's merely fuzzy thinking. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery
without pay. Everyone has to work to eat,...
Re-posted because you deleted it:
-------------
That's merely fuzzy thinking. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery
without pay. Everyone has to work to eat, and to do one's equal
share of the work. If you're paid, it doesn't matter if you HAVE
to or not, you have to work to afford to live, even in the simplest
human society or situation, the earth extracts that, and we merely
decide socially how the burden is divided! The Rich want the rest
of us to do THEIR work FOR them so THEY don't HAVE to, this is the
essence of slavery! They want you to do their work for NO PAYMENT,
in other words, as well as your own for the usual rate. Thus if they
pay you only for yours, then they pay you half what they should,
and pay themselves what they DO NOT EARN!! This is the meaning of
ALL wealth, NOT HAVING TO WORK BECAUSE YOU HAVE SLAVES! NO person
does not have to work merely because they have some magical "money",
they ALL rely on the rest of us doing ALL THEIR WORK *FOR* THEM AS
THEIR SLAVES!! Anyone who wants to be able to "not have to work again"
ACTUALLY means that they wish to ENSLAVE some of the RESt of us who
DO HAVE TO WORK! Thus ALL striving after wealth so that one does not
have to work is actually the desire and intent to ENSLAVE OTHERS!!
Post by Terry GivenPretty feeble argument. So I point out Israel has compulsory
military service (and sure as shit aint socialist; there are plenty of
european countries that do too IIRC), easily flattening the weak
implication. So DMO'C turns around with his "just because socialists do
it doesnt mean non-socialist cant" argument. In other words, doing
something a socialist does, does not necessarily make you a socialist,
which is pretty much in direct contradiction to his first statement.
--------------------------------
Israel DOES have a Socialist system! They have nationalized health,
education, retirement, vacations, and support for those who cannot
work. And MOST of Europe certainly *IS* Socialist!
Post by Terry GivenPost by R. Steve WalzPost by Terry Givenbanning gay marriage is a common thing in islamic countries,
so it is no surprise that the Republicans are pushing it.
there is no causal relationship, its just pointless rhetoric.
Cheers
Terry
------------------
Nonsense, Islam has anti-sexuality and anti-homosexuality as its
models for sin precisely because it descends from the same insane
Abrahamic nutcake branch of mideast religion that Fundy Xtianity
comes from.
-Steve
too literal Steve. The implication (a-la DMO'Cs feeble argument) is that
republicans must therefore be islamic, which they are not. ergo its a
stupid thing to imply. see above
-----------------------------
Few would be so stupid as to assume that. The implied allusion was
clearly that those two religions are both sexually backward Fundy
religions of the Abrahamic stripe, well known for being sexually
insipid and moronic. Only someone like I heard on a radio show the
other day ranting that the Mormons should all be taken to Guantanamo
because he assumed that "Mormons" were some kind of American "Muslim"
would assume something like that, and only out of abyssmal ignorance,
despite the totally accidental aptness of that claim against Mormonism,
because they are quite nearly as Fundy as the nuttyist Islamics!!
Post by Terry GivenYour comments about islam are however correct. It was perhaps not the
best example I could have chosen.
Cheers
Terry
-------------
Yup.
------------------------------------
Repost of deleted material ends.
Post by Terry GivenThis isn't necessarily true. It would be extremely difficult to literally
starve to death in the US, unless one were to set out to do so, which
would be suicidal, so doesn't count.
--------------------------------------
I just reviewed all that I wrote which you deleted and then responded to
and I see little about starving to death in the USA. Why are you
delusional?
Post by Terry GivenUnless, of course, you categorize "standing on the street corner waiting
for alms" or "dumpster-diving" as "work."
It _does_ pay surprisingly well, however. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
----------------
In any decent Communism it would be required that everyone work and
prove it to obtain access to food and that no one feed them under
penalty of law. So if they refused to work they had better learn
to eat bugs.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ***@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public