communists leading our Universities

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:


Jesus himself taught a form of communism, or communal living.

When Jesus taught that it was for His Kingdom that He is to rule over. Man cannot sit in His position and make socialism work. See various other posts here for corroboration. In early Acts we see Peter trying to set up koinonia (sp) in Jerusalem, then in Acts 8 or so Paul is taking up an offering for these folks because of the failure of their socialism experiment.

 

[rsr]

hillclimber said:

"Part of the greatness of America is her reliance on unrestrained capitalism."

I'm curious to know in what period of time America relied upon "unrestrained capitalism."

 

[freedom's cause]

Read this article from FREEDOM HOUSE organization started by Eleanor Roosevelt and
Wendell Willkie later affiliated with Indiana University


http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/publications/Saudi%20Report/FINAL%20FINAL.pdf


http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/publications/Saudi%20Report/FINAL%20FINAL.pdf

 

[freedom's cause]

Jesus form of Government as I see it is a kingdom I would dare say far from socialism
or communism it would certainly not be stalinism
as a Christian I disagree with the belief in the false God of communism or socialism man replacing God many communists thought the idea of God would be gone and they would somehow sit on God's throne it hasn't happened or even that God is dead God is laughing and by the way it's the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob I don't see mohammed in there anywhere and Jacob's name is now Israel those who would destroy the Jews are Anti-Christ and will bow before Christ in the end hopefully before hand may God save the Anti-Christs muslims who call us infidels at present they are our enemies may God have mercy and save as many as possible before the end

 

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by rsr:
hillclimber said:

"Part of the greatness of America is her reliance on unrestrained capitalism."

I'm curious to know in what period of time America relied upon "unrestrained capitalism."

Since a few years after her founding. Perhaps unrestrained is not quite right. but close. The more strings that are attached the harder for capitalism to function. We are in a delicate balance now as to the wonders of capitalism and dictation of policy from Washingto DC that restrains it. All manner of laws and rules and tax dictates are specifically aimed at the capitalist, in a misguided attempt to punish or thwart prosperity. Taxation is probably the worst punishment for capitalism.

Class envy....See how so many attack when they see an executive receive $2 million or so or more.

Were capitalism to have flourished, unrestrained, this great financial power we are today would be miniscule by comparison, and the world would have been far different, I imagine.

 

[hillclimber]

See how Communist China has allowed Hong Cong to remain capitalistic in spite of their desperate desire for total domination by Communism. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Unrestrained capitalism is as evil as unrestrained communism. This is why we have regulation in certain industries.

Even the wealthy and successful didn't make it on their own. Someone built the car Bill Gates or Warren Buffet drive to work. Someone built the roads they use, the water and sewer infrastructure they need, their buildings and campuses. Since these allowed them to accumulate great wealth (which I have no problem with), they also have a social responsibility. With greater blessings come greater responsibility.

 

[just-want-peace]

Jesus himself taught a form of communism, or communal living.

You obviously miss the point that He DID NOT force anyone to partake of such; all donating/sharing etc was COMPLETELY voluntary!!!!!

That ain't socialism/communism; they FORCE you to "donate/share".

Tremendous difference, that the liberals want to ignore/dismiss/overlook!

 

[Magnetic Poles]

No, communism in and of itself is not a forced thing. Stalinism is what you are confusing it with.

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
Unrestrained capitalism is as evil as unrestrained communism. This is why we have regulation in certain industries.

Even the wealthy and successful didn't make it on their own. Someone built the car Bill Gates or Warren Buffet drive to work. Someone built the roads they use, the water and sewer infrastructure they need, their buildings and campuses. Since these allowed them to accumulate great wealth (which I have no problem with), they also have a social responsibility.

Bill Gates is not a very good example of a man who didn't make it on his own regardless of who built the car he drove...

or who built the buildings or the infrastructure or...

Do you realize how silly your argument really is?

 

[just-want-peace]

No, communism in and of itself is not a forced thing.

You mean people actually voted for Communism??

 

[Jim1999]

Western Socialism is simply democracy with social responsibility. No one is holding a gun to our heads. Such socialism is found in free countries like the UK and Canada. We don't have to sell our homes because we become ill, education is free and no one need starve because we face hard times. During the Depression and war years, we went hungry and homeless, and some of us got our medicines from the gypsies or literally begged the doctors to help us. That was before a Labour Party was elected and medicare was enacted.

I have read the horror stories from the USA surrounding medical non-care, and the many children who live daily on maybe one meal a day and often go to bed hungry.

The lazy exist in any and all societies. They are not caused by social responsibility. In Wisconsin they make a drastic change in welfare benefits and started to pay companies to employ people, and they put a five year maximum on benefits. I don't hear anymore about how it is working there because my daughter moved to Florida.

As has been mentioned already, please don't confuse democratic socialism with communism (Marxism).

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Originally posted by carpro:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
Unrestrained capitalism is as evil as unrestrained communism. This is why we have regulation in certain industries.

Even the wealthy and successful didn't make it on their own. Someone built the car Bill Gates or Warren Buffet drive to work. Someone built the roads they use, the water and sewer infrastructure they need, their buildings and campuses. Since these allowed them to accumulate great wealth (which I have no problem with), they also have a social responsibility.

Bill Gates is not a very good example of a man who didn't make it on his own regardless of who built the car he drove...

or who built the buildings or the infrastructure or...

Do you realize how silly your argument really is? </font>[/QUOTE]Did I say he made it totally on his own? It isn't silly at all. What I do realize is how you have trouble with a relatively simple concept.

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by carpro:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
Unrestrained capitalism is as evil as unrestrained communism. This is why we have regulation in certain industries.

Even the wealthy and successful didn't make it on their own. Someone built the car Bill Gates or Warren Buffet drive to work. Someone built the roads they use, the water and sewer infrastructure they need, their buildings and campuses. Since these allowed them to accumulate great wealth (which I have no problem with), they also have a social responsibility.

Bill Gates is not a very good example of a man who didn't make it on his own regardless of who built the car he drove...

or who built the buildings or the infrastructure or...

Do you realize how silly your argument really is? </font>[/QUOTE]Did I say he made it totally on his own? It isn't silly at all. What I do realize is how you have trouble with a relatively simple concept. </font>[/QUOTE]The actions of a cat in a litterbox.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Whatever that means!

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
Why am I not surprised that OR thinks the KKK was ever a legitimate organization rather than a terrorist group.

MP you only show your ignorance of history. You might try reading a little history about the treatment of the South after the War of Northern Agression. After WW1 Germany was treated like the South was, the result was WWII. If we had treated Japan and Germany after WWII like the South was treated after the War of Northern Agression Iraq would look like a picnic in comparison.

 

[OldRegular]

Communism is from the pit of hell and instituted by Satan [remember Marx was an atheist and the tenants of communism are atheistic]. Socialism and humanism are its illegitimate brothers.

 

[LadyEagle]

I don't know of any activity by the KKK in Indiana anymore. Nor do I think that we were the national center of that movement--at least I could not document that. The charge is bogus.

They're still there, but wanting to be a kinder, gentler clan, LOL.

http://www.hoosiergazette.com/Feature/feature023.htm

I found another site with family photos.

 

[LadyEagle]

Another threat, besides communism....

Here is a group that monitors Middle Eastern Studies taught in our colleges and universities -(I believe the Middle Eastern Studies in our institutions of higher learning are the #1 recruitment grounds for terrorist cells and many, if not most, support terrorist organizations and ideology.)

http://www.campus-watch.org/surveys.php/cat/Institutions

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
I explained it. You either couldn't understand it or want to be contentious as on an earlier thread.

Actually, no you didn't. Despite claiming the contrary, you have offered absolutely no insight as to why you offered it.

Let's look at what you wrote one more time:

I can make the point. The liberal arts colleges and such schools in the universities are dominated by radical left professors out of the 60"s antiwar movement.

At the University of South Carolina's School of Criminal Justice 11 of the 12 faculty members are democrats. This in a state that is predominately Republican.

Now, exactly why did you offer that? I asked you a direct question, and this is what you offered:

I see little difference between activists democrats and the radical left. It is only a matter of degree.

So, now that you gave us this explanation, I asked you this:
"Ah, but you offered nothing to support such a claim. You simply said that 11 of the 12 are Democrats, while talking about the radical left in the previous paragraph. That does not constitute proof for such an accusation.

If you have some evidence to support the notion that 11 of the 12 are not only Democrats, but members of the radical left, then by all means share it with us. After all, it was you that offered to "make the point."

And your response was this:

Please note BIR, I wrote two paragraphs. A new paragraph generally denotes a change in subject or emphasis. I made two different points.

Now, since it was YOU that claimed to have made "two different points," and since this is a discussion about "communists leading our Universities," tell us why you introduced these 11 of 12 into the discussion.
You did offer this:

Expanding on my earlier remarks:
I see little difference between activists democrats and the radical left. Really all one has to do is read the history of the growth of Socialism in this country beginning with the democrat Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt administration. Now if anyone is too inept or lazy to study the history of such growth they should not expect others to do it for them. But then that is the mind of socialism; enjoy the fruits of others labor!

Again, we are not talking about "Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt" or their administration.
We are not talking about "Kerry."
We are not talking about "Kennedy."
We are not talking about "Pelosi."
We are not talking about "Reed."
We are not talking about "Leahy."
We are not talking about "Moore."
We are not talking about "Soros."
Lastly, we are not talking about the "thousands of kindred minds" or anyone else you would like to mention, we are talking about the 11 of 12 at the University of South Carolina. You brought them up in this thread about "communists leading our Universities," now tell us why you bothered to specifically reference these people.
It's that simple: just tell us why you did it. Don't bring up anyone else, just tell us why you did it. Nobody forced you to do it - why did you do it?
Regards,
BiR

P.S. And while you are at it, could you explain why you told me to "kiss off?" I can honestly say that nobody has ever written something so confrontational like that to me on this board...........