The one stat that devestates liberalism
- Thread starter SonInMe
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I'm what an American would probably class a radical socialist, pretty far left, in the UK I might be more moderate, and I view currency and social constructivism to be just as important a political issue as any. Basically, I despise the whole foundations our society is built on from the ground up, from fiat money and the methods for the valuing of currency right up to the way the same corporate sponsors fund opposing political party leaders at the highest levels. Our world is a construct that benefits the soul-less and crushes those who would have fairness and true equality.
If you want the reason people in underprivileged communities don't work, it's a lot more innate and engrained in them than simply being a matter of being lazy, or of party politics and how the highest-brow's political perspectives contribute to unemployment by instituting a system that either views those 'getting help' as a victory or views those 'not needing it' as a victory.
People are brought up from no age being taught between the lines that money equals happiness, that wealth equals status, that importance and financial security are precursors to being worthy for a partner and thus furthering the human race, because inherently, that's what a capitalist society needs to instil in its children to make them believe the absolute absurdity of its value system.
These same underprivileged children grow up watching the poverty around them, seeing the rich lauded and applauded on television while their parents scrimp to buy the week's groceries. From the get go, they are taught to feel unimportant in society, the lowest-of-the-low, and we tell them the only way that the world will allow them to escape such poverty is to disregard all their gripes and conform - to contribute to this structure, to relinquish their child-like values of compassion and natural integrity and go out and make lots of money so they can be lauded and applauded while other kids like them continue to starve.
They grow up in these dire communities around so many other people who are the worthless of society, tread upon. These are the same people whose wages come in the form of a piece of paper printed by a privatized central financial institution and loaned to the government with a levy on these same people's taxes.
Now these people don't need to know all these intricacies to understand something's broken - all they need to do is look around them. And personally, I think they can be forgiven for sticking a finger up to it all and refusing to take part.
The issue is, that if they don't take part, then truly, what is left for them? See, people grow up believing they have choice. But they don't. Because really, living in our society is a false choice between poverty and hardship or success at the cost of natural integrity.
If you want the reason people in underprivileged communities don't work, it's a lot more innate and engrained in them than simply being a matter of being lazy, or of party politics and how the highest-brow's political perspectives contribute to unemployment by instituting a system that either views those 'getting help' as a victory or views those 'not needing it' as a victory.
People are brought up from no age being taught between the lines that money equals happiness, that wealth equals status, that importance and financial security are precursors to being worthy for a partner and thus furthering the human race, because inherently, that's what a capitalist society needs to instil in its children to make them believe the absolute absurdity of its value system.
These same underprivileged children grow up watching the poverty around them, seeing the rich lauded and applauded on television while their parents scrimp to buy the week's groceries. From the get go, they are taught to feel unimportant in society, the lowest-of-the-low, and we tell them the only way that the world will allow them to escape such poverty is to disregard all their gripes and conform - to contribute to this structure, to relinquish their child-like values of compassion and natural integrity and go out and make lots of money so they can be lauded and applauded while other kids like them continue to starve.
They grow up in these dire communities around so many other people who are the worthless of society, tread upon. These are the same people whose wages come in the form of a piece of paper printed by a privatized central financial institution and loaned to the government with a levy on these same people's taxes.
Now these people don't need to know all these intricacies to understand something's broken - all they need to do is look around them. And personally, I think they can be forgiven for sticking a finger up to it all and refusing to take part.
The issue is, that if they don't take part, then truly, what is left for them? See, people grow up believing they have choice. But they don't. Because really, living in our society is a false choice between poverty and hardship or success at the cost of natural integrity.
Last edited:
Your beliefs are the enemy of freedom, and the tenets of slavery that time and again has been proven historically to be horrible for untold millions of people.
I can remember when I kinda thought like you. "Why can't everyone have the same. That would be fair and all would be happy- sigh..." This thinking totally ignores human nature, and the reality that it is impossible to have equality of result, while being fair. Please try and grasp the simplicity of this story:
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”.. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on) These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
I can remember when I kinda thought like you. "Why can't everyone have the same. That would be fair and all would be happy- sigh..." This thinking totally ignores human nature, and the reality that it is impossible to have equality of result, while being fair. Please try and grasp the simplicity of this story:
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”.. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on) These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.4.You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!.5.When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
You just assumed I'm a communist who advocates the dissolving of ownership. I'm not that at all.
However, you tell me how this is fair:
A private financial institution owned by a small group of trustees prints money (the power to attain material possessions), and loands this money in whatever currency, to the specific government who requires that currency (dollars to the US government) with interest. This government then undertakes the task of circulating this power to purchase to its citizens, who cannot get ANYTHING in their country, not land, not food, not clothing, not housing, nor basically anything, without this purchasing power. Then the government tax these same citizens some of their purchasing power (money) simply for being born in that land.
The government then uses a large proportion of this tax money to repay the private bank owners who printed the currency in the first place. As more money is printed, the money already in circulation loses some of its value, and all the money in circulation came from the bank to begin with, effectively ruling out any possibility that the government can ever pay back the debt plus interest to the bank, which requires the government to tax its citizens higher, until eventually the government become unable to sustain the debt, in which case the bank issue repayment orders on all the loans given to the citizens (loans of purchasing power that originated from the bank), and foreclosures, lost properties, poverty and unemployment ensue as bankruptcy consumes a nation.
Guess who benefits when all those properties get taken by the bank, and all the spare change in the citizens' pockets gets collected into a big pile?
That's right - the bank owners do.
My stance isn't that wealth should be taken from the rich and given to the poor, my stance is that the power to purchase should be based on something more tangible than a piece of paper. At present the power to purchase is based on a piece of paper printed and valued by one institution who simply loans that power and can demand it back at any time.
The bank takes away your right to earn anything real, when the means by which you can 'own' any item (money) is something they own.
Capitalism, eh?
Why do you think Lincoln went to war with privatized banks? Of course, he was shot and the Federal Reserve won anyway, so it's irrelevant now. You're a slave.
However, you tell me how this is fair:
A private financial institution owned by a small group of trustees prints money (the power to attain material possessions), and loands this money in whatever currency, to the specific government who requires that currency (dollars to the US government) with interest. This government then undertakes the task of circulating this power to purchase to its citizens, who cannot get ANYTHING in their country, not land, not food, not clothing, not housing, nor basically anything, without this purchasing power. Then the government tax these same citizens some of their purchasing power (money) simply for being born in that land.
The government then uses a large proportion of this tax money to repay the private bank owners who printed the currency in the first place. As more money is printed, the money already in circulation loses some of its value, and all the money in circulation came from the bank to begin with, effectively ruling out any possibility that the government can ever pay back the debt plus interest to the bank, which requires the government to tax its citizens higher, until eventually the government become unable to sustain the debt, in which case the bank issue repayment orders on all the loans given to the citizens (loans of purchasing power that originated from the bank), and foreclosures, lost properties, poverty and unemployment ensue as bankruptcy consumes a nation.
Guess who benefits when all those properties get taken by the bank, and all the spare change in the citizens' pockets gets collected into a big pile?
That's right - the bank owners do.
My stance isn't that wealth should be taken from the rich and given to the poor, my stance is that the power to purchase should be based on something more tangible than a piece of paper. At present the power to purchase is based on a piece of paper printed and valued by one institution who simply loans that power and can demand it back at any time.
The bank takes away your right to earn anything real, when the means by which you can 'own' any item (money) is something they own.
Capitalism, eh?
Why do you think Lincoln went to war with privatized banks? Of course, he was shot and the Federal Reserve won anyway, so it's irrelevant now. You're a slave.
Last edited:
I didn't call you a communist. I simply responded to your sophomoric post. You have never gone a day in your life hungry, you own a computer, a tv, a car, have had a free education and on and on... yet all you do is complain about the capitalist system that has afforded you all the incredible wealth you have. Yes INCREDIBLE, by your own admission you talked about how much Brits have in comparison to other nations.
Nomatter how much work is undertaken surplus to the value of the debt, the work still requires the payment of money, thus more money needs to be printed, thus the vaue of the currency drops sufficiently as to negate the work having any worth at all.
Not to get me confused, but many leaders have realized this, Hitler for one. Before he killed millions of Jews, he created a socialist system in Germany based on the idea that work was the value of money, and money was printed to the value of work. Why do you think the bankers went to war with him? Sunk one of his cruise ships and killed more people than died on the Titanic? Boycotted German goods and trade?
Because he rejected their system.
Not to get me confused, but many leaders have realized this, Hitler for one. Before he killed millions of Jews, he created a socialist system in Germany based on the idea that work was the value of money, and money was printed to the value of work. Why do you think the bankers went to war with him? Sunk one of his cruise ships and killed more people than died on the Titanic? Boycotted German goods and trade?
Because he rejected their system.
Yea, but capitalism didn't bring me any of it. Work for money did. I need to survive like anyone else, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with how the banks say I have to do it. You're missing the point. The point is, money doesn't have to be valued by a fiat system, and in fact, the fiat system is the inherent reason for the state of the economy and the number of financial crashes of the past hundred years.
If work truly dictated the value of money, and governments weren't corporate brown-nosers, we might actually see reasonable living wages and sustainable economic policies.
If work truly dictated the value of money, and governments weren't corporate brown-nosers, we might actually see reasonable living wages and sustainable economic policies.
Like I said before, people in our society have a false choice - conform or live in poverty. The only way I currently see to change that is to get educated about it and tell people. If you want to mock and scoff, go ahead, but I can bet that £20k you don't have the slightest clue of the process of currency valuation I just spoke about, so to you, I'm just a guy who said the words 'left' and 'socialist' who you think is out to destroy the world, and you MUST, OPPOSE, HIM .....
Pathetic.
Pathetic.
Last edited:
You responded to my 'sophomoric' post by telling me how the dissolving of ownership and the distribution of wealth to the poor by taxing the rich is wrong. Those are communist ideals. Therefore, either you're ignorant of the difference between communism and socialism, you didn't bother to read my post at all after the words 'far left', or you're calling me a communist.
Either of the three, I don't care. They all mean you're being an idiot.
Either of the three, I don't care. They all mean you're being an idiot.
Its funny how you conservative clowns have a specific personal definition for everything like I think one of you said george bush wasnt a conservative I hate to break it to you but most liberals dont like obama I think youre trying to push your own conservative agenda you could care less about our country.
By the way, your professor's analogy using grades is twisted. A classroom full of people are vying for the approval of their professor in tying to get a good grade. They aren't really motivated by their exam to end hunger, famine and poverty in their little exercise, they're motivated to get A's. Grades are not a matter of life and death, hunger and thirst, thus comparing grades to money is obtuse.
Working each for their own, the students had only their own gain at heart (corporate-capitalist all over), and the professor twisted the ideas of a sharing society in a typical fashion, to pit the students against one another out of their own motivations for self-success, but a good socialist leader would evoke a spirit in the country to work for a healthy society free of poverty, institute a reasonable living wage, create a money system from a bank owned by a citizen government (like Lincoln wanted America to be, before the Federal-Reservists beat him), not a private institution, like America's currently is. Using an experiment of selfish motives to try to prove the inability of humans to embrace an all-for-one culture doesn't work, especially when my argument was about money valuation in modern capitalism and how it contributes to poverty and unemployment, not about redistributing wealth by taking away rich people's stuff.
Working each for their own, the students had only their own gain at heart (corporate-capitalist all over), and the professor twisted the ideas of a sharing society in a typical fashion, to pit the students against one another out of their own motivations for self-success, but a good socialist leader would evoke a spirit in the country to work for a healthy society free of poverty, institute a reasonable living wage, create a money system from a bank owned by a citizen government (like Lincoln wanted America to be, before the Federal-Reservists beat him), not a private institution, like America's currently is. Using an experiment of selfish motives to try to prove the inability of humans to embrace an all-for-one culture doesn't work, especially when my argument was about money valuation in modern capitalism and how it contributes to poverty and unemployment, not about redistributing wealth by taking away rich people's stuff.
The analogy is spot on. Since your a Brit I'll forgive your ignorance in not knowing that the Pilgrims tried your socialism when they 1st left your monarchy.Here is snippet of what happened:
You, like most of the left of the world believe in neither. THIS is why your belief system is the enemy of humanity.
For the young men that were able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children, without recompense. The strong, or men of parts, had no more division of food, clothes, etc. then he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labor, and food, clothes, etc. with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignant and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc. they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could husbands brook it. The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst the Godly and sober men, may well convince of the vanity and conceit of Plato’s and other ancients; — that the taking away of property, and bringing into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.
Why are you unable to grasp this basic fact of human nature? Man is corrupt and corruptable. There has been only 2 PROVEN forces in all human history to counter this corruption. COMPETITION and A BELIEF IN, AND ACCOUNTABILITY TO, GOD.You, like most of the left of the world believe in neither. THIS is why your belief system is the enemy of humanity.
Says who, you? like I said, I'm not a communist, and I don't advocate the redistribution of wealth by Marxist philosophy anyway, so asserting that the philosophy of the redistribution of wealth makes me the enemy of humanity, even though I don't believe in that philosophy, is pretty, well, stupid.
Do you want to know the real difference between a liberal and a conservative, PennEd? A liberal is generally educated. A liberal generally knows what they're talking about. A conservative usually plays the discrediting game, the one bullies use when they want to get a crowd to believe something because their egos can't manage reality, regardless of the facts surrounding any of it - and sometimes, and believe me, it's only sometimes, the majority buckles under the weight of social judgement.
Like Bush, for instance. 'Aww, we gotta save these Wawhawbi's from their dictaytership'. And anyone who opposes him is met with 'so Saddawm should just a'keep on killin? Is that what you're a'sayin'? We should just'a keep on lettin' Saddawm use his doub'ya emm dee's weapons'a mass destruction on his people?'
Skip ahead to the present and NATO have killed more civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan in the space of the two wars than the Taliban and Saddam Hussein have combined. Oh, and what's that, American and UN conglomerates own the majority of the oil, (and the Chinese have bought a chunk, too)? And exactly zero, yes, zero, WMD's were ever found?
Hooray for capitalism! Lives for oil! Lives for oil! Lives for oil!
If humanity is corruptable, yet you're meant to be an advocate of morality, of charity, love, recompense and compassion, why do you affiliate yourself with political ideologies and the actions stemming from them that go against those very traits?
Do you want to know the real difference between a liberal and a conservative, PennEd? A liberal is generally educated. A liberal generally knows what they're talking about. A conservative usually plays the discrediting game, the one bullies use when they want to get a crowd to believe something because their egos can't manage reality, regardless of the facts surrounding any of it - and sometimes, and believe me, it's only sometimes, the majority buckles under the weight of social judgement.
Like Bush, for instance. 'Aww, we gotta save these Wawhawbi's from their dictaytership'. And anyone who opposes him is met with 'so Saddawm should just a'keep on killin? Is that what you're a'sayin'? We should just'a keep on lettin' Saddawm use his doub'ya emm dee's weapons'a mass destruction on his people?'
Skip ahead to the present and NATO have killed more civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan in the space of the two wars than the Taliban and Saddam Hussein have combined. Oh, and what's that, American and UN conglomerates own the majority of the oil, (and the Chinese have bought a chunk, too)? And exactly zero, yes, zero, WMD's were ever found?
Hooray for capitalism! Lives for oil! Lives for oil! Lives for oil!
If humanity is corruptable, yet you're meant to be an advocate of morality, of charity, love, recompense and compassion, why do you affiliate yourself with political ideologies and the actions stemming from them that go against those very traits?
Last edited:
Dude, you say I don't believe in competition?
You're arguing against my disdain for corporatism and fiat money and bank-controlled purchase power! You're arguing against the very person who despises the idea of one company controlling the purchasing power of its citizens. You're talking about how Britain is a monarchy, trying to portray the freedom those pilgrims gained from tyranny, and you live under a society of privately-printed-paper-for-purchase-power that goes against the very ideology of Abraham Lincoln himself!
It makes no sense!
You're arguing against my disdain for corporatism and fiat money and bank-controlled purchase power! You're arguing against the very person who despises the idea of one company controlling the purchasing power of its citizens. You're talking about how Britain is a monarchy, trying to portray the freedom those pilgrims gained from tyranny, and you live under a society of privately-printed-paper-for-purchase-power that goes against the very ideology of Abraham Lincoln himself!
It makes no sense!
Last edited:
TripA- "I am not a communist. I just believe in redistribution of wealth, although I don't like to call it redistribution of wealth because then it makes me look like a communist, and by the way, just because communists and I believe there is no God, also doersn't make me a communist, cause I'm not" LOL
There are many uncaring rich out there...... but before anyone blames me for being judgemental of the rich, let me say there's a HUGE difference between the rich & the filthy rich, otherwise known as the 1%.
It is absurdity to suggest those people care about anything but owning everyone else. They want your land, your businesses, & your country, & ,oh yeah, YER MONEY.
1 Timothy 6:10 (NASB) [SUP]10 [/SUP]For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
The root of this country's problem is exactly that, the lovers of money, & no matter what color you paint it, it's still the same. The Bilderbergers, the Illumanati, the Freemasons, & let's not forget the top of the pyramid, the Rothchilds.
It is absurdity to suggest those people care about anything but owning everyone else. They want your land, your businesses, & your country, & ,oh yeah, YER MONEY.
1 Timothy 6:10 (NASB) [SUP]10 [/SUP]For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
The root of this country's problem is exactly that, the lovers of money, & no matter what color you paint it, it's still the same. The Bilderbergers, the Illumanati, the Freemasons, & let's not forget the top of the pyramid, the Rothchilds.