Phatmasser777 Posted January 13, 2005 Author Posted January 13, 2005 [quote]Communism is simply the purest form of socialism. [/quote] Communism is anti-religion. Socialism isnt. The only people against Socialism are corporate thugs and rich buggers.
Benedict Posted January 13, 2005 Posted January 13, 2005 [quote]Communism is anti-religion. Socialism isnt.[/quote] Socialism is only the stepping stone from capitalism to communism. [quote]The only people against Socialism are corporate thugs and rich buggers. [/quote] Ahh the old "if you don't agree with me you must be a doody-head" argument.
Phatmasser777 Posted January 13, 2005 Author Posted January 13, 2005 [quote]Socialism is only the stepping stone from capitalism to communism. [/quote] No its one GIANT Step away from Todays Corporate Corruption [quote]Ahh the old "if you don't agree with me you must be a doody-head" argument.[/quote] When you use UR HEAD, you'll see its quite true, who are the most to lose from a socialist society? Corps, rich and high-class.
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted January 13, 2005 Posted January 13, 2005 Socialism is free from corruption and "rich buggers"?
Socrates Posted January 13, 2005 Posted January 13, 2005 [quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Jan 13 2005, 01:06 AM'] Communism is anti-religion. Socialism isnt. The only people against Socialism are corporate thugs and rich buggers. [/quote] This is more complete nonsense. I'm definitely not rich nor a "corporate thug," but I'm totally against socialism, as are millions of thinking people who aren't taken in by socialist nonsense. "The only people for socialism are burnt-out brain-dead pot-head hippies and mindless commie thugs!" See, anyone can call names. I have yet to see any examples of good coming out of socialism. I haven't heard a shred of rational argument from you, only name-calling and slogan-slinging.
Thomas Posted January 14, 2005 Posted January 14, 2005 (edited) Socrates, Phatmasser777, I'd like it to be officially known that I'm casting off my label of 'Liberal'... I have no specific political slant anymore, and I'll vote according to my beliefs. BUT PLEASE, can't we just get along. The American election is over. And Please everyone talking about 'Whiny Liberals'...'War-Mongerers'...isn't that name calling? Seriously guys. Let's get it together. Please...I'm begging you. This is rediculous, what seperates this forum from any other political online forum? Shouldn't there be a noticable difference because we're Catholic? But there's not, there's name calling, antagonizing sarcasm, and heaps of self-righteous judgement flying back and forth. Leave the judgment up the man upstairs. I'm sure he can handle it. 'Love your enimies...' -That important guy we always forget to listen to. Peace, -Tom Edited January 14, 2005 by Thomas
Socrates Posted January 14, 2005 Posted January 14, 2005 Note that my "name-calling" was in quotation marks - it was intended merely to show the stupidity and pointlessness of 777's namecalling. Sorry if it created any misunderstanding!
cathqat Posted January 14, 2005 Posted January 14, 2005 [quote name='Thomas' date='Jan 14 2005, 12:56 PM'] I'd like it to be officially known that I'm casting off my label of 'Liberal'... [/quote] Hooray! I'm not fond of them either. Too confusing. I'm for the Gospel. Let the so-called "liberals" and "conservatives," Democrats and Republicans, and so forth fight among themselves. I care for neither
MC Just Posted January 15, 2005 Posted January 15, 2005 Democracy is not invinsible like Catholicism:)
Phatmasser777 Posted January 15, 2005 Author Posted January 15, 2005 All those labels are always used BY republicans(US) and 'Conservatives'(US), to degrade anybody who doesnt believe in their falsehoods. Being a Liberal, should be a proud 'badge of honour'(US).
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted January 15, 2005 Posted January 15, 2005 [quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Jan 14 2005, 11:46 PM']All those labels are always used BY republicans(US) and 'Conservatives'(US), to degrade anybody who doesnt believe in their falsehoods. Being a Liberal, should be a proud 'badge of honour'(US).[/quote]
Mary's Knight, La Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 rather than make any arguement from numbers Phatmasser I'm simply going to ask you to provide a citation which defines socialism without the state ownership of means of production etc... and explains its implementation w/o such state ownership as has been pointed out state ownership is at least implied as part of it when it's not explicitly included in the definition socialism has at its heart the control of resources which belong to the whole being possessed by the few who have no [b]need[/b] to act in the interest of the whole and this is where the corruption happens...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now