Mr. leoRizzuti: Since you are such a great Christian scholar I will simply give you the references to Scripture: Proverbs 26:4 and Matthew 7:6.

yea, I'm pretty sure that's not right.

How do you know that?? .....never mind... I don't want to know.

The 10 year old can get an abortion without her parent knowing about it.

Oh, and the difference between you and me is that you think that your faith is something to force on to people, while I think that mine is a gift to offer to people, to accept or reject of their own free will. My philosophy is aligned with the Words and Deeds of Christ. Yours is aligned with the Taliban.

Thank you for telling me what I think, O Great Carmack. You presume too much, I think. Here's essentially what I believe (not that I have to justify anything to you):
1. The Bible is the infallible Word of God, and that all Truth derives from it.
2. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that all salvation is through Him and Him alone.
3. That the Bible is factually accurate, including from creation onwards,
4. That Christ shall return and that He will reign, and that we shall see those who do not accept salvation destroyed.
5. That you should judge not, lest ye shall be judged,
6. That God created us with free will.
7. That no where in God's Word will you find an instance where I am were admonished to force anyone to believe what I believe.

Please do not take it upon yourself to lecture me, nor decide what I think based upon your narrowness of thought. Fortunately, my faith is strong enough that your words have not been enough to convince me that I am wrong and that people like you encompass the entirety of the Body of Christ. Good luck spreading your seeds into a field that you have made infertile.

Mr leoRizzuti: The difference between you and I is that when the Bible says that Jesus Christ will return and judge all of mankind by their deeds - that such is reality and it will actually happen. You believe that this is a matter of mere religious opinion. I believe that the Bible teaches the truth - you think it is simply the opinion of others. When the Scriptures condemn homosexuality as something against the Law of God and the Law of Nature, then to "tolerate" it is to bring down the wrath of God upon your soul. Such is something that will absolutely affect you. To warn someone of the wrath of God is a loving act. My fist post gave reasons as well as Scripture for the rational man to make his own decision on the matter. If this is "Bible Thumping" then I rejoice because I am in the company of Jesus Christ and all of the Saints in heaven. What unbelievers think of me is irrelevant. Howard Roark was once told that he should be sensitive to the opinion of others, and his rhetorical answer was, "Why?" If you are not aware of this: Howard Roark was the main character in Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. Blessings in Jesus Christ.

I'd don't think you're bitter or a fool. I greatly appreciate your kindness and intellect. I most appreciate your taking the time to read and understand my words rather than react in other ways, if you get my drift.

Thank you, jmlesniewski, for your clarification and respectful words.
I understand and find your perspective to be as all of ours is, based on your frame of reference, or as you call it “current cultural context.” My prediction is based upon my frame of reference, there are always exceptions. Perhaps you or your generation will do something extraordinary. I hope so. I still hold hope for our future, but for me time is more critical. My optimism fades with the years. I may not see everything as you do, but I enjoy reading your perspective. In many ways you remind me of myself a long time ago, and I was something to behold! :) You have courage, fortitude, but to imagine events over time will not change your perspective would betray your presence.
I sure hope you are granted 80 years!
Regards,
O.A.

P.S. Now I would like to apologize to LeoRizzuti for hijacking his post, and suggest that we move on, or if you wish to examine the bitter old fool’s perspective further, :) then by all means start a new thread.

LOL

Am I really supposed to continue to take you seriously when you make grand sweeping statements about me because I disagree with you?

I'm brainwashed? I'm a Buddhist? I'm sorry I'm not sorry. It's like you don't understand anything I write.

Keep bringing the insults and dismissals though. They're fun. :)

your last statement is your true motivation. you are so brainwashed you are afraid to use the term communist when it applies. that's definitional. it does not matter the exact version of his collectivism. whether the Presidesnt is a Stalinist or liberation theologist or Leninist or anti colonial marxist-it doesn't matter. those nuances are irrelevant to most of these posts. the great seriousness here, is the destruction of our freedoms.
You appear to be conflating Objectivism with Zen Buddhism. You speak as though you live in a perfect happy bubble divorced from real life events.
Parsing out thoughts-speaking of someone who doesn't normally parse things out....
finally, us, them is categorizing. producers vs takers.

Since I think the income tax should be one of the first things that are gone from our lives . That should take care of the marraige for gaining more handouts idea since without the endless money stolen fom us all those benifits will be gone.

Different forms have different outcomes and approaches. Saying they're all the same is like saying you game plan for every team that runs a West Coast Offense exactly the same way.

"HOW? WHO? WHERE? WHEN?"

Are you asking who is conflating communism on the Gulch? Many users at many times. You and davidkachel are the worst offenders.

"PROVE IT"

When used as pejoratives, the labels communist, moocher, and looter, especially in their plural form, dismiss the target quickly, completely ignoring any possible nuisance of his or her argument by grouping him or her into the "them" group against the speaker's "us" category. I see no reason to do such labeling generally and in fact think it's harmful to do so in two situations:

1. When on an internet message board. There is ample time and writing space. Why not parse out the details of the target's thoughts to truly understand the threat? What does dismissing him or her with a pejorative do besides make yourself feel better about identifying and dismissing him or her?

2. When a person is in a position of power, such as the President. What good does it do to say Obama is simply a communist (if he even is one)? The documentary 2016 is an example of a discussion that shows there is more complexity to his perspective and thus warrants being treated with great seriousness.

"WHY do you think they're not?"

Because they don't display the complexity and nuance of thought that demonstrates the understanding metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Overall what is posted and responded to has a reactionary bent to that demonstrates more emotional fervor than it does productive discussion.

I wasn't referring to you specifically as making the conflation. You are one of the most intelligent and well reasoned users here.

Making a prediction or telling me, it makes no difference. Just as I don't tell people what will happen to them, I will also say "I don't know what will happen to him" or "That doesn't make sense to me so I don't know can sustain it."

As for how I can be happy and positive, I have accepted the reality of life. I'm here for 80 years. I was born into the current cultural context. I am doing my best to improve what I can for myself. Letting my happiness be determined by things beyond my control is unhealthy and I don't yet see our culture as past the threshold where ONLY suffering is possible.

"Conflating communism and collectivism is EXTREMELY dangerous. It misses the point, almost entirely, and makes it very hard to identify issues in your daily life" HOW? WHO? WHERE? WHEN?
"it's also collectivist thinking to throw around the label communist (and moochers and looters and etc), again confusing the issue. " PROVE IT
" If I thought people were using it as shorthand for complex philosophical arguments as Rand often did, I wouldn't have an issue with it. However, I often see not just the point being completely missed, but the dart board too." WHY do you think they're not?

Thank you for your reply. You have made some valid points worthy of consideration.

Let me be clear, perhaps I could have chosen my words more precisely; I am not “telling” you what you are going to think in the future. I am predicting (I could be wrong) that you will find yourself with a more negative disposition decades from now if the nation continues down this progressive path as it has over my lifetime. Why do I say that? Because I find it to be the experience shared by so many of my peers that it is difficult to find one with any objectivity who does not see it that way. The exceptions being those who are progressive leaning and like the direction we are heading and apparently do not have any concerns, and those who do not recognize the camels nose, or give full due to the lessons of history. Now, I believe you are somewhat concerned or you wouldn’t bother.

Please point out where I have conflated communism with collectivism, and where it makes any difference even if so. They both are forms of oppression, tyranny of a majority, subjugation of the individual. Also since I apparently see more danger than you do, you feel I, and others here have been loose with our terms. Well, I just call them as I see them. What makes something communist and what makes it collectivist is a matter of degrees, or particular criteria of structure, but the result is the same, as is the general political philosophy of the proponents. There is far too much in common.

In my estimation I am using some terms for shorthand as Rand did. I do not wish to be pedantic. If we are to debate the finer points and distinctions of the terms, that is a separate subject for consideration. But since they are all part and parcel of the same general philosophy of pushing for egalitarianism at the expense of the individual, I really don’t care what term is used. The dart has hit its mark.

I am happy for you if you see the glass half full, and there are some hopeful signs that all is not lost. One must keep perspective just as you alluded to in your reference to W’s election. But the world didn’t end for the populations of Venezuela when Chavez took over, and similarly for the myriad of other similar examples throughout history. But do we want that here, and should we who see the same progression played out repeatedly, making its way into our body politic not sound the alarm?

Regards,
O.A.

the philosophical battle is over?
fascism/socialism,theocracy/communism/progressivism- all variations on collectivism

The philosophical battle is not over communism vs capitalism.

Wow, it sounds like you've been really successful in improving things in your life. Maybe I <i>should</i> try to be like you.

I took your previous comment negatively because you told me how I would see things and act in the future. Yes, life is a learning experience, but that doesn't mean I tell anyone what will happen to them or what he'll think in the future. I'm not him.

I understand your perspective, but I just don't agree. At all. I was in Ithaca when W was elected and the liberals were flipping out saying life is over. I just leaned back and relaxed telling them, "even if he outlaws gay marriage, the world isn't over." It was a huge learning lesson for me.

Conflating communism and collectivism is EXTREMELY dangerous. It misses the point, almost entirely, and makes it very hard to identify issues in your daily life. Ironically, it's also collectivist thinking to throw around the label communist (and moochers and looters and etc), again confusing the issue.

Finally, politics is an application of philosophy. To simply an issue to "communism" is to miss what the issue is about. If I thought people were using it as shorthand for complex philosophical arguments as Rand often did, I wouldn't have an issue with it. However, I often see not just the point being completely missed, but the dart board too.

That is your perception of what I do, not what I do at all.

Unless you can articulate the attributes of the class or classes of persons on which Congress has laid the Income Tax and state the events that brought you into that class;how can you claim to be a Taxpayer? And if you cannot why are you still paying?

Sho thang

Lets - I've said that a thousand times. Thanks for remembering. : )