America was tricked into anti-Communism

  • Thread starter Thread starter narrowpath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My personal definition of Socialism is:

Governmental beurocratic control of resources both human and material. The antithesis of free enteprrise.

'Nuther words… socialism is an enemy of the enteprenural spirit we once saw commonly in our culture back in the days when “Mom & Pop” type businesses were everywhere and we did support out families comfortably with that. I am a product of that and now I am a lost and miserable soul without it. I was born in suburban New York in 1947.

The social engineers in out school system want to own your children. Obama will sign a bill soon to allow your teenage daughter an abortion without your knowlege… think about THAT…! Who are you as a parent… nobody, according to the people that YOU did elect.

Maxine Waters wants to “Socialize” the oil industry ( and that means; the energy industry ) and she said so herself and realized that she had stuck her foot in her mouth in front of the whole U.S. Congress…

Every inch of film out of Hollywood is saturated with subliminal propaganda to that social adgenda and it makes me want to vomit.

A profit is never appreciated in his own country. Sen. Joe McCarthy was a profit.
 
AnnieMarie527 said:
Aside from the fact that history has shown us that Socialsm does not a prosperous country make, lets take this down to a more basic level. As Catholics, as Chrisitans, we are all encouraged to follow the path that Christ has shown us. Sure, governent enforced soical justice seems like a great idea, built upon tenets that those who are less fortunate can prosper with the spreading of the wealthy’s riches. But does that really embody the true spirit of Chrisitanity? Of the teachings of our Catholic faith?

The burden to give, to care for your fellow man should be one of your own. It should be a concisous decision to give, to provide. When you see a derelict man on the street who asks for change, do you give it to him freely of your own will, regardless of what he may do with the money? Think of how you would feel if you had a hulking man standing behind you, forcing you to dig into your pocket to give the homeless man money. Doesn’t make much sense does it?

Spiritual growth and enlightenment come from the choices that we make as individuals. Again, the burden to give and to care for one another should come from an individual persepctive. It should not be forced upon us by the government, especially a government who chooses to give for the sole purpose of power, not the greater good of their fellow man.
Click to expand...
You hit the nail on the head. No matter how much money the government takes from you and distributes to who it thinks needs it more than you, will not help you one bit to obtain salvation.
 
Sadly, I think that false sense of salvation may have been a driving factor in recent events.
 
God is not glorified if the government takes your money and redistributes it to “the poor” (they define “poor”). Then, the poor rely upon the government and not upon God (in His Church). God is glorified if WE take our money and give to the poor. Then we will have “treasure in heaven.” On earth, we will have practiced virtues of charity, self-control, thrift etc., making us even more fit for the Kingdom of God.
 
I’d say it was the Russians who were tricked into Communism. But they finally saw the light, or rather the darkness, of that system.
 
Maso said:
My personal definition of Socialism is:

Governmental beurocratic control of resources both human and material. The antithesis of free enteprrise.

'Nuther words… socialism is an enemy of the enteprenural spirit we once saw commonly in our culture back in the days when “Mom & Pop” type businesses were everywhere and we did support out families comfortably with that. I am a product of that and now I am a lost and miserable soul without it. I was born in suburban New York in 1947.

The social engineers in out school system want to own your children. Obama will sign a bill soon to allow your teenage daughter an abortion without your knowlege… think about THAT…! Who are you as a parent… nobody, according to the people that YOU did elect.

Maxine Waters wants to “Socialize” the oil industry ( and that means; the energy industry ) and she said so herself and realized that she had stuck her foot in her mouth in front of the whole U.S. Congress…

Every inch of film out of Hollywood is saturated with subliminal propaganda to that social adgenda and it makes me want to vomit.

A profit is never appreciated in his own country. Sen. Joe McCarthy was a profit.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Modern social democracy. includes support for a democratic welfare state which incorporates elements of both socialism and capitalism, sometimes termed the mixed economy.[2] This differs from traditional socialism, which aims to end the predominance of capitalism altogether. Social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs that work to counteract or remove the social injustice and inefficiencies they see as inherent in capitalism.
 
patcv1984 said:
God is not glorified if the government takes your money and redistributes it to “the poor” (they define “poor”). Then, the poor rely upon the government and not upon God (in His Church). God is glorified if WE take our money and give to the poor. Then we will have “treasure in heaven.” On earth, we will have practiced virtues of charity, self-control, thrift etc., making us even more fit for the Kingdom of God.
Click to expand...
This was exactly my point. If the public relies on the governement and puts their faith in a Federal institution, then where is the nutrture of the spirit that comes from hard work and generosity of self/others? When we pass on from this world, are we going to be given access to heaven by saying, “Well I paid taxes.”? I don’t think so.
 
patcv1984 said:
God is not glorified if the government takes your money and redistributes it to “the poor” (they define “poor”). Then, the poor rely upon the government and not upon God (in His Church). God is glorified if WE take our money and give to the poor.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forums. You hit the nail on the head.
 
AnnieMarie527 said:
This was exactly my point. If the public relies on the governement and puts their faith in a Federal institution, then where is the nutrture of the spirit that comes from hard work and generosity of self/others? When we pass on from this world, are we going to be given access to heaven by saying, “Well I paid taxes.”? I don’t think so.
Click to expand...
It is possible to pay taxes **and **give to charity you know.
 
patcv1984 said:
God is not glorified if the government takes your money and redistributes it to “the poor” (they define “poor”). Then, the poor rely upon the government and not upon God (in His Church). God is glorified if WE take our money and give to the poor. Then we will have “treasure in heaven.” On earth, we will have practiced virtues of charity, self-control, thrift etc., making us even more fit for the Kingdom of God.
Click to expand...
Excellent post-

This is exactly why communist and socialist regimes embrace atheism.

They know that a servant cannot have two masters-
 
MarcoPolo said:
Welcome to the forums. You hit the nail on the head.
Click to expand...
Which explains why it was no surprise when Senator Biden was
revealed as having given less to charity than I did last year even though he had several times the income I do. Liberals in general are not big givers, except for the mega-rich who give through foundations which offer them some economic advantage.
 
thomfra said:
It is possible to pay taxes **and **give to charity you know.
Click to expand...
The problem with taxes is that they reduce the ability to give freely. They also encourage the Scrooge reply: Are there not worshops for the poor? The welfare state is, at bottom, a paternalist notion, first developed by Bismarck in order to undercut socialism in Germany. But carried to an extreme it sucks up all the money that families might use for education, say, who are then compelled by want to send their kids to government schools.
 
thomfra said:
It is possible to pay taxes **and **give to charity you know.
Click to expand...
And I do both…

My point is, once again, the burden on the self. A socialist government that enforces “charitable donations” on people via higher taxes is not giving to charity. It is just taxation. Thus it takes the spiritual element out of giving. Perhaps I should have explained a little better. My whole basis of arguement against socialism/communism is that when people are forced to give, it takes away from the spiritual growth aspect of it, however, I think that a great many people think of socialism/communism as a way of being charitable.

There is a huge difference between saying, “Yes, I freely and willingly gave of my time and money and resources to help my brothers and sisters” and “Well, I pay taxes and they go to the poor people.”
 
RobbyS said:
The problem with taxes is that they reduce the ability to give freely. They also encourage the Scrooge reply: Are there not worshops for the poor? The welfare state is, at bottom, a paternalist notion, first developed by Bismarck in order to undercut socialism in Germany. But carried to an extreme it sucks up all the money that families might use for education, say, who are then compelled by want to send their kids to government schools.
Click to expand...
If taxes were halved, the money would be spent on cars and flat screen TVs (and other such things). No more would go to charity.
 
thomfra said:
If taxes were halved, the money would be spent on cars and flat screen TVs (and other such things). No more would go to charity.
Click to expand...
I suppose this would explain why people go through great lengths to claim charitable tax deductions? 🤷
 
thomfra said:
If taxes were halved, the money would be spent on cars and flat screen TVs (and other such things). No more would go to charity.
Click to expand...
Can you cite your source on this claim, please?

When the government takes my money, it takes it’s cut, and then gives a portion to organizations I may not like, with lots of conditions on how that charity can operate…

When I give to charity directly, there is no government goon taking his cut off the top, and the charity is of my choosing, and my donation has no strings attached.

It is simply more efficient and a better exercise of individual choice for the government to get out of the way.
 
Just thought I would add the following numbers, from “The Black Book of Communism:”

Nonetheless, we have to start somewhere. The following rough approximation, based on unofficial estimates, gives some sense of the scale and gravity of these crimes:

U.S.S.R.: 20 million deaths
China: 65 million deaths
Vietnam: 1 million deaths
NorthKorea: 2 million deaths
Cambodia: 2 million deaths
EasternEurope: 1 million deaths
LatinAmerica: 150,000 deaths
Africa: 1.7 million deaths
Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths

International Communist parties not in power: about 10,000 deaths

The total approaches 100 million people killed.I think I’ll stick with anti-communism.
 
cynic said:
Couldn’t have put it better. Social democracies can ensure that everyone has opportunity, but ussually at the expense of GDP.

I would rather that children from poor communities have opportunity, with the rich and middle earners (me) having our money ‘stolen’ from us ‘unjustly’, than have some nightmare libertarian alternative. Not least because without opportunity, those same kids might otherwise grow up to be criminals, and bash me on the street, or break into my dwelling and take my possessions etc
Click to expand...
You don’t have any money, do you? I find that people who are willing to “have [their] money stolen from [them] unjustly” are people who don’t have any money – that is, they are willing to have OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY stolen from THEM unjustly, to be handed over to people who otherwise threaten that their children will loot, steal, murder and so forth to get the stuff. That is “My kids will get your stuff anyway, so you might as well hand it over and that way nobody will get hurt.”

Did you grow up in a Mafia neighbourhood or what?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top