Successful Communism

[Joecoolyo]

Yeah, I mean, wasn't god busy saving the queen at this point in history?

 

[_random_]

How do you know that God and the Founding Fathers were never at odds? Prove it.

That's kind of a moot point, seeing as the "Founding Fathers" are little more than a piece of empty political rhetoric used to console people into assuming that the beliefs of a certain political ideology were supposedly relevant 200 years ago, and therefore must be relevant today. In reality, they were at odds with each other more often than not, and any God who would somehow agree with all the individuals who have been referred to as "Founding Fathers" in the U.S. could hardly be considered very wise. That being said, if it weren't for the clear stupidity of the original statement, I would think your challenge somewhat unfair, because, as a theist, I have a distinct set of beliefs about what the will of god is (some of which are probably wrong), but I don't think one really could prove such a thing.

 

[spryllino]

That's kind of a moot point, seeing as the "Founding Fathers" are little more than a piece of empty political rhetoric used to console people into assuming that the beliefs of a certain political ideology were supposedly relevant 200 years ago, and therefore must be relevant today. In reality, they were at odds with each other more often than not, and any God who would somehow agree with all the individuals who have been referred to as "Founding Fathers" in the U.S. could hardly be considered very wise. That being said, if it weren't for the clear stupidity of the original statement, I would think your challenge somewhat unfair, because, as a theist, I have a distinct set of beliefs about what the will of god is (some of which are probably wrong), but I don't think one really could prove such a thing.

Unfairness must be met with unfairness. This is well justified by this:

God was not at odds with the Founding Fathers in any way.

Given that Domination3000 went so far as to say that, my question that you quoted is entirely valid.

I agree with everything else you have written there. My point is basically not about God but about whether Domination3000 would ever trust anything more than these "Founding Fathers", who seem to me no more than the politicians and aristocrats who happened to be around at the time of the consitution's inception.

 

[_random_]

Unfairness must be met with unfairness. This is well justified by this:



Given that Domination3000 went so far as to say that, my question that you quoted is entirely valid.

I agree with everything else you have written there. My point is basically not about God but about whether Domination3000 would ever trust anything more than these "Founding Fathers", who seem to me no more than the politicians and aristocrats who happened to be around at the time of the consitution's inception.

Fair enough.

 

[Cutlass]

The Founding Fathers did not ban slavery. So clearly the FFs did not give a damn about god

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Jefferson- Society falls when you take from those who do work and give to those who don't.

What are you? Socialist? Communist? Both? Neither? What?

Any way, you obviously don't like capitalism. You and Karalysia would get along

Yes, but those who have and those who work for what they have are often not the same. Jefferson placed many of the nation's most wealthy in the "don't work" category. He advocated very high taxes on any land holdings larger than what a single family could work without resorting to hiring laborers, buying slaves, or renting portions of the land to tenants.


Thomas Paine advocated a somewhat more extreme proposal: high land value taxes for all property owners, which would be used to pay out a basic income to the landless citizens.


The bible itself calls for gleaners rights (providing those who are willing to work the natural capital for their sustenance), as well as a special tithe to provide income to the landless.


Modern, corporate capitalism is much more related to the policies advocated by Hamilton than by Jefferson. Hamilton was more of a quasi-monarchist than a Classical Liberal like the Founding Fathers we generally esteem. Of course, there were some founding fathers closer to his position, with George Washington himself leaning that way. (Paine did not care for Washington either.)

I lean more towards Geo-Classical Liberalism, which is more left leaning but also much closer to the position of the founders than is traditional Capitalism.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The Founding Fathers did not ban slavery. So clearly the FFs did not give a damn about god

No, they were just wrong. There are verses in the Bible which tell how slaves are to act, which could be interpreted (Incorrectly) to be condoning the practice.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No, they were just wrong. There are verses in the Bible which tell how slaves are to act, which could be interpreted (Incorrectly) to be condoning the practice.

And, you know, the Jewish Law as laid out in Leviticus, which not only permits slavery, it permits a father to sell his daughter into slavery.

But all of this is digression from the subject at hand, which is most assuredly not the Founding Fathers of the United States.

 

[Bill3000]

Jefferson- Society falls when you take from those who do work and give to those who don't.

I told you yesterday and provided evidence that he never said such a thing.

 

[sophie]

I told you yesterday and provided evidence that he never said such a thing.

Yes, but you see, Domination3000 is above these things we like to call "facts" and "evidence". His ideas are too lofty to be tied down by such mundane things.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yes, but you see, Domination3000 is above these things we like to call "facts" and "evidence". His ideas are too lofty to be tied down by such mundane things.

Maybe I am

Seriously, you have never proved this to be the case.

Edit: Cheezy: I don't know why this was, but I can say back then slavery was more of Indentured Servitude. Still, can't explain that one.

 

[sophie]

Can you please stop with the smiley blocks? They hurt my eyes. One will suffice.

Seriously, you have never proved this to be the case.

Never proved what? That you never back up any of your statements with credible sources?

Edit: Cheezy: I don't know why this was, but I can say back then slavery was more of Indentured Servitude. Still, can't explain that one.

lolwut?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Can you please stop with the smiley blocks? They hurt my eyes. One will suffice.

So, you admit to losing the debate:

 

[sophie]

So, you admit to losing the debate

when did I say that?

 

[civ_king]

Can you please stop with the smiley blocks? They hurt my eyes. One will suffice.

So, you admit to losing the debate:

What I think he means is using that many smilies makes you seem like a douche, but he is giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't a douche, so please not limit the smilies
right Owen?

 

[sophie]

What I think he means is using that many smilies makes you seem like a douche, but he is giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't a douche, so please limit the smilies
right Owen?

Yep, that about hits the nail on the head.

 

[GamezRule]

Can you please stop with the smiley blocks? They hurt my eyes. One will suffice.
What I think he means is using that many smilies makes you seem like a douche, but he is giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't a douche, so please not limit the smilies
right Owen?

Perfect.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Whoa, whats with all the messed up quoting in your guy's posts?

 

[sophie]

Whoa, whats with all the messed up quoting in your guy's posts?

Domination misquoted me, (left out the /quote bracket), so when everyone quoted him, they picked up the same thing.

 

[GhostWriter16]

when did I say that?

When you complained about the smiles instead of countering the argument

Obviously, I'm not serious about that though.



I had to