Why I'm a liberal socialist.

[SkyWriting]

However you define a liberal socialist, Jesus pretty much matches that description.

Hmmm guns? Let's see:

Luke 22:36
He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.

Matthew 26:52
Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

Matthew 10:34
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Ephesians 6:17
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God,

 

[HTacianas]

However you define a liberal socialist, Jesus pretty much matches that description.

Hmmm guns? Let's see:

Luke 22:36
He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.

Matthew 26:52
Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

Matthew 10:34
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Ephesians 6:17
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God,

I'm afraid I'm not following you there. Can you explain that a little more?

 

[redleghunter]

However you define a liberal socialist, Jesus pretty much matches that description.

Hmmm guns? Let's see:

Luke 22:36
He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.

Matthew 26:52
Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

Matthew 10:34
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Ephesians 6:17
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God,

I’m leaning towards full Communism.

Jesus says for everyone to sell all they have and follow him. Thinking of being the guy that makes sure everyone turns in all their goods. You know the accountability guy.

 

[HARK!]

I’m leaning towards full Communism.

Josef Stalin In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952 10,076,000 political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated in Kuomintang China, and by 1987 another 35,236,000 exterminations were carried out under the Communists.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. Under Communist rule between 1975 and 1979. 2,035,000 "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

 

[redleghunter]

Josef Stalin In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952 10,076,000 political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated in Kuomintang China, and by 1987 another 35,236,000 exterminations were carried out under the Communists.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. Under Communist rule between 1975 and 1979. 2,035,000 "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

I should have put a tongue in cheek emoji.

 

[Cis.jd]

liberalists back then where ok. I can understand why people think Jesus was more on the left side of the political spectrum just based on how he would tell off the pharisees and the over religious.

It's just in our present times that liberal socialists have become a negative.

 

[HARK!]

liberalists back then where ok. I can understand why people think Jesus was more on the left side of the political spectrum just based on how he would tell off the pharisees and the over religious.

Yahshua followed his Father YHWH's example; neither are Authoritarian. Free will offerings are just that, of free will.

 

[HARK!]

It's just in our present times that liberal socialists have become a negative.

That's not true. The Roman Empire fell because of:

1.) Their government changed from a Republic to a Democracy.

2.) Inevitably Socialism was the next step. The greedy and the lazy, demanded that the government give them free stuff.

3.) Inevitably, the government couldn't afford that, so they resorted to fiat currency. They devalued their coins by mixing in less valuable metals; until their coins became practically worthless.

See a pattern?

Throughout history Socialists keep doing the same thing, again and again, expecting different results.

 

[Cis.jd]

That's not true. The Roman Empire fell because of:

1.) Their government changed from a Republic to a Democracy.

2.) Inevitably Socialism was the next step. The greedy and the lazy, demanded that the government give then free stuff.

3.) Inevitably, the government couldn't afford that, so they resorted to fiat currency. They devalued their coins by mixing in less valuable metals; until their coins became practically worthless.

See a pattern?

Throughout history Socialists keep doing the same thing, again and again, expecting different results.

I think "negative" was the wrong word for me to use. I just don't know another appropriate word to replace "snowflake".

 

[HARK!]

I think "negative" was the wrong word for me to use. I just don't know another appropriate word to replace "snowflake".

Well , I might have misspoken too. Socialists might not actually expect anything but their supposed entitlements. Maybe some are just greedy and lazy and they just don't care how that affects society; so long as they get theirs, with as little effort as possible. Look at all the exterminations at the hands of Socialists and Communists in the last century. Can they really make an argument that their intentions were to reach out to their fellow man; well, I mean other than to take his stuff?

 

[Quartermaine]

Josef Stalin In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952 10,076,000 political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated in Kuomintang China, and by 1987 another 35,236,000 exterminations were carried out under the Communists.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. Under Communist rule between 1975 and 1979. 2,035,000 "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Gun confiscation is not gun control and it's false witness to suggest they are the same.

In practical terms, gun control boils down to addressing issues of how to keep lethal weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally deranged, how to reasonably regulate their manufacture and sale, and what kinds of guns and ammunition are appropriate for private citizens to own and use.

“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.” Ronald Reagan

the claims about Stalin and gun control are demonstrably false. Gun control was established in the
Soviet Union years before Stalin and were limited to he requirement that all weapons be registered with the local police. The police could confiscate weapons and ammunition from people who showed signs of dangerously irresponsible behavior but that confiscation was time limited and subject to immediate judicial review.
Ref: K. Bliss Eaton Daily Life in the Soviet Union (2004)
R.Conquest The Great Terror: A Reassessment (2008)

 

[Cis.jd]

Well , I might have misspoken too. Socialists might not actually expect anything but their supposed entitlements. Maybe some are just greedy and lazy and they just don't care how that affects society; so long as they get theirs, with as little effort as possible. Look at all the exterminations at the hands of Socialists and Communists in the last century. Can they really make an argument that their intentions were to reach out to their fellow man; well, I mean other than to take his stuff?

In some ways,i can give those ancient socialists that their views had a bit of reason in them. Now it's all about being a victim.

 

[Quartermaine]

Well , I might have misspoken too. Socialists might not actually expect anything but their supposed entitlements. Maybe some are just greedy and lazy and they just don't care how that affects society; so long as they get theirs, with as little effort as possible. Look at all the exterminations at the hands of Socialists and Communists in the last century. Can they really make an argument that their intentions were to reach out to their fellow man; well, I mean other than to take his stuff?

you might want to pull up a list of socialist countries and a list of the countries with the highest GDP, personal income, life expectancy, literacy rate and personal happiness....and make note that the lists are all the same

 

[HARK!]

“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.” Ronald Reagan

Apparently Ronald Reagan, didn't understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

You might be surprised by this; but the Founders didn't have such a tremendous affinity for duck hunting; that they felt it imperative that they write a constitutional amendment to protect their sporting rights. That amendment was written in the wake of a Tyrannical King named George, who attempted to disarm the American people. It was against the law for him to do so. As Englishmen, the Founders knew this. This Tyrannical King George was preceded by another Tyrannical king, King James, who sent the Pilgrims fleeing to this land. While the Pilgrims were here, back in England, the people of England were executing that King. After he was executed, they wrote a new contract. Under that contract, EVERY Englishman was REQUIRED to bear arms, according to his financial ability. If he had servants; he was required to provide arms to his servants.The concept being that no Tyrannical King, could ever charge enough taxes, to pay an army, large enough, to subject an armed People to Tyranny.

U.S. Law is built on the precedence of English Law.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Apparently Ronald Reagan, didn't understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

You might be surprised by this; but the Founders didn't have such a tremendous affinity for duck hunting; that they felt it imperative that they write a constitutional amendment to protect their sporting rights. That amendment was written in the wake of a Tyrannical King named George, who attempted to disarm the American people. It was against the law for him to do so. As Englishmen, the Founders knew this. This Tyrannical King George was preceded by another Tyrannical king, King James, who sent the Pilgrims fleeing to this land. While the Pilgrims were here, back in England, the people of England were executing that King. After he was executed, they wrote a new contract. Under that contract, EVERY Englishman was REQUIRED to bear arms, according to his financial ability. If he had servants; he was required to provide arms to his servants.The concept being that no Tyrannical King, could ever charge enough taxes, to pay an army, large enough, to subject and armed People to Tyranny.

U.S. Law is built on the precedence of English Law.

However, weapons that can fire this many per second (up to a million rounds) makes armed civilians obsolete regardless of how many there are.

 

[HARK!]

However, weapons that can fire this many per second (up to a million rounds) makes armed civilians obsolete regardless of how many there are.

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." --James Madison

 

[blackribbon]

In communism or socialism, the government confiscates and then redistributes the wealth.

Jesus teaches to take what wealth that God has blessed us with and share it with those who are less fortunate.

There is a huge difference between forced generosity and "free will" generosity by following the teachings of Jesus.

Communism and socialist are anti-Christian because they teach dependence on your government and to look for the government to provide your needs, not to trust God.

 

[jgarden]

Josef Stalin In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952 10,076,000 political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated in Kuomintang China, and by 1987 another 35,236,000 exterminations were carried out under the Communists.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. Under Communist rule between 1975 and 1979. 2,035,000 "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

During the American Revolution, there was little difference between private firearms and those used by the military:

Fast forward to the 21srC and the gulf between the weapons available to civilian versus those of a modern military is immense - pistols, hunting rifles and shotguns are no match when compared to the firepower that a well-equipped military has at its disposal!

 

[jgarden]

Why I'm a liberal socialist

The mere fact that Bernie Sanders, a liberal socialist, has won the first 2 Democratic primaries is an indicator that for whatever reasons, America's traditional capitalist ideology has failed to respond to the needs of the majority of its citizens and that a significant % are now searching for viable alternatives!

If the marketplace and the private sector were capable of addressing such issues as equitable distribution of income and affordable healthcare available to all, then Bernie Sanders and his socialist policies would have long since been relegated to the political sidelines!

 

[coffee4u]

However you define a liberal socialist, Jesus pretty much matches that description.

Jesus would say to the liberal "Go sin no more."
The liberal would probably hurl rocks at him for hate speech.