Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-14-2011, 09:10 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,634,918 times
Reputation: 18521

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMe View Post
I don't think Marxism and liberalism are antagonistic at all. They both drink from the same well. Marxists may not think liberals have the courage of their convictions but that's a matter of practice rather than belief.

Liberal is the rebranded Progressive of the early 1900's. Progressive became a bad thing. Liberal was born as it has a nice ring. Progressive is the total opposite if liberal.

USA Progressive's, German Socialist and Russian Marxist were on the same page in the early 1900's.

After WW-II, Marxism in Russia was a bad thing. We called them Communist.
The German Socialist dictatorship was gone. We saw how bad that was and Russia was using the same control the Germans did to form the Nazi Party.

Rebranded long ago, to hide under the radar, the masks came off and Progressive has once again reared its ugly head. It is of the Marxist ideology. Many in this administration, admire Lenin and Mao.


It is just a coincidence, isn't it? You tell me!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-14-2011, 09:28 AM
 
2,208 posts, read 1,836,450 times
Reputation: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Ya, that worked real we for the first settlers to this soil.
The collective first 3 years just about eliminated all of them.

The history of Thanksgiving, tells of the struggles to feed everyone for the first 3 years, until they were allowed private property to fend for each individual instead of the collective. They thrived after that. Everyone had to work to eat after private property.
You point is a) historically inaccurate. b) doesn't pertain to evolution.

Our species evolved socially into collective animals. I don't mean over the course of over a few hundred years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2011, 09:47 AM
 
7,871 posts, read 10,132,449 times
Reputation: 3241
Quote:
Originally Posted by antarez View Post
Liberals have strongly opposed Christian Ceationist teachings and supported evolution.
Because evolution has evidence to support it, and Creationism does not, and moreover, it isn't science at all.

Quote:
If Liberals so strongly believe in Evolution,survival of the Fittest.
That's a gross oversimplication of evolution, and it's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of education. Do you "believe" in gravity? If you don't, do you fly off the Earth?

Quote:
Then why do Liberals support Survival of the Weakest through Social Services,food stamps,Section 8 and other entitlement programs???
Because Social Darwinism isn't the same thing as evolution. The first is a right-wing political theory, the second is actual science.

Quote:
If social services were scaled back wouldn't only the strong survive in society? Isn't this what evolution's end results are supposed to be?
If the rich don't take care of the poor, the poor will take care of the rich. The science of evolution doesn't necessarily apply to politics or human civilization. We may be animals biologically, but that does not mean we have to behave like animals, does it?

Quote:
Also wouldn't evolution eventually take care of or minimize the problems of the weakest and unfit (Darwinism) and those who made poor choices and continuosly do so(Social Dawinism) by drug/alcohol addiction,single mothers with multiple kids,absentee fathers,etc..?
You have a poor understanding of evolution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2011, 09:48 AM
 
7,871 posts, read 10,132,449 times
Reputation: 3241
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
adaptability and the strongest survive = evolution.
Mostly wrong.

"Strongest" doesn't work here. Best suited to the environment is more appropriate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2011, 09:49 AM
 
7,871 posts, read 10,132,449 times
Reputation: 3241
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Yet Homosapien mysteriously appeared in time.
No, it didn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2011, 10:04 AM
 
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,835,178 times
Reputation: 6438
Quote:
Originally Posted by antarez View Post
Liberals have strongly opposed Christian Ceationist teachings and supported evolution.

If Liberals so strongly believe in Evolution,survival of the Fittest.

Then why do Liberals support Survival of the Weakest through Social Services,food stamps,Section 8 and other entitlement programs???

If social services were scaled back wouldn't only the strong survive in society? Isn't this what evolution's end results are supposed to be?

Also wouldn't evolution eventually take care of or minimize the problems of the weakest and unfit (Darwinism) and those who made poor choices and continuosly do so(Social Dawinism) by drug/alcohol addiction,single mothers with multiple kids,absentee fathers,etc..?
What is the Sun? Some say it is a huge ball of gas, burning in the sky above. These men are scientists. I choose not to believe this. I believe it is the Eye of God.

Scientists say it, so it must not be true. Scientists say we evolved from a common ancestor. Obviously, this is hogwash. The earth is 6000 years old.

Natural nuclear fission reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These reactions did not happen 2 billion years ago. It's just a lie.

http://www.granneman.com/images/050814tRexSkeleton.jpg (broken link)
Not real. Keep walking by. It's just a figment of your imagination.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2011, 10:09 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,643 posts, read 26,384,037 times
Reputation: 12648
Quote:
Originally Posted by antarez View Post
Liberals have strongly opposed Christian Ceationist teachings and supported evolution.

If Liberals so strongly believe in Evolution,survival of the Fittest.

Then why do Liberals support Survival of the Weakest through Social Services,food stamps,Section 8 and other entitlement programs???

If social services were scaled back wouldn't only the strong survive in society? Isn't this what evolution's end results are supposed to be?

Also wouldn't evolution eventually take care of or minimize the problems of the weakest and unfit (Darwinism) and those who made poor choices and continuosly do so(Social Dawinism) by drug/alcohol addiction,single mothers with multiple kids,absentee fathers,etc..?


Because liberals are the weakest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2011, 10:11 AM
 
46,963 posts, read 25,998,208 times
Reputation: 29449
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMe View Post
Thank you for making explicit that liberals are Marxists at heart.
Not much for nuance, are we?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2011, 10:15 AM
 
46,963 posts, read 25,998,208 times
Reputation: 29449
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
Because liberals are the weakest.
That's - interesting, because as you can tell, Social Sevices, Foodstamps, Section 8 etc. etc. exist. So if you insist on adapting antarez' worldview (I suggest you don't), then liberals are forcing their will on those "stronger".

Which raises the question: Who is, in reality, the stronger part?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2011, 10:20 AM
 
Location: In the desert
4,049 posts, read 2,742,119 times
Reputation: 2483
Quote:
Originally Posted by antarez View Post
Liberals have strongly opposed Christian Ceationist teachings and supported evolution.

If Liberals so strongly believe in Evolution,survival of the Fittest.

Then why do Liberals support Survival of the Weakest through Social Services,food stamps,Section 8 and other entitlement programs???

If social services were scaled back wouldn't only the strong survive in society? Isn't this what evolution's end results are supposed to be?

This liberal supports a system that helps those who need some help.

Although it would make some people in this country very happy if those 'weak' members would just die, it could get very messy because so very many are hurting & cannot afford things like health care or food.

This thread is another of many liberal vs. conservative bait threads IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:23 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top