Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,407 Year: 3,664/9,624 Month: 535/974 Week: 148/276 Day: 22/23 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Marxism
onifre
Member (Idle past 2972 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 26 of 526 (552594)
03-29-2010 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Faith
03-29-2010 11:06 PM


Real Marxism -vs- US/Russia Marxism
Hi Faith,
I'll reply to your post from the other thread here. I will also be referencing ICANT's post, since it is relevant to the context.
Just bopping around EvC I ran across this post and was appallled at your lack of knowledge of the Communist and Marxist influence in this country. You should read David Horowitz's autobiography Radical Son to find out about a man whose parents were active American Communists in the thirties who went out every day distributing their propaganda. You wouldn't like him, he's now a conservative, but his story makes it clear there definitely has been a real Marxist influence in this country. You're one of its products.
Horowitz was just one of thousands of what were called "red diaper babies" born in that generation who grew up to become the core of the Sixties' political radicals who led the Marxist Revolution of that time. Where do you think the loud anti-McCarthy stuff came from? McCarthy may not have gone about it right, I don't think he did, but he was right about the Communist influence. That's my generation and I knew a lot of them.
You could also read the writings of the Cultural Marxists or Freudian Marxists who were very big on the campuses in those days, basically all about taking down the Christian traditions of the West in favor of Marxist ideas. They sent out a whole generation of Marxists to teach in the schools and we now have two or three generations raised on their propaganda instead of the principles of the American founding. I wasn't a Christian in those days and had mostly liberal friends, but I could see that the radical movement was anti-American in some fundamental way even then. Or at least feel it. It was prone to violence and scorn of simple people.
Ok, my original point to ICANT was that he was buying into US propaganda, which he claimed he doesn't do. My point was that ICANT, even though he feels he's not buying into one form of propaganda, is actually, perhaps unknowingly, falling for another form.
Why do I say that. Well, take your reply for example. The "Marxist Movement" in the US that you mention is NOT Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels original meaning for communism/Marxist Theory. The type of marxism you're talking about is the hybrid abortion form of communism that the Russian's created, Marxism-Leninism. Followed by Stalinism, and Trotskyism.
The 1917 October Revolution, led by Vladimir Lenin, was the first attempt ever to implement Marxist ideology, but it wasn't actually Marxist theory. It was Leninism, or Marxism-Leninism. And Marxism-Leninism is different from the Communist Manifesto written by Marx and Engels.
The communist/marxist movements here in the US was the fake propaganda that the Russians promoted. Which, without Marx's approval mind you, Lenin created. Marx himself would not have agreed with some of Lenin's ideologies.
Source
quote:
Marx defined "communism" as a classless, egalitarian and stateless society. To Marx, the notion of a communist state would have seemed an oxymoron, as he defined communism as the phase reached when class society and the state had already been abolished. Once the lower stage towards communism, commonly referred to as socialism, had been established, society would develop new social relations over the course of several generations, reaching what Marx called the higher phase of communism when not only bourgeois relations but every class social relations had been abandoned. Such a development has yet to occur in any historical self-claimed socialist state.
So you see, ICANT's claim about not buying into propaganda is in fact false.
You're one of its products.
My parents are immigrants, trust me, I'm not any type of US-made product. That's why I know what real Marxism is, not the propaganda you and ICANT have bought into.
{Edit}
The poster on the other thread was incredulous at the idea there was any kind of Marxist/Communist influence in this country at all.
No I wasn't, I was well aware of the Russian lead propaganda called Marxism-Leninism that was also tried here in the US. It is not true Marxism though. It is Leninism.
I hope I've made it clear that his knowledge of history is sadly deficient.
You have made clear that many people in the US have a very narrow knowledge of history.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 03-29-2010 11:06 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 03-30-2010 1:56 AM onifre has replied
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 03-30-2010 2:06 AM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2972 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 37 of 526 (552618)
03-30-2010 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
03-30-2010 1:56 AM


Re: Real Marxism -vs- US/Russia Marxism
I don't care if it's "pure" by someobody's definition or not, it uses Marxist quotes and Marxist concepts and for all intents and purposes it is Marxism and it's in every aspect of our lives today.
Really? So anyone can just call themselves anything? Ok. So then you would consider the Ku Klux Klan a Christian organization, right?
I'm not spliting hairs with ICANT. He claimed that Devils Advocate was buying into government propoganda and that he wasn't. My point was that he too was buying into propaganda by calling the movement in the US Marxism and Communism, when in fact they are not. It was Russian propaganda (Leninism) and believing something different means you believe the propaganda.
One thing would be if a few details were slightly different. Ok. I could see your point then. But Leninism was completely against true Marxist values, to the point where it goes directly against it's fundamental ideologies. In the same way that the KKK goes against fundamental Christian ideals.
Believing Leninism is Marxism would be the same as believing the KKK is Christian just because they call themselves that.
How would it sit with you if I argued that Christianity was garbage because the KKK represents it so poorly? Wouldn't you point out to me that, just because the KKK calls themselves Christian, doesn't mean the are real Christians. And in fact, Christianity has a lot of great values that the KKK doesn't practice and goes directly against. You would also point out that true Christianity was a good thing when followed properly. Right? That would be your position, am I correct?
Well, here I am doing the same with Marxism. See my point?
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 03-30-2010 1:56 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2010 9:22 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2972 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 39 of 526 (552624)
03-30-2010 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Straggler
03-30-2010 9:22 AM


Re: Real Marxism -vs- US/Russia Marxism
Why do you think no nation has ever implemented Marxism as I think you and I would largely agree it to be?
True Marxism is the end result of getting rid of the classes and the state, so a "nation" would still hold power. Therefore it literally cannot be Marxist. That's why it's frustrating to hear Marx's name equated with Lenin, he would have been against Lenin and his version of communism.
Just to point out, Leninism and capitalism are not that different. People in the US were against the Russian lead "communist" movement but really, US politics closely resembled it.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2010 9:22 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2010 12:23 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2972 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 46 of 526 (552645)
03-30-2010 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Straggler
03-30-2010 12:23 PM


Re: Real Marxism -vs- US/Russia Marxism
1) Are there any examples of sizeable populations having successfully implemented Marxism?
2) If not why not?
No, there has never been a nation that has achieved this. Why? There are many reasons.
First, Marx's original theory has been re-written by ever single movement that has tried to implement it. So that's one reason, the true ideology behind Marxism has been lost. You can't implement something that doesn't exist, or exists in a completely different form. I don't know of any true Marxist movement.
Another reason was that capitalism is the approved method by the wealthy class, or the class with power, in the US and most of the Western World - winning the war favored capitalism. Since then, there have been many measures used to indoctrinate societies into this form of economical/social system.
The only thing that comes close to resembling Marxism are unions. If you consider them "a sizable population" then this would be an example of it working.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2010 12:23 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2010 1:05 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2972 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 48 of 526 (552648)
03-30-2010 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Hyroglyphx
03-30-2010 12:32 PM


Re: No true Scotsman are communists . . .
Are you really going to deny that East Germany or the USSR didn't attempt to implement communism, referred to it as communism, and failed under the banner of communism?
This depends on who's definition of communism you go with.
If it's Marx's version of communism then no, the USSR and EG didn't attempt to implement it.
If it's Lenin's or Stalin's version then yes, obviously these have been tried before and have not succeeded.
But that's just it: one is the original form of communism created by Marx and Engel, the other is a re-written version (still with the same name) but completely different so it can't mean the same thing.
The versions of communism that haven't worked are not true Marxism/Communism. Now, will Marx's real version of communism work? Who knows. It has never been tried, and the only example one can point to are tribes. Maybe unions (at least in principle).
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-30-2010 12:32 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-30-2010 1:55 PM onifre has replied
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 03-30-2010 6:54 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2972 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 65 of 526 (552692)
03-30-2010 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Straggler
03-30-2010 1:05 PM


Re: Real Marxism -vs- US/Russia Marxism
I would be interested in what you think of my response to Hyro above on my own thoughts on this.
Both that post and post 58 are excellent and define the false communist movement accurately.
I couldn't agree more when you say:
Straggler writes:
I would suggest that history shows us that would-be authoritarian dictatorships either play the tribal nationalist card or the "power to the people" card to dupe the populace into letting them take control. The end results bear little sembleance to Marxism as I understand it to be conceptually.
...and:
Communism as it has been practised has been little more than an excuse for dictatorial rule in the false name of the people. Whether or not Marxism could be successfully applied to a large population remains a question that I don't think those with power, wealth and influence will ever let us truly discover. Because it might just work and for them that would be truly catastrophic.
It is little more than an excuse for dictator rule under the guise of communism "for the people."
I suspect that the unity found in such circumstances would rapidly disintegrate if the remit of that grouping was necessarily wider and where there was more conflict of group and individual interests.
Depends. If you look at the principle ideals of ALL unions, the don't vary much. It can be argued that collectively all unions (world-wide) work with the same principles in mind. And are governed and over seen by the labor force.
At least in principle it does resemble the ideals of Karl Marx.
But how long with that cohesion last if the question of distributing limited resources fairly to all members based on contribution to the community comes up? Who decides the criteria of fairness and contribution? It is a different ball game running a society by distributing fixed limited resources to campaigning for more resources for all members from an outisde source.
This is a fair point, that's why unions only serve as an example of the principles of Marx's idea of communism.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Straggler, posted 03-30-2010 1:05 PM Straggler has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2972 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 71 of 526 (552699)
03-30-2010 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Hyroglyphx
03-30-2010 1:55 PM


Re: No true Scotsman are communists . . .
Marx and Engels essentially believed that the problem primarily is with "class struggle."
Ehh, no not really. Saying it that way makes it sound (at least to me) that they had a problem with the rich. When they did not. Their issue was with the way societies work in general.
Productivity is the heart of any society. When the demand increases for productivity, due to any number of reasons, it is a crucial moment for a society's future. You can pick any system to work for you that meets the demand: slavery works well and results in high productivity, capitalism as well, and so does communism. Each of these systems can and do work to meet the demands of productivity.
However...
Marx and Engel felt that the best, and most benefitial to the worker, was THEIR system of communism because:
quote:
...it addresses the matters of alienation and exploitation of the working class.
Marx didn't have a problem with class struggle per-se, he simply felt their was a better way to handle productivity that removed the social classes. But he only cared about the removal of the social classes because it would eliminated exploitation and alienation of the working class by the wealthy.
The pertinent questions are, if it is so theoretically advantageous
There's your problem, no one has said it was advantageous, at all. No one has said that it's theoretically advantageous either. All we have said is, the communist movements that have been tried are not the true ideals set forth by Marx and Engel.
Slavery is advantageous, I would argue more so than capitalism AND Marx's comminism. But that would depend on what the goal is. Advantageous in what sense?
you say no one has actually tried it, why have they not tried it?
Because, true Marxism/Communism is not the desire of dictators.
And if it could work, how would it work? Is it compatible with reality?
It works for unions, at least in principle. So yes, it can work and it is compatible with reality. Obviously, unions are working within capitalist systems, so it is not socialism in all levels. But, the workers decide what their benefits will be for everyone, they have their own retirement plan seperate from SS, they have their own insurance pool, they ALL (from field workers to executives) pay into the union with union dues, there is ONE base pay for each position (apprentice, 2nd year app., 3rd year app., Journymen, etc.). This, in principle, is comminism, again, working within a capitalist system.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-30-2010 1:55 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-30-2010 7:16 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2972 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 102 of 526 (552739)
03-30-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Hyroglyphx
03-30-2010 7:16 PM


Re: No true Scotsman are communists . . .
Oni writes:
Ehh, no not really. Saying it that way makes it sound (at least to me) that they had a problem with the rich.
Hyro writes:
Do you know who the Bourgeoisie was? It wasn't the proletariat's.
I'm sorry Hyro, but do you know who the bourgeoisie were in Marx's time? They weren't the rich, specifically. They could have been, but they were also the middle class. It didn't have to do with money, although those with money could also be bourgeois, or the more common name: Capitalist. Why? because they owned capital. They were the employers.
Oni, the two men were consumed by the concept of class struggle. The whole theory can be summarized in two words: Class Struggle
Hyro, you're not understanding Marx's concept of "class". You're looking at it as upper/middle/lower class, but this is not the kind of 'class' Marx was talking about.
Source
quote:
Marxism defines the bourgeoisie as the social class that owns the means of production in a capitalist society.
In contemporary (capitalist) societies, the term bourgeoisie can refer to middle, upper middle, and/or upper classes, and/or their lifestyle and values.
There is a difference between Marx's use of the word 'class' and the contemporary use (the way you're using it). They mean two different things in two different times in history.
The impression that resonates is an affection towards marxism, a defending of marxism, and an alienation of anything contrary to marxism.
Opinion's are one thing, we all have them. The fact that no one has stated that their particular opinion is the right one is the point.
We are simply stating facts. The communism that has been tried is not Marx and Engel's theory. No one has lead anyone to believe it's a better theory than any other. I even argued in favor of slavery being better for production. Are you going to accuse me of thinking slavery is the only way to go? C'mon, Hyro.
That doesn't answer why no one has allegedly tried it. Why hasn't it been tried?
I think Straggler's answer was great. Message 84
quote:
Who would benefit and who would lose out?
Ask yourself that and surely the answer is obvious. No?
If no one stands to benefit, it's like asking why we haven't abopted any other form of social economics that no one would benefit from.
Besides, you are making a big deal about Marx's theory. Marx did absolutely nothing. His original theory is gone. Never used. Thrown away. All we are left wih is this fake representation of communism by fascist governments.
Any mention of a communist "state" with a ruling elite that controlled production, distribution and wages would have been in complete disagreement with Marx and Engel's theory.
You need to understand this already. We keep repeating it.
Unions have exploited the hand that feeds them, so unions are not a good example.
Again, its unions in a capitalist system, so you're going to get that exploitation, that Marx was against. This is why I said "in principle" they resemble Marxism. Marxism CAN"T work in a capitalist society. But it was just an example of ideologies. Whether they have worked or not, or whether they have been corrupted, etc., is irrelevant to my point.
Unions started out with good intentions and certainly have helped in many areas.
So did communism.
With unions you have to pay your dues to the people on the top of the food chain, right?
No. You pay it to your local. To yourself.
Unions are also incredibly political. They are the largest lobby for the democrat party.
Wait, you're confusing something here. I'm not talking about the union reps, or the union lobbyist, or any of that. I'm saying the way a local union is run (example: Local 349 IBEW) in principle resembles Marx's idea of communism.
That is all.
I have a huge bone of contention with unions.
Ugh, so tempted to make a dick joke.
You're seeing the big picture: lobbyist, the shady business guys, the one's who steal from the workers, the greedy side (the capitalist side) of unions. I agree, that is very ugly.
But go to any Local and talk to those guys. Go to an area where huge corporate monsters have tried to drive wages down, but unions (that is to say, the memebers of the union) have stopped it. In right to work states where the wages are just lower except for union workers, example: right here in Miami. Union electricians (which is what I did before comedy) made 4-5 dollars more an hour than non-union guys.
Now, I'm not saying unions are perfect, but they have done well for people in the past, and currently during this economy.
So maybe just have a little chubby for unions? Not a huge bone.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-30-2010 7:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2972 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 116 of 526 (552855)
03-31-2010 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
03-31-2010 12:43 PM


Re: Christian basis for socialism
In America Hollywood celebrities are virulently left wing and they are extremely rich.
This is right-wing media propaganda. There are as many right-wing celebs as there are left-wing.
See here: List of celebrities with links to the Republican party.
Here's a few:
quote:
-Shirley Temple Black, actress, ran for Congress as a Republican, former U.S. Ambassador, served under four Republican Presidents.
-Jim Bunning, Baseball Hall of Fame pitcher, U.S. Senator from Kentucky.
-Clint Eastwood, actor, composer, director, producer, registered Republican, former Mayor of Carmel, California.
-Fred Grandy, actor, former U.S. Congressman from Iowa.
-Jack Kemp, professional football player, former U.S. Congressman from New York, candidate for U.S. Vice President in 1996 with presidential nominee Bob Dole.
-Lawrence Kudlow, CNBC host, journalist, former Associate Director for Economics and Planning in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under President Reagan.
-Steve Largent, Pro Football Hall of Fame wide receiver, former U.S. Congressman from Oklahoma.
-Judy Martz, Olympic speed skater, former Governor of Montana.
-Tom Osborne, College Football Hall of Fame head coach, U.S. Congressman from Nebraska.
-Jim Ryun, Olympic distance runner, U.S. Congressman from Kansas.
-Joe Scarborough, MSNBC host, former U.S. Congressman from Florida, served on the President's Council under George W. Bush.
-Arnold Schwarzenegger, actor, bodybuilder, Governor of California.
-Fred Thompson, actor, former U.S. Senator from Tennessee, 2008 Presidential candidate.
-J.C. Watts, football player, former U.S. Congressman from Oklahoma.
-Ben Stein member of Nixon White House Staff.
-Dave Robisch, professional basketball player, currently an elected Trustee of Springfield, IL#Township, Illinois.
-Ducky Schofield, professional baseball player, currently an elected SMEAA board member.
-Sonny Bono ,record producer, singer, actor U.S. Congressman from California.
-Danny Aiello, actor. "I turned in my card to become a Republican because I did not want to be known as a Democrat under that person's regime."
-India Allen, actress and model former Playboy Playmate. "I'm a die-hard Republican."
-Kim Alexis, model.
-Bob Backlund, professional wrestler.
-Dennis Miller, actor, comedian
-Scott Baio, actor
-Adam Baldwin, actor.
-George A. Borgman, jazz journalist. Listed as Republican in Who's Who in America.
-William F. Buckley, Jr., Libertarian journalist and founder of the National Review magazine.
-Dean Cain, actor
-Mary Carey, porn star
-Dixie Carter, actress, once jokingly described herself as "the only Republican in show business"
-Kellye Cash, Christian singer and former Miss America; was twice elected to Tennessee Republican State Executive Committee
-Jim Caviezel, actor.
-Robert Conrad, actor.
-Alice Cooper, singer.
-Anthony Cumia, radio personality
-Linda Dano, actor
-Robert Davi, actor. Member of the Republican group The Sunday Night Club.
-Ted DiBiase, former professional wrestler.
-Shannen Doherty, actress.
-Jerry Doyle, actor, Babylon 5, (ran unsuccessfully for the 24th House seat from California as a Republican in 2000; now calls himself an independent)
-Robert Duvall, "One guy asked me, 'How can you be an actor and be a Republican?' I can vote either way. But how can you boil it down to political affiliation? All the atrocities against blacks in the South were committed by Democratic sheriffs."
-Dale Earnhardt, Jr., NASCAR driver. "Politically, Junior does side with a voting block known as NASCAR dads. He’s a Republican and he supports George W. Bush."
-Larry Elder, a radio show host. Elder is, "a member of the Republican Party who holds libertarian ideals."
-Sully Erna, lead singer for rock band Godsmack. "I'm a Republican...I don't love Bush, I'll tell you that, but I want a Republican in office."
-Jamie Farr, actor.
-Shandi Finnessey, Miss USA 2004.
-Bob Gale, co-screenwriter of Back to the Future, "I'm a registered Republican...and very anti-Communist from way back." (original source doesn't contain quote)
-Vincent Gallo, director, actor
-Kelsey Grammer, actor.
-Erika Harold, former Miss America.
-Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Survivor contestant and host of The View The Washington Times, Centrists at center stage, by James G. Lakely
-Patricia Heaton, actress.
-James Hetfield, musician, lead singer/rythym guitarist for Metallica.
-Honky Tonk Man, professional wrestler. Member of the Pro Wrestling Republican Coalition.
-Lisa Kennedy, former MTV veejay, game show host.
-Rob Konrad, NFL fullback.
-Derek Jeter-professional baseball player
-Dean Jones, actor, Republican activist, 2003 guest of the California Republican Assembly.
-Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, actor, former World Wrestling Entertainment athlete.
-Patrick Johnson, NFL wide receiver.
-Shirley Jones, singer and actress, registered Republican who has sung at the 1988 Republican National Convention and the 2003 Christmas Tree Lighting in Washington, DC, at George W. Bush's request.
-Don King, boxing promoter.
-Ernie Ladd, former American football player and professional wrestler. Campaigned for George W. Bush in 2000 and attended the 2000 Republican National Convention.
-Tommy Lasorda, former major league baseball manager.
-Al Leiter, professional baseball player.
-Heather Locklear, actress won "Republican Babe of the Week"
Audra Lynn, Playboy Playmate "Uhhh(laughs) Republicandefinitely!!"
-Don Mattingly, former professional baseball player.
-Mimi Miyagi, porn star. Republican candidate for governor of Nevada.
-Heidi Montag, reality television personality.
-Chuck Norris, actor. Campaigned for George Bush in 1988 and supported George W. Bush in the 2000 and 2004 elections, appeared in campaign ads with Mike Huckabee and campaigned for him in the 2008 Presidential primaries.
-Alex Rodriguez, professional baseball player. Gave $2,000 to President Bush in '03.
-Dina Merrill, actress, co-chair of the Republican Majority for Choice.
-Richard Petty, race car driver.
-John Popper, lead singer of Blues Traveler. Describes self as "a Libertarian who is a Republican when pushed."
-Freddie Prinze, Jr., actor
-Tom Prichard, former professional wrestler. Member of the Pro Wrestling Republican Coalition.
-Emily Procter of CSI: Miami stated herself to be a Republican in Esquire.
-John Ratzenberger, actor. Supported John McCain in 2008 and attended The 2008 Republican National Convention
-Ivan Reitman, director and producer.
-John Rhys-Davies, actor.
-Kid Rock, singer.
-Mickey Rooney, actor, states he is a Republican in his autobiography Life is Too Short.
-Mickey Rourke, actor.
-Jane Russell, actress, stated "I have always been a Republican."
-Aaron Russo, Hollywood producer planned to run for Governor of Nevada as a Republican.
-Curt Schilling, baseball pitcher, spoke for Bush in '04 election.
-Rick Schroder, actor,
-Jessica Simpson, entertainer. The Washington Times, Centrists at center stage, by James G. Lakely
-Gary Sinise, actor,
-Tony Sirico, actor. "I am a far-to-the-right Republican."
-Rickey Skaggs, singer.
-Grace Slick, singer. "I am a life-long Republican." interview, "Turn -Ben Stein On", Comedy Central, 1999?
-Fred Smerlas, former NFL nose tackle.
-Frank Thomas, professional baseball player.
-Donald Trump, business executive, "I'm actually a Republican."
-Leeann Tweeden, model and television personality, former Playboy Playmate.
-Peter Ueberroth, former MLB commissioner.
-Jon Voight, actor
-Ultimate Warrior, professional wrestler.
-Jamie Smith, Reporter. Supports President George W. Bush.
-Jimmie Walker, Actor/Comedian
-Terri Welles, actress and model, former Playboy Playmate.
-Bruce Willis, Actor
-Brady Quinn- NFL quarterback
The two that hurt the most are James Hetfield and the Ultimate Warrior.
Jesus would encourage us all individually to take care of the unfortunate, He would not advocate a political system for the purpose.
The Jesus would agree with Marx's theory. True communism is achieved only when there is an abolishment of a governing state.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 03-31-2010 12:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Granny Magda, posted 03-31-2010 1:17 PM onifre has replied
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 03-31-2010 1:20 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2972 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 120 of 526 (552859)
03-31-2010 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Granny Magda
03-31-2010 1:17 PM


Re: Republican Rock
Are there any Republican musicians who don't suck?
Alice Cooper and James Hetfield? I like 'em both.
The funniest one was Mary Carey - Porn Star
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Granny Magda, posted 03-31-2010 1:17 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Granny Magda, posted 03-31-2010 1:32 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 123 by Theodoric, posted 03-31-2010 1:34 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2972 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 121 of 526 (552861)
03-31-2010 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Faith
03-31-2010 1:20 PM


Re: Christian basis for socialism
You said:
Faith writes:
Jesus would encourage us all individually to take care of the unfortunate, He would not advocate a political system for the purpose.
Now you say:
Faith writes:
The New Testament advocates government.
Well you can't have it both ways. Either you have a government that works for the people in any manner that the people need it - to include helping those people who are less fortunate. Or, you don't have a government at all and the social economical needs are handled by the people of the community themselves.
I'd be curious to know the passages(?) in the Bible that advocate government and the one that Jesus says he would not want government to help people. Only because it seems like a contradiction to me.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 03-31-2010 1:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Faith, posted 03-31-2010 1:42 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2972 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 226 of 526 (553276)
04-02-2010 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by cavediver
04-02-2010 1:00 PM


Re: Capitalism is not enough, Marxism is not enough, so ...
Have you not read the Sermon on the Mount? Where Jesus says
"As for the poor, fuck 'em"
Sounds like something out of a Mel Brook's movie.
-Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by cavediver, posted 04-02-2010 1:00 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by dronestar, posted 04-02-2010 1:29 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 230 by cavediver, posted 04-02-2010 4:59 PM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024