• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Go to trump rally or don't get paid

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
It's really sad that you do not understand.
I'm not very good at the internet.

Can you figure out who actually decided to do this, and signed the memo requiring employees to forgo pay if they didn't want to attend the Trump rally?
All I know is Shell. But I also know that Shell has actual human employees and board members and investors.
Who decided to do this?
Tom
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Do you even see a distinction between law and moral principles?
Tom
Of course I do. I think the deal was unethical. So what ? It matters not one whit.

The law should apply equally across the land, and it is the measuring stick used to measure behavior.

My sense of ethics or my sense of morality is irrelevant, just as yours are.

You would not want to live in a society based upon my moral principles, and I strongly suspect I certainly would not want to live under yours.

The law doesn´t care about moral views. It cares about acts deemed by the people to be detrimental to society and the victim, if there is one.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
They're all derived from the same ideological source as any form of government which favors "The People" as a viable political entity (as opposed to previous eras where the divine right of kings and monarchist rule was the order of the day).

Sure.

As our own Constitution starts off with "We The People," this concept shares much in common with the German "Volk" or the Russian "Narod."

Yes. So?

It's all about the good of "the people" as a whole

Good determined by who exactly? You? Some politician? The whims of the clueless masses?

although this concept need not align itself with any particular economic system, which can be either capitalistic or socialistic - depending on which system is deemed more effective and utilitarian for the nation as a whole.

Socialism has been on the losing end of those evaluations.

It can be a mixture of both socialism and capitalism, but that also requires a certain level of ideological flexibility - a quality which most capitalists of today simply do not have.

Hardly as per the most successful nations are capitalist and pay for those social programs via.... capitalism.

They are far too intransigent, inflexible, and myopic to recognize the consequences of what they're doing.

Those are the socialist and communists as per their failed states not capitalists. This is basic history. Try again.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Sure.



Yes. So?

So your point about fascism being "an offshoot of socialism" was incorrect.

Good determined by who exactly? You? Some politician? The whims of the clueless masses?

Ultimately, the people will determine that. To refer to this process as the "whims of the clueless masses" seems antithetical to the principles of liberal democracy.

Socialism has been on the losing end of those evaluations.

Whose evaluations?

Keep in mind my point about ideological flexibility. When circumstances or events bring about changes, then a system has to be able to change with it. The US system was reasonably flexible up to a point - at least until the Reagan era when his followers decided to treat capitalism more as a religion. That's when capitalism and capitalists started to become more ideologically inflexible, leading us to where we are now.

Hardly as per the most successful nations are capitalist and pay for those social programs via.... capitalism.

You say "those social programs" as if to refer to something I mentioned before; but I never said anything about any social programs.

But you're missing the point: America is in decline, precisely due to capitalism and myopic, intransigent mismanagement by capitalist ideologues. There hasn't been a single socialist politician in any position of power in America at any time that I know of (with the possible exception of Bernard Sanders, but even then...).

Those are the socialist and communists as per their failed states not capitalists. This is basic history. Try again.

Except we're not talking about other countries. We're talking about America here. Please try to keep up.
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
It was why he was kicked out the socialist party after ww1 and formed his own party.

He had no clue what socialism was about. He restructured his party revolving around race, not economic class, which is what socialism is about.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Really? I'm a registered Libertarian that voted for Gary Johnson, why would I care?
Nice projection though, maybe I will try harder to live up to your contrived perception.
You have a history of not holding conservatives and liberals to the same standards; you often make excuses or exceptions for the former.
I too voted for Gary Johnson, because he was the candidate who most closely matched my own views, but I was never under any illusions that he shat gold.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
The political spectrum is what it is. You can't just define "the left" as "things I don't like" and "the right" as "things I do like".

Except that how people have been doing it for years. Yawn. After all someone created the spectrum you are babbling about. You just ignore what the two fascist parties claimed about their own movements, nothing more. Promotes the state over the individual. That is left-wing. Fascism opposed religions. That again is left-wing.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
He had no clue what socialism was about. He restructured his party revolving around race, not economic class, which is what socialism is about.

Workers party, left-wing. State over the individual, left-wing. Social Darwinism, left-wing. Eugenicists, left-wing. Engels babbled about Europeans have knowledge due to inheritance that an 8 year old can understand math axioms an "Australian Negro (his words)" has trouble learning with evidence being provided. Che called "the Negro is indolent, lazy and wastes money while Europeans are forward-looking, organized and intelligent". Try again
 
Last edited:

Shad

Veteran Member
Fascism is right wing, focusing on nationalism. Socialism does not at all.

Wrong. USSR used Russian nationalism in WW2 and forced in upon it's puppet states like Poland by mandating Russia being taught as a second language. Try again.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Trump's large union crowd at Shell was given the option of not showing up — and not getting paid

This means, of course, that those who were there from the plant were paid to be there just like in Communist and Fascist countries.

And to answer an obvious talking point - yes this is done for other people attending the plant.

But the salient point is that the crowd was made up of many who were paid to be there and could have been there only for the money. And I hope they do the same if a Democratic presidential candidate happens to visit.
But... but... George Soros paid rally participants...
 

Shad

Veteran Member
So your point about fascism being "an offshoot of socialism" was incorrect.

Nope. You made no argument to counter my point.

Ultimately, the people will determine that. To refer to this process as the "whims of the clueless masses" seems antithetical to the principles of liberal democracy.

It is called tyranny of the majority.

Half the US population didn't vote. Think about it.



Whose evaluations?

History. All socialist nations have failed.

Keep in mind my point about ideological flexibility. When circumstances or events bring about changes, then a system has to be able to change with it. The US system was reasonably flexible up to a point - at least until the Reagan era when his followers decided to treat capitalism more as a religion. That's when capitalism and capitalists started to become more ideologically inflexible, leading us to where we are now.

Assertion with no evidence.



You say "those social programs" as if to refer to something I mentioned before; but I never said anything about any social programs.

So? I am pointing out the most successful nations on the planet have social programs and use capitalism to fund it. The USSR had bread lines....

But you're missing the point: America is in decline, precisely due to capitalism and myopic, intransigent mismanagement by capitalist ideologues. There hasn't been a single socialist politician in any position of power in America at any time that I know of (with the possible exception of Bernard Sanders, but even then...).

Assertion regarding the cause of the decline.

Except we're not talking about other countries. We're talking about America here. Please try to keep up.

You are talking about America. At no point did I say I was. The subject has gone beyond America as per the first reply you made to this chain had nothing to do with America. Now go be a good boy and go read the comment chain again. You have lost track of the conversation. Try again son.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
The political spectrum is what it is. You can't just define "the left" as "things I don't like" and "the right" as "things I do like".
illykw0tcwr21.jpg
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Not I junior, you are somewhat confused. I don´t know what you are talking about re praised practices of authoritarian countries. Evidence would be helpful. otherwise your statement is pure BS, something you produce quite often.

Bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ! Freedom loving types ? Lefties are freedom loving types ?

That is hilarious. Lefties only love freedom as they define it, one is free to believe as they do.

Otherwise, your freedom is expendable, as quickly as they can arrange it.

One only look at the action wing of the democrat party, ANTIFA, to see how dissenters freedoms are viewed.

Have you ever heard one of the busload of democrat candidates for president condemn ANTIFA for anything ?

Nope, and you never will, lefty loons of a feather stick together.

They beat the tar out of a Conservative journalist, an Asian, a Homosexual, and not one of the socialist dim bulbs condemned their pals for the attack. One with a background the dims say they champion, became a punching bag with the dims full approval, because he was a Conservative.

Yeah, freedom loving types. Stalin was one too.

The republican party has opposed marital freedom, reproductive freedom, cannabis legalization, etc.

Antifa are a fringe group who don't represent the average liberal anymore than your alt-right white nationalist group represents the average conservative. Antifa and their sympathizers are buffoons, and you can go ahead and crap on the democratic party; I'm not some blindly loyal partisan boot-licker.
As for Stalin, while the USSR was obviously economic left, they were very socially conservative; staunchly prude, anti-lgbt, anti diversity/multiculturalism, opposed "decadent" art/music/movies, etc.
They had a lot more in common with republicans in that regard.

Edit: Damn it, missing a key word.
 
Last edited:

Shad

Veteran Member
As for Stalin, while the USSR was obviously economic left, they were very socially conservative; staunchly prude, anti-lgbt, anti diversity/multiculturalism, opposed "decadent" art/music/movies, etc.
They had a lot more in common with republicans in that regard.

That was due to those influence being from capitalist nations thus was considered counter-revolutionary. It has nothing to do with the GOP. Try again
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Except that how people have been doing it for years. Yawn. After all someone created the spectrum you are babbling about.
There are two axis' on the political spectrum: economic/fiscal and personal/social. Liberals tend to favor more personal/social freedom and less economic/fiscal freedom, conservatives tend to favor more economic/fiscal/social freedom and less personal/social freedom, libertarians tends to favor more economic/fiscal freedom and more personal/social freedom, and authoritarians tend to favor less economic/fiscal and less personal/social freedom. I don't understand why you're struggling with this.

Promotes the state over the individual. That is left-wing.
So hard core patriots and nationalists who are "country first", are actually left-wing?

Fascism opposed religions. That again is left-wing.

Christian fundamentalists oppose religions that aren't their own...so they too must be left-wing?
 
Last edited:

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
That was due to those influence being from capitalist nations thus was considered counter-revolutionary. It has nothing to do with the GOP. Try again

I didn't say that the USSR's socially conservative nature had anything "to do with" the GOP other than that it was similar.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Liberals tend to favor more personal/social freedom and less economic/fiscal freedom, conservatives tend to favor more economic/fiscal/social freedom and less personal/social freedom, libertarians tends to favor more economic/fiscal freedom and more personal/social freedom, and authoritarians tend to favor less economic/fiscal and less personal/social freedom. I don't understand why you're struggling with this.

Hardly. Liberals support speech laws which are not person nor social freedoms but repression of both. After all only 1 nation has free speech and it isn't a liberal bastion. Seems like you never bother to actually look around at which side supports which policy.

So hard core patriots and nationalists who are "country first", are actually left-wing?

Nationalism is neither left nor right wing. A secondary factor is what makes a form of nationalism left or right.

Christian fundamentalists oppose religions that aren't their own...so they too must be left-wing?

All religions not merely those that a person dislikes. Try again. Opium of the masses. Heard that saying?
 

Shad

Veteran Member
I didn't say that the USSR's socially conservative nature had anything "to do with" the GOP other than that it was similar.

You are attempting to draw a parallel by using selective samples while ignore far greater examples which separate the two even more.
 
Top