1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Francis: No, I am Not a Communist

Roc1929 Wrote: Apr 06, 2014 4:09 PM
Every totalitarian in the 20th century has had to remove God from the public square in order to consolidate power. The issue is whether God or man rules the universe. In order for tyrants to succeed their authority must go unchallenged by a belief in a higher power. They even wrote their own bibles: The Communist Manifesto; Mein Kampf; The Little Red Book. As far as I know, the one place where God could not be swept from the public square was Poland. In time the Communist government was defeated and today Poles are free. As a believer, it saddens me that both Catholic and Jewish leadership do not seem to recognize this reality. By using and legitimizing, without clarification, the language of their adversaries they are aiding and abetting their own marginalization. For one man’s view on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, go here: http://www.meetup.com/westend912project/messages/boards/thread/23490642
In response to:

Francis: No, I am Not a Communist

Roc1929 Wrote: Apr 06, 2014 9:52 AM
Sophistry has corrupted the teachings of the Bible. The Bible teaches us to care for the weak and the poor. It does not tell us to let Caesar do it. Governments do not create wealth. In the history of the world no government has ever produced wealth. Everything the government does consumes wealth even if it is important or necessary. Governments get wealth by confiscation (taxes) or conquest. We fall for the sophistry of redistribution while not realizing that the real redistribution is from the hard working producers to government officials while they build a constituency of dependents to which they trickle down some crumbs while they live high on the hog. Remember, the rich that Robin Hood took from were the ruling class. With something like a 90% incumbency rate, today’s ruling class sits in Washington.
In response to:

Much Ado About Noah

Roc1929 Wrote: Apr 01, 2014 8:55 AM
IMHO Noah is written in Newspeak. “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.” (Orwell's 1984) Orwell also foretold of the corruption of history in which what happened in the past was what Big Brother said happened. He said “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” In 1984 he was more efficient. He did it by daily destroying every document created. We do it with lies and propaganda about the past. Orwell said,” The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”.
In response to:

Pope Francis Threatens Hell -- Hooray!

Roc1929 Wrote: Mar 25, 2014 9:19 AM
Your comment suggests that you believe that man is basically good. This is a fallacy. Man is a barbarian driven by selfishness and might makes right which I suggest is the definition of immoral behavior. This has been the way of the world for thousands of years until Christ. It is the moral teachings of Christ and the Judeo/Christian bible that began to civilize the world. And for those who cite ills performed by Christians I say that those sins were the result of religious leaders (man) corrupting God's word in pursuit of power not by humble servants of God. For more go here:http://www.meetup.com/westend912project/messages/boards/thread/23490642
In response to:

A Tiger of a Book

Roc1929 Wrote: Mar 18, 2014 8:57 AM
Beyond the Classroom, Steinberg, 1997 touches on a similar conclusion regarding Asian immigrants. But he adds another element to the story. In short, Steinberg cites the cultural and language differences tend to insulate the immigrant children from their peers. However by the second or third generation they tend to become “Americanized” and tend to under perform like a typical native American student.
You're wrong. Republicans understand that change can make things worse as well as make things better. Change driven by the market makes things better, change driven by crony capitalism makes things worse.
After WWII Studebaker brought out some very futuristic looking cars. They didn’t sell and Studebaker changed course. Didn’t cost the taxpayer a dime Liberty Ship tycoon, Henry Kaiser, decided to enter the car market with models called the Kaiser, the Frazer and the Henry J. They had some revolutionary features. They didn’t sell and the Kaiser/ Frazer car company went out of business. Didn’t cost the tax payer a dime. Chrysler tried to develop a gas turbine powered automobile. They could not overcome the safety problems and the project died. It didn’t cost the taxpayer a dime. Mazda thought that Wankel had a good idea when he developed his rotary engine and put it in some of their automobiles. Too many problems, Mazda abandoned the Wankel. Didn’t cost the taxpayer a dime. Ford decided to market a car named after Henry’s son, Edsel, It didn’t sell and was discontinued. Didn’t cost the tax payer a dime. Obama decides that the time has come for an all electric car and makes GM produce the Volt. It doesn’t sell. It has safety problems. It costs the taxpayer billions of dollars. The government invests billions of taxpayer dollars on wind power, solar power and ethanol from corn which has no significant improvement in our energy supply. This is why Crony Capitalism (which is a euphemism for Fascism) Doesn’t work. This is why no top down, collective society has ever produced a successful economy. Why is a market economy important? Without market cost constraints, managers in the old Soviet Union would order more resources, materiel and labor, than were actually needed while not ordering enough of what was needed because no one at the top knew exactly what the requirements were. The result was a waste of resources. To make one ton of copper in the USSR used 1,000 kilowatt hours of electrical energy. In West Germany, only 300 kilowatt hours. To produce one ton of cement, the USSR used twice the energy as Japan. Central planning doesn’t work either for governments or Business. Once the home office of a business gets too big, economies of scale decline. Finally, that model of socialism, Sweden is moving to a market economy. Go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENDE8ve35f0
In response to:

Budget Baloney

Roc1929 Wrote: Mar 05, 2014 12:15 PM
Governments Consume Governments don’t produce wealth. If this were not true, why do governments collect taxes? Why don’t they just pay their bills out of the wealth that they have produced? The fact is that all governments, from the very first, consume wealth. Everything that the government does, even if necessary or important, is consumption. Prior to the 18th century, all Governments acquired wealth by invasion, conquest, enslaving the conquered, various forms of subjection (serf, vassal, coolie, etc.) and by taxing. Then some genius philosophers came along and said that men should not be subjects but should be free. That they, not the government, should benefit from their labor. That government power should be limited to that which only the government can do such as protect them from enemies abroad and miscreants at home. That the government should be supported by tariffs and if taxing became necessary, all should be taxed equally. They eschewed democracy and created a Constitutional Republic. To continue, go here: http://www.meetup.com/westend912project/messages/boards/thread/8036303
In response to:

Black People Duped

Roc1929 Wrote: Mar 05, 2014 12:01 PM
Part of the problem can be found in this quote from Carl Sagan. Only he uses the word bamboozled instead of duped. “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
In response to:

Black People Duped

Roc1929 Wrote: Mar 05, 2014 10:15 AM
Williams' argument may be flawed, but the idea isn't. For many years I've been saying that an 18 year old has a better chance of reaching his 26th birthday if he enters the military than if he doesn't. What limited research that I've been able to do, comparing civilians to civilian death vs military to military deaths suggests that this may be true. I say suggests and may be because I'm not a professional researcher with unlimited access to data. My conclusions are based on what I could gather through Google.
1 - 10 Next