Moderator: Community Team
pancakemix wrote:Quirk, you are a bastard. That is all.
waauw wrote:Sorry but I reject anyone who demands a feodal title like 'Lord'.
warmonger1981 wrote:Oh Bernie you misguided old man. I don't know where to begin.
riskllama wrote:bernie got punted off a kibbutz???
Bernie Sanders was asked to leave a hippie commune in 1971 for “sitting around and talking” about politics instead of working, according to a forthcoming book.
We Are As Gods by Kate Daloz, scheduled for release April 26, chronicles the rise and fall of the Myrtle Hill Farm in northeast Vermont. Daloz, a Brooklyn writer, was in a special position to write a history of Myrtle Hill: she was raised near the commune in a geodesic dome residence with an outhouse called the Richard M. Nixon Memorial Hall. Her parents were close acquaintances of the commune residents, who offered them tips about wilderness living.
Sanders’ idle chatter did not endear him with some of the commune’s residents, who did the backbreaking labor of running the place. Daloz writes that one resident, Craig, “resented feeling like he had to pull others out of Bernie’s orbit if any work was going to get accomplished that day.”
Sanders was eventually asked to leave. “When Bernie had stayed for Myrtle’s allotted three days, Craig politely requested that he move on,” Daloz writes.
Dukasaur wrote:betiko wrote:TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Symmetry wrote:TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Symmetry wrote:
What kind of wine? I know God's omnipotent and all, but He'd have to be in the Champagne region of France for it to be Champagne, for example.
'Cept for those pesky Californian regions.
-TG
If it's not from Champagne, it's not Champagne.The United States bans the use from all new U.S.-produced wines.[3] Only those that had approval to use the term on labels before 2006 may continue to use it and only when it is accompanied by the wine's actual origin (e.g., "California").
Obviously you can call champagne only wine from the Champagne region.
Just like you can only make Rioja in the Rioja region in spain and whatever other examples.
Suppose Jesus could make coca cola from his blood without a licence from the coca cola company. Would that be fine?
I supposed that with the roman legislation from back then, such counterfeit could end up in crucifixion.
God knows what he told his fan club they were drinking...
Stupid argument. If you're omnipotent, you can teleport the water to Champagne or Rioja, complete the transmutation there, and then teleport it back to where you are, all in a time too brief for anyone to see that it was ever gone.
Alternatively, you can just say that's what you did, and beat the shit out of anyone who argues.
Or, you could just have the French government annex the place where you are and designate it to be legally part of the Champagne region. Ditto for the Spanish government and Rioja. Or you could just rename the entire planet Planet Champagne or Planet Rioja. Or you could rewrite the dictionary so that "Champagne" means "the place where the Lord walked" or something like that.
tzor wrote:First of all, Bernie, Jesus was not and never was a "socialist." I think it is fair to say that it was not really an advocate of any modern "ism." The closest might be "capitalism" where in a parable he has a master tell his servant that at the very least he should have deposited the money into a bank where it would have earned interest, but that's a stretch even there. If you take the Gospel stories are more or less their word, he had a very hands off approach to government.
Now the early church did have a "hippy commune" phase, but they also insisted that those who did not work would not eat. (Hey Bernie, weren't you thrown out of the commune because you weren't doing your fair share of the work?) But even then, it is not the same thing. Socialism is top down unified central government, while the early church was a bottom up community of believers (sort of like your old commune). The different is represented in the "Christian" principle ("Christian" as in held by the church but generally forgotten by the Protestant communities who in the United States basically almost rediscovered it through "Federalism") of "Subsidiarity." Government should always be implemented at the lowest level possible; as close to the people as possible.
But we are not talking about the early church, but Jesus. Jesus always talked directly to the people. He told the people what they needed to do and how they should behave. Even when he spoke to members of the government, he spoke to them on a personal basis and not on their proper role should be. He lived under an occupying force and the only people of authority he called out were the religious leaders, not the secular ones.
Army of GOD wrote:This thread is now about my large penis
jonesthecurl wrote:Is he gonna give me some of that champagne?
tzor wrote:First of all, Bernie, Jesus was not and never was a "socialist." I think it is fair to say that it was not really an advocate of any modern "ism." The closest might be "capitalism" where in a parable he has a master tell his servant that at the very least he should have deposited the money into a bank where it would have earned interest, but that's a stretch even there. If you take the Gospel stories are more or less their word, he had a very hands off approach to government.
Now the early church did have a "hippy commune" phase, but they also insisted that those who did not work would not eat. (Hey Bernie, weren't you thrown out of the commune because you weren't doing your fair share of the work?) But even then, it is not the same thing. Socialism is top down unified central government, while the early church was a bottom up community of believers (sort of like your old commune). The different is represented in the "Christian" principle ("Christian" as in held by the church but generally forgotten by the Protestant communities who in the United States basically almost rediscovered it through "Federalism") of "Subsidiarity." Government should always be implemented at the lowest level possible; as close to the people as possible.
But we are not talking about the early church, but Jesus. Jesus always talked directly to the people. He told the people what they needed to do and how they should behave. Even when he spoke to members of the government, he spoke to them on a personal basis and not on their proper role should be. He lived under an occupying force and the only people of authority he called out were the religious leaders, not the secular ones.
Dukasaur wrote:DaGip is back.
notyou2 wrote:You need to learn the difference between socialism and communism
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment. Social ownership may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these. Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.
In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal") is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state.
tzor wrote:notyou2 wrote:You need to learn the difference between socialism and communism
Socialism is communism only by far less violent means.Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment. Social ownership may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these. Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal") is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state.
Communism vs. Socialism "In a way, communism is an extreme form of socialism."
Dukasaur wrote:Communism is an extreme variant of socialism repudiated by most socialists.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users