RE: No wonder...
September 12, 2013 at 3:15 pm
(This post was last modified: September 12, 2013 at 3:30 pm by A Theist.)
(September 12, 2013 at 2:53 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:If that period in France was about democracy then it failed, and it failed miserably. The French Revolution wasn't called the Reign of Terror for nothing. It not only turned ugly for the aristocrats at the beginning but it also turned ugly for everyone in France with the threat of beheading by the guillotine to keep the people oppressed, in line, and docile. Robespierre and his cohorts were thugs who eventually met the blade themselves when the people of France had enough of him. While Napoleon did crown himself emperor, Robespierre created his own religion and proclaimed himself divine...which caused some of his former colleagues to turn against him. The people of France were much happier under Napoleon than they were with Robespierre.(September 12, 2013 at 11:01 am)A Theist Wrote: ...and I thought you admired Napoleon. He was far better than the Reign of Terror that preceded him. Or do you support shedding a bit of blood as a consideration when it comes to guillotining people who actually work and make money for a living. Screw your Socialism!
I don't see where Min advocated violence or bloodshed, only that religion is useful for keeping the poor and oppressed in line and docile.
The French Revolution, however it may have turned ugly against the aristocrats, was about democracy, not socialism. And the aristocrats weren't capitalists but a privileged class born to land and title, who lived lavishly and exempt from taxes while others toiled and supported the system. There was no democratic means for the masses to peacefully redress their grievances against this system and so bloody revolution was the only option.
Neither was Napoleon in charge of a democratic France, where any of his citizens had a peaceful means of redressing their grievances. He crowned himself emperor.
Of course, I shouldn't have to lecture a so-called "Tea Partier" about the value of a responsive, democratic government that offers a peaceful means of redressing grievances at the ballot box and the violence that can result when a government closes these means off.
(September 12, 2013 at 3:11 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:It's not just the Republicans who are unhappy with Obamacare. The major unions who supported Obama with their big union money and with their votes have now turned against Obamacare. If people in other countries like giving up large portions of their wages in taxes to support lazyasses who don't work that's all well and good for them...and with the big unions now coming out against Obamacare that has to tell you it's going to be one big mess to implement.(September 12, 2013 at 2:57 pm)A Theist Wrote: I don't see where the dopeycrats are doing any better with all their give away programs and no way to fund them except for taxing the shit out of people who actually do work to support the lazy asses who don't...."
Universal health care works in other countries where the people are more than happy to pay slightly higher taxes in order to ensure that those who cannot afford medical care actually get the help they need. There is no reason that similar programs cannot work in 'Murica, supposedly the greatest country in the world. If republicunts ceased behaving like infants by attempting to prevent real progress in this country, 'Murica might one day become America again.
"Inside every Liberal there's a Totalitarian screaming to get out"
Quote: JohnDG...
Quote: JohnDG...
Quote:It was an awful mistake to characterize based upon religion. I should not judge any theist that way, I must remember what I said in order to change.