Yes. YOU signed on with a long screed explaining exactly how much smarter you are than "the working class" and "the poor." Your whole OP was full of name calling and condescension. How weird that you might get called on it. 
Where did I say I was smarter than the working class and the poor? All I said was that in times of crisis, the hungry masses sometimes turn to socialism. This is pretty standard stuff in history. No one will seriously disagree with me here. Unless you think socialism comes from the wealthy? As for condescension, you were the one that called me elitist and have been name-calling. As far as I'm concerned, you've been more condescending than me.
All I said was that they weren't here for the founding. Their attitude toward capitalism is pointless.
The beginnings of capitalism predate the US. The batle between Christianity and capitalism was a long one, and didn't involve just the Catholics. Remember, in England the Anglican church was also very opposed to many of the 'capitalist' laws that led to the very rapid commercialization of the countryside and the disenfranchisement of the poor.
The economy? Obama was elected for one reason, and one reason only...the color of his skin. It had absolutely nothing to do with anything else.
You might *THINK* that, but the polls wouldn’t agree. Most people that voted for Obama cite the economy. Now you might be right that race had more to do with it than people want to talk about (I agree), but again you’re not listening to my point. I’m telling you that this country is moving leftward, and that even though the crisis has just begun we vote in Obama. I guess you think everything is just hunky-dorey now don’t you? That the threat of socialism isn’t there? If you think Obama is socialist, wait a few years, something a lot worse is coming around the corner.
Yes. YOU signed on with a long screed explaining exactly how much smarter you are than "the working class" and "the poor." Your whole OP was full of name calling and condescension. How weird that you might get called on it.
Where did I say I was smarter than the working class and the poor? All I said was that in times of crisis, the hungry masses sometimes turn to socialism. This is pretty standard stuff in history. No one will seriously disagree with me here. Unless you think socialism comes from the wealthy? As for condescension, you were the one that called me elitist and have been name-calling. As far as I'm concerned, you've been more condescending than me.
All I said was that they weren't here for the founding. Their attitude toward capitalism is pointless.
The beginnings of capitalism predate the US. The batle between Christianity and capitalism was a long one, and didn't involve just the Catholics. Remember, in England the Anglican church was also very opposed to many of the 'capitalist' laws that led to the very rapid commercialization of the countryside and the disenfranchisement of the poor.
I'm well aware of the leftists pervading our educational system. Or did you not notice my remark about them destroying education? 
You said due to our education system, socialism is an impossibility in this country. I think you’re dead wrong. Wait a few years until the crisis bottoms out, and when you have tens of millions without food and a bunch of teachers and professors going around telling people socialism will save them, you’ll finally appreciate that socialism is a real threat in this country.
The Soviet Union has lots of natural resources and no religion. They have never been anywhere near as rich as the US because they have both the wrong economic system and a very weak Christian base. The Muslim countries are very rich...now, yet the majority of their people live in barbaric conditions because of their religion.
There’s some really poor analysis here. First, the Soviet Union fell in 1991, I guess you didn’t hear about that. As for Russia in 1917, when the revolution happened, it was a devoutly religious country. But it was a very poor one as well. It was the agrarian backwater of Europe, it hadn’t really industrialized and it was far behind technologically. There was a socialist revolt because the masses were starving. The 1920s was marked by civil war, creating further setbacks. Then there was NEP (essentially state capitalism), and the economy improved. But then in the 1930s, Stalin declared an end to this and they moved to socialism, which hurt the economy. Then there was World War II, which took a greater toll on the USSR than any other country. Much of it was destroyed and it lost a whole generation of people. In 1945 it was essentially a third world country. But from 1945-1965, its economy developed as fast as any in history. By the 1950s and early 60s they were beating us in the space race. They were viewed as a threat to our existence, and the US had to do everything it could to prevent the spread of socialism to other countries that wanted to imitate it. I guess your memory is short, but back in the day socialism was considered a very capable enemy. Of course it almost disappeared during the last few decades in the heyday of neoliberalism, naturally, but it will be back with this economic crisis. And we need to stop it at all costs, before it grows into something we cannot fight.
As for the Middle East, it depends on the country. Countries with oil and no other resources tend to only make the wealthiest a lot of money without helping the rest of the economy. Most of the Middle East is poor. However, Qatar and the UAE are extremely wealthy, mainly because of the growth of financial centers there.
But you’re getting me side-tracked, what is your point???? I’m making the very simply argument that economics is based on economics, NOT CHRISTIANITY. A country will be successful due to its economic policies and the resources it has. That is why there are poor and rich Christian countries in this world, and poor and rich atheist countries. I can’t believe you’re still making this argument, it’s embarrassing.
How well capitalism works has nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with Christianity.
But the Christians do not tend to be very stingy. Even today, the majority of all charity is given by Christians, in Christian institutions. Before the government interventions, Christians built and ran much of our healthcare system, and charity was a huge part of the reason. Christians are the reason that capitalism has worked for our country, not the falsely-labeled "secularist" government or the natural resources.
You’re really just making yourself look bad. So Christianity isn’t a religion? As for the Christians being stingy, I didn’t say Christians were stingy, I said rich Christians are stingy. As far as the healthcare system goes, it’s funny you mention it, Catholics mostly ran the Christian healthcare system. Anyway, healthcare was much less advanced during that time and did not require much in terms of resources. Most people lived in poverty in the 19th century, so you can’t seriously argue that Christianity alone can alleviate poverty. Why do you think the poor in poor countries, Christian countries turn to socialism? Because they think it will feed them, not because of its superiority as an ideology. But WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THIS? The US was economically successful because of its natural resources and its history and the toughness of its pioneers, NOT BECAUSE IT WAS CHRISTIAN. Do you think the settlers out west relied on Christian charities when things went wrong? No, they were self-reliant. I’m a devout Christian and I think your argument is ludicrous. Libertarians, can you back me up on this? Or do you people all think that the economy of a country depends on its religion? That only Christian countries can be successful economically? I can’t believe we’re actually having this discussion.
That kind of capitalism? I take it you mean a non-capitalist system?
Nope, I mean a capitalist system we used from the 1930s to the 1970s. The capitalist economy we had until the 1930s was much different than the one we have today. It was a very different economy, so the state was infinitely smaller (understandably so) and there were far fewer regulations (understandably so). That is the politico-economic system usually characterizing the earlier stage of capitalism. All I’m saying is if we went back to the way our state operated from say 1830-1930 in today’s economy, it would be catastrophic. I don’t think anyone would seriously disagree with me.
At the time our nation was founded?
Yes, this nation was founded as a Protestant nation. Most Catholics came in the Italian, Irish, and German waves of immigration in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Are you seriously making the argument that Catholics would have been welcome in the political system? The Freemasons and Founding Fathers were extremely anti-Catholic. Read a history book.
No, I said that only Christians do well with capitalism. And I said it in less than 500 words. But do keep trying to impress everyone with you inability to make a succinct point.
No, you made an idiotic argument in under 500 words. I’ve never met anyone that seriously made the argument that only Christians do well with capitalism. I guess you think Japan and Korea and Hong Kong and Qatar and the UAE and the atheist Scandinavian countries and India and China (fastest growing economies of the past two years) and Malaysia and Singapore are all Christian countries? And look at all of the poorest countries in the world. The African countries are now mostly Christian (it’s the fastest growing Christian region in the world) and Latin America is exclusively Christian, yet they’re some of the poorest in the world. You’re the one that is advancing this idiotic argument. But if you do believe that, then why do you think only Christians do well with capitalism? It sounds to me like you don’t have very much faith in capitalism as an economic system, if it can do well with only one religion.
Listen up, DUmb****....... I WAS in Japan in the 1980s. Were you?? They were far from being " technologically much more advanced than we were." (YOUR words, not mine.) Trust me on this, they weren't. As far as electronics, again, I assert that Japan only "steals" technology and improves on it. THAT is the Japanese way. Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the Japanese and their customs. I'll leave you to wallow in your ignorance.
No, but my father was, as well as many people I know. Again, you act like you’re an expert on the Japanese economy, which you clearly aren’t. You make the claim that their high-tech sector only steals from us without any evidence to back it up other than a personal story. But why are we talking about this? The discussion was whether or not non-Christian countries can be successful economically. You apparently think Japan is economic failure, which is very ignorant, or that Japan is Christian, which is also ignorant. So what is your argument?
BTW, most Scandinavian Countries (of which there are only four), are NOT atheists. Apparently you have little knowledge of Viking or Norse religions.
Lord almighty. I almost peed my pants laughing. I have to thank you for that post, I haven’t laughed that hard and that long in years. You are probably the most ignorant person I have ever run into on the internet. Do you seriously, seriously think that people in Scandinavia still believe in Norse religions? Do you seriously think that they are not atheist countries? Sweden is the most atheist country in the world, do a search on google. Please. Just stop writing. You’re embarrassing yourself.
As far as your blog, I think that you are a pretentious moron. Most "bloggers" tell something about themselves. Hell, you have ONE blog post!! You don't bother to tell someone how old you are, your history, nada.
Yeah, I have one post because I just started it the other day. I work full time and don’t have the time to spend hours on the internet talking to idiots such as yourself that don‘t take the time to consider what other people are saying. And as for my personal life, I can’t disclose it, my views are radical enough that if someone found out about them it could jeopardize my professional life at some point in the future. Just read the blog.
The one thing I can agree with you & grandfather on is that our culture has gone to hell, but ask yourself WHY?? It is not because people are not Christians. People do NOT have to be Christians to be a Conservative. I know of many Buddhists, Muslims and even Atheists that are Conservatives. Liberalism, as defined in today's world, is our downfall. Our founding fathers were "Liberals". However, they didn't even remotely resemble today's "Liberals" (that should read: "Progressives")
Formerlurker: 
If you had read my blog or taken the time to consider what I’ve written, you’d realize that we’re in agreement. And yes, I realize that you don’t have to be a Christian to be a Conservative, I’m not retarded. I agree with you as far as liberalism goes. The founding fathers were “liberals,†what we call “liberals†today are (usually) progressives. What we call conservatives are classical liberals (for the most part). So Democrats are usually liberal progressives, and Republicans are liberal republicans. So what is your argument? As for me, I think Republicans are too liberal. Check out my blog, I don’t have room to explain it here.
Little long winded, ain'cha, Curtis?
I agree with the above. Not only did I feel like I read a book after your OP, I felt insulted-like you feel as if you're above the common man, or something.
Didn't start off on the right foot, kid.
Welcome to the Cave. Enjoy your time here.
Thanks for the welcome. I really don’t get where I’m insulting the common man. All I’m saying is that the threat of socialism is growing, and that in a few years, when this crisis really gets bad, it’s going to be a serious threat to our nation. I’m not talking about Barrack Obama socialism, I’m talking about something that signifies the end of civilization as we know it. And I’m pretty sure the wealthy won’t be the base of this movement. Not sure how that is condescending. As for being long-winded, I’ll work on it.
Geeze....why does this sound like a "member" that we had here a while ago:
Welcome to CC Curtis........however something is telling me that you won't be here for long........
A bit of advice......unless someone is paying you by the word, I would suggest that you confine your posts and responses to somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 - 40 words. Your lengthy diatribes are simply too wordy and boring to wade through, and instead of leaving the reader with the impression that you are erudite, they tend to make our eyes glaze over from sheer tedium.......
You don't want to wade in to the area of farming, and the economy, unless you actually know what you are talking about in some depth.
You seem to be very concerned about a revolt......perhaps you have forgotten that this was exactly how this country was formed........since we've done it before, I suppose that (God forbid) we can do it again, however I sincerely doubt that the "poor" are going to have much to do with it.........most of the "poor" can't get off their asses long enough to collect their welfare checks........revolt.......not very likely......
doc
OK, I’ll try and keep things shorter (after this post
). But there’s not much you can do in 20-40 words as far as intelligent thought goes. I do know what I am talking about as far as the economy goes, though that might not be evident since I have to keep my posts short. Check out my blog. As far as farming goes, I might not be an expert in it, but if we’re going to talk about efficiency in agriculture, go ahead, I’ll even let you win. As I explain in my blog, economic efficiency isn’t that important to me. Our culture is.
As far as revolt goes, it almost happened in the 1930s. And it’s funny you talk about the poor and their welfare checks, and I am the one being accused of talking down to the common man. Oh well. Anyways, it’s these poor, the ones “collecting their welfare checks,†so to speak, that I’m worried about. We’ve been so prosperous for such a long time that socialism seems like a dream, but that’s exactly what I’m afraid of. People have had it so good for so long that when things start getting real bad, they might take the most desperate measures. It’s something that we need to be a lot more worried about right now.
I find the reaction I’m getting very amusing. If I came on here, and said I was an atheist Minarchist who believed in individual rights and small government, and my signature said “Keep the government out of the boardroom and the bedroom,†I’m sure I would’ve been welcomed with open arms. If I came on as a Christian who only talked about social issues and was very opposed to individual rights on some moral issues, I’d be welcomed with open arms. But since I came here as a Christian whose economic views resemble those of the Republicans from the late 1940s-1970s more than the modern day Republicans, people are outraged that I even post here. You people worship libertarian economics much more than I thought. How are we supposed to fight the War on Terror with a tiny state? Our military needs at least twice the funding and three times the troop levels, and all you’re talking about is small government and tax cuts? I think a lot of you people aren’t as Christian as you claim to be when it comes to politics. All you’re really concerned with is lower taxes and less government presence. If we’re Christians, than why are we so concerned with world things such as economic efficiency? Isn’t our culture much more important? We have that common ground but you can’t even see it because you’re too busy getting worked up about my economic views. If our political party system resembled that of a typical European country, and you had to choose between Christian Social Democrats and some atheist liberal party (libertarian economic views), which would you choose? I’d choose the Christian Social Democrats, because making the state Christian and cleaning up our culture is more important to me than economics. But I think you people would vote for the atheist liberals, just to get your tax breaks. I care about our culture and our forreign policy more than anything. I don't want to see our nation become a slave to neoliberal economics. And I don't think that libertarianism and the liberal state are going to enable us to make the changes we need.
