Amppax Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 When I write Aloysius down on my ballot, do you think they will realize I mean you? I'm seriously considering adopting L_D's shtick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 [quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1338597439' post='2439741'] I think one of the worst things during this election is that all everyone cares about is the economy and what this guy did during this period and what that guy did during that period. Honestly, I don't care if I have to read books for entertainment and half the day is guided by candlelight so long as lives and souls no longer have to be lost. The economy is important, but I do not think at all that it is the most important issue,[b] and the fact almost the entire population thinks it is really says something about our horrible society[/b]. People won't be able to eat lobster when they want to? Oh, boo hoo. What about the fifty million lives lost in America alone that never had the chance to even know what a lobster is? [/quote] The fact that you think our society is horrible for thinking the economy is important says a lot about you: It's says: Someone else is paying for your lodging and food Someone else is paying for your insurance, electricity and water bills and the gas for the vehicle that totes you around Someone else is paying for your education Someone else will figure out how to pay for any medical bills you rack up if you are injured or sick You pay little to nothing in taxes You don't have a mortgage or kids heading off to college You have plenty of years to figure out your retirement plans You don't have elderly parents to help support Don't get me wrong, I *do* believe that social issues are very imporatant, but in the day to day worries, the economy is #1 for most people. Do you *really* think people are lamenting that the economy is so bad that they can't eat lobster any time they want to? That was a *really* stupid statement-- you should rethink it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) [quote name='homeschoolmom' timestamp='1338639293' post='2439868'] The fact that you think our society is horrible for thinking the economy is important says a lot about you: It's says: Someone else is paying for your lodging and food Someone else is paying for your insurance, electricity and water bills and the gas for the vehicle that totes you around Someone else is paying for your education Someone else will figure out how to pay for any medical bills you rack up if you are injured or sick You pay little to nothing in taxes You don't have a mortgage or kids heading off to college You have plenty of years to figure out your retirement plans You don't have elderly parents to help support Don't get me wrong, I *do* believe that social issues are very imporatant, but in the day to day worries, the economy is #1 for most people. Do you *really* think people are lamenting that the economy is so bad that they can't eat lobster any time they want to? That was a *really* stupid statement-- you should rethink it. [/quote] edit Edited June 2, 2012 by FuturePriest387 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1338598175' post='2439745'] indeed, from a certain perspective. I was just listing the ways I'm not necessarily a cliche Ron Paulite, though everything about cliche Ron Paulites I am absolutely sympathetic to. But I go to GK Chesteron book clubs instead of Ayn Rand book clubs , and don't describe myself as favoring unfettered free markets. I absolutely support what I call Ron Paul's "Liberty Agenda", of course. and also think he's got the best realistic pro-life plan, which I'd like to see the Republican Party adopt as a practical way forward. [/quote] I love Chesterton. Apart from his delusions about empowering government to punish businesses that get too big as the solution to certain people having too much power. Distributism amounts to this: "Businesses can get too powerful. Let's invest a governing body with power to destroy that power. That will solve things." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted June 2, 2012 Author Share Posted June 2, 2012 ehhh distributism's a tricky subject, what you described is not how I'd describe Chesterton's solution, Chesterton is decidedly against big government as much as he's against big business. In "A Misunderstanding About Method" in Chesterton's [i]Outline of Sanity,[/i] he lists the following as things which not every distributist would agree with, but which might be a general direction towards distributism. There may be some things to disagree with them about, but they don't exactly fit your charecterization IMO: [quote](1) The taxation of contracts so as to discourage the sale of small property to big proprietors and encourage the break-up of big property among small proprietors. (2) Something like the Napoleonic testamentary law and the destruction of primogeniture. (3) The establishment of free law for the poor, so that small property could always be defended against great. (4) The deliberate protection of certain experiments in small property, if necessary by tariffs and even local tariffs. (5) Subsidies to foster the starting of such experiments. (6) A league of voluntary dedication, and any number of other things of the same kind.[/quote] The essence of distributism is that it is the libertarianism of the economic sphere; the libertarianism of the political sphere wants to get rid of big centralized governments as it infringes upon liberty, distributism says that big centralized businesses act in much the same way and ought to also be limited the way we limit government. but I'm certainly not going to the RNC with any plans to convert them to distributism I shall be engaging in my political libertarianism only, fighting against the overreach of Washington... I shall save for another day my fight against the overreach of Walmart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) I likely have that, in some of my GK stuff. I might have to read it. Tariffs are an overrreach of power. This is the problem with distributism: It advocates small government, but still seeks to invest in one group a right of commanding the private lives of other groups in the name of fairness. It will simply lead to where we are now. Protectionism for "small business" will benefit one person at the expense of another. Edited June 2, 2012 by Winchester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I likely have that, in some of my GK stuff. I might have to read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1338598175' post='2439745'] and also think he's got the best realistic pro-life plan, which I'd like to see the Republican Party adopt as a practical way forward. [/quote] His States Rights plan on the issue of abortion is more relativistic than realistic, as well as single minded and tyrannical in nature. Relativistic because in one state a child would be a person, in another a child would not be a person. Single minded because it looks at the issue of abortion as more of a procedure or action rather than the actual greater issue of the most basic Right we have, the Right before all other rights, the Right that no other right can exist without, the Right that every single State, or Civil Authority is duty and morally bound to recognize. It is tyrannical in nature because it would allow the Federal government to continue to deny the recognition of the most basic and fundmental Right, and allow the states to deny its recognition. If the Federal government or any government denies this recognition and allows for the murder of its people, no matter who they are, then we should not be surprised or shocked when it comes to deny, or allows us to be denied this most basic inalienable of Rights. Failure to recognize this Right is the makings of a tyrannical and heartless government. The Federal and state governments, (and every civil authority that ever was or will be upon the earth) are dutifully and morally bound to recognize, honor and respect the Right of Life, the Right of the people to exist, to have life and to live that life. Leaving it up to the states is a dereliction of duty on part of the Federal government and the states. There wouldn't be any need for the Federal or state governments to ban abortion, if both would simply honor and recognize the Right above all other rights, the Right of the people to exist, to Life and to live that life in peace and freedom from oppression. Edited June 2, 2012 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1338669274' post='2440027'] His States Rights plan on the issue of abortion is more relativistic than realistic, as well as single minded and tyrannical in nature. Relativistic because in one state a child would be a person, in another a child would not be a person. Single minded because it looks at the issue of abortion as more of a procedure or action rather than the actual greater issue of the most basic Right we have, the Right before all other rights, the Right that no other right can exist without, the Right that every single State, or Civil Authority is duty and morally bound to recognize. It is tyrannical in nature because it would allow the Federal government to continue to deny the recognition of the most basic and fundmental Right, and allow the states to deny its recognition. If the Federal government or any government denies this recognition and allows for the murder of its people, no matter who they are, then we should not be surprised or shocked when it comes to deny, or allows us to be denied this most basic inalienable of Rights. Failure to recognize this Right is the makings of a tyrannical and heartless government. The Federal and state governments, (and every civil authority that ever was or will be upon the earth) are dutifully and morally bound to recognize, honor and respect the Right of Life, the Right of the people to exist, to have life and to live that life. Leaving it up to the states is a dereliction of duty on part of the Federal government and the states. There wouldn't be any need for the Federal or state governments to ban abortion, if both would simply honor and recognize the Right above all other rights, the Right of the people to exist, to Life and to live that life in peace and freedom from oppression. [/quote] [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1338592812' post='2439697'] his approach is to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to overturn roe, and to [i]support a personhood amendment to establish the rights of the unborn. [/i] (emphasis mine)[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) rgh Edited June 2, 2012 by Winchester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Sometimes i think prolife voters would rather have a guy in the white house that says "All abortions should be illegal" but never gets anywhere with it, than a guy who says "why dont we try to make these ones illegal first" and actually succeeds. It is easy to talk the talk if you make claims so big no one actually expects you to succeed at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 [quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1338678222' post='2440041'] Sometimes i think prolife voters would rather have a guy in the white house that says "All abortions should be illegal" but never gets anywhere with it, than a guy who says "why dont we try to make these ones illegal first" and actually succeeds. It is easy to talk the talk if you make claims so big no one actually expects you to succeed at all. [/quote] We don't have either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 [quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1338593727' post='2439713'] I will buy you dinner and a beer if you promise to not talk about religion. Politics are okay. [/quote]Okay, after reading this thread, I'll take you to the Columbia for lunch and will drop you off at SacredHeart downtown if you don't talk politics or religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 [quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1338689279' post='2440081'] Okay, after reading this thread, I'll take you to the Columbia for lunch and will drop you off at SacredHeart downtown if you don't talk politics or religion. [/quote] I would jump at this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 [quote name='homeschoolmom' timestamp='1338639293' post='2439868'] The fact that you think our society is horrible for thinking the economy is important says a lot about you: It's says: Someone else is paying for your lodging and food Someone else is paying for your insurance, electricity and water bills and the gas for the vehicle that totes you around Someone else is paying for your education Someone else will figure out how to pay for any medical bills you rack up if you are injured or sick You pay little to nothing in taxes You don't have a mortgage or kids heading off to college You have plenty of years to figure out your retirement plans You don't have elderly parents to help support Don't get me wrong, I *do* believe that social issues are very imporatant, but in the day to day worries, the economy is #1 for most people. Do you *really* think people are lamenting that the economy is so bad that they can't eat lobster any time they want to? That was a *really* stupid statement-- you should rethink it. [/quote] Of course. I am sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now