Grassroots Movement

[Autumn Dusk]

It is said that half of America dosn't vote.

What about if, for the hell of it, we agreed to pic a pro-life candidate and make him president. No debates, no fights, just uniting behind a person to prove that we could make it happen.

[Mitchell_b55]

He would have to be more than just pro-life, he would have to have a sensible foreign policy, be fiscally realistic and have sound policies on inflation, currency, and taxes. It might also be important to consider his views on religion -- both within and without the public sphere. I would insist that he be a proponent of textualism and originalism in the reading of the constitution. I would want to know what he felt about free trade and what he felt about immigration, gun control, homeland security, government reform. I'm fiercely against the welfare state, so his opinion of welfare and poverty as well as health care would be important too. I think that energy, oil, and the environment would be issues that should be considered. Then there is tax reform, which would come under fiscal responsibility and realism. Um... and in the same boat his policies regarding the budget and economy. If he were just anti-abortion -- and I would hope that he would not be ideologically against it, but validly reject it -- we might find the country disintegrating.

It's complex, not simple, even if we'd like to dismiss it as such. Law is never simple, not even ancient law was simple. Has anyone read Aristotle's Politics? Far from simple. Though fun I might add, took him awhile to get off the topic of slavery though.

Edited March 8, 2008 by petrus_scholasticus

[Ora et Labora]

I donno...I say, heck! If he's a REAL pro-lifer!! Then I'd say his views on most other things would be acceptable. Because saying you're a strong pro-lifer says a lot! It says that yes, you do have God (whether they realize it or not) that they are for life and morality...and I'm talking about a REAL pro-lifer not someone like McCain.

I'd vote for a Democrat ANY DAY if he were pro-life!!

[Autumn Dusk]

The idea is to not try for everything. Try for ONE thing, ONE issue we know the guy (or gal) won't screw up or back down on.

As ora et labora indicates, what good is all those things if you don't have pro-life stance?

[Mitchell_b55]

You all totally missed it. My entire post was essentially saying in response to the first proposition, why not Ron Paul? But he is out, so it doesn't matter. But, regardless, it's not about ONE issue. It may be true that if they are anti-abortion & euthanasia everything else will fall into place, but that is also a little too hopeful, I feel. Call me a cynic. What good? It would take a complete ignorance of politics and the drastic consequences of flawed policy to say what good is a stable government, even if it does permit the abortion and euthanasia.

The nineteenth century was the last period where the government did little more for its people than govern. By any modern analysis these governments should have been unpopular because they did absolutely nothing to improve lives. They didn't pay millions of dollars to fund programs and to create jobs, they didn't provide welfare and they didn't give a farthing to help the poor. In fact, they adhered to the principle of subsidiarity in full and governed, nothing more nor less. I'm sure you can find objections, but we speak of rules not exceptions. In this same vein of thought modern governments should be praised for all that it does to better our lives. The opposite is the case and is a rather ironic one. Many examples can be furnist to show that the citizens of those governments were happy to be reminded of their duties and especially the lower classes admired their leaders. Could we imagine a period where Victoria was not toasted at every table and hurrahed at countless festivities, flown as an emblem of prosperity and bliss. Though many forget the fact, and usually think of the lower classes of this period through the lens of Dicken's fiction, as compared to the years to follow and even possibly under the hyperliberal parliament with a powerless Queen the Britain of Victoria's era was brilliantly enthused with admiration for Her powerful and successful government. America was likewise loudly supportive of the President, Theodore Roosevelt, and his government. Today even though the government furnishes and showers us with gifts, and benefits, and welfare, as well as educational programs we have little time for the praise of politicians. They toss dimes to us like Rockefeller in the streets of New York and yet we look down on them because they have to buy our votes. The governments of yesteryear inspired a generation of men to go off an be completely annihilated in World War I, in the future the welfare state that we so desire, but have nothing but contempt for. The government is for governing, when it begins to micromanage our lives and decide what is best for us to teach our children, and to eat or consume it violates the principle of subsidiarity. It begins to infringe on those aspects of life which should concern a smaller unit. What does governing mean? To make and administer the public policy and affairs of a sovereign nation. When we see the government as having an extended purpose, the individual welfare of the people, though we can see it as having to secure the welfare of the people as a whole, i.e. military security, then we lose touch with what the government's sole purpose is, to govern.

Under the umbrella of governing many of the things I mentioned are equally as important as others. The belief that an anti-abortion & euthanasia issues trump all other issues, does not look at the reality of the governments purpose. Yes, the government should, through the Supreme Court, should judge that according to the constitution the inalienable right to life extends to the foetus in the womb and to non-productive member s of society, but that is not it's sole purpose and to ignore other issues is to allow for the slow collapse of our society, beyond what has already occurred.

I personally am willing to side with Ann Coulter and say that Hillary Clinton would be a more sensible choice than John McCain.

[Autumn Dusk]

dude. please. this is NOT your soap box. get down or I'll push you down.

Your convoluted way of speaking seems to be an attempt to dodge real issues and cover up your ignorance and mistakes. You never ONCE said in your first post "Why not Ron Paul" so don't treat me like a simpleton.

You have a very limited viewpoint and one that is skewed by your own knowledge or lack thereof. There is no person who has a chance of winning who should be voted for in good conscience. You're aware of it, yet you strive to contradict me when I've come up with the same solution.

And for the record, the law forced people to change in good ways, eg. de-segregation in the south. Have you ever filled out the FASFA? Done work study? Eaten in a school cafeteria? If you said yes then the social programs introduced in the 1960's have benefited you.


My idea is simple. Lets try to get ONE thing done. Respect life. There are enough safeguards and checks and balances to make sure the president doesn't get us all killed or have us starve to death. So why not choose one issue and unite?

[Mitchell_b55]

In the [i]Forum Magnum[/i] in Rome, also known as the Roman Forum, there was a place called the [i]Rostra[/i], from which orators spoke to the people. Every member of this forum, which takes it name from that above, has equal right to reasoned oration, while foregoing all libel. What you have written is libel, which is defined as a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression, and it is unjust. Of course it is my soapbox, just as it is equally your soapbox.

You are attacking me, my motives, and my integrity without addressing my arguments. If you are wrong then by moral law you commit a grave offence against my reputation, which you would then be obligated again by moral law to restore by withdrawing every defamatory remark made.

Now, the Westminster System of government is prone to libel, with people jumping up and shouting and laughing and clapping, because of this a man named Robert wrote a book entitled Rules of Order, which you should be able to find in any local Borders or Barnes and Noble. It is usually a little gold book that is quite thick. With two Rs back to back in an O. To represent [R]obert's [R]ules of [O]rder. It is no more than five inches by three inches, with a depth of at least two inches.

In this book, which I recommend, you can find wonderful advice for civil discourse in a public forum, i.e. a place of discussion.

Article VII., § 43 on Decorum in Debate, may be excerpted in part as follows:

[quote]In debate a member must confine himself to the question before the assembly, and avoid personalities.... [b]It is not allowable to arraign the motives of a member, but the nature or consequences of a measure may be condemned in strong terms. It is not the man, but the measure, that is the subject of debate.[/b]... Disorderly words should be taken down by the member who objects to them, or by the secretary, and then read to the member. If he denies them, the assembly shall decide by a vote whether they are his words or not. If a member cannot justify the words he used, and will not suitably apologize for using them, it is the duty of the assembly to act in the case.[/quote]

This represents the parts I feel are pertinent, with emphasis on the most important point. You, miss, in your exchanges with me, have very seldom addressed the issues, but rather attack my motives and defamed me before the entire forum in a unbecoming manner. This is neither is accordance with the values of our Western civilisation as embodied in our moral institutions, nor is it in conformance with the manner of disposition commanded by the Catholic Church.

You say I have a convoluted way of writing. I say that the way in which I write, archaisms included, does not detract from my arguments, because even though employing a model of composition which is more at home in the nineteenth century I am not by these means skirting the issues. The issues are plain to see, for the astute observer. I am not saying you are a simpleton, I am not implying such, I am stating the facts as I see them.

My viewpoint is far from limited and I have even been acclaimed by the most rigid sceptics of questioning everything, even my own beliefs. I do however have my views and you have done nothing to show how my views are skewed, nor provided examples of my limitations.

I am aware that there are no good candidates, but there are candidates who will better serve. I am not contradicting you, I am trying to be realistic. If optimism is the glass half full and pessimism the glass half empty, then realism is seeing the glass is twice as big as it needs to be. We don't have any candidates qualified, who are willing to run and have the monetary capacity to run, so realistically we have to focus our attentions on the morally flawed candidate who will do the best job. The lesser of two evils. And, yes, though both are an evil choice, when limited to two evils, it is the lesser that should be the choose or neither at all.

I honestly am stuck between voting for a Democratic candidate, because I think that John McCain would be an awful choice, and ticking the box next to 'Other' and filling in Jefferson Davis. Don't think I don't have my moral struggles in who I plan to vote for.

As for the Ron Paul deal, I stated in explicit terms and in sequential order many of the things Ron Paul stood for, this part, particularly:

[quote]He would have to be more than just pro-life, he would have to have a sensible foreign policy, be fiscally realistic and have sound policies on inflation, currency, and taxes. It might also be important to consider his views on religion -- both within and without the public sphere. I would insist that he be a proponent of textualism and originalism in the reading of the constitution.[/quote]

I inferred by the use of "Grassroots Movement" you were a supporter of Ron Paul and would recognise his stance on the issues. Don't insult me by telling me what I intended and what I didn't intend, considering I provided a clarification, which should be accepted in good conscience.

As for FAFSA, when I applied to college (and yes, I was accepted by more than a few) I told my parents that I refused to allow the government to provide me money, since I do not support a welfare state. Loans, yes, I would pay them back. Scholarships and Grants from Universities, yes, because according to the Catholic social principle of subsidiarity this is meet and just for these institutions. But no I would not accept government funding. As for public schooling and all that that entails. Did I have a choice? And to tell you the truth, I rarely ate lunch at school opting to bring lunch or forego the experience all together. My mother was always willing to pay to provide healthier lunches, than those milled out of a school cafeteria. As for Work Study, I decided not to go to college, but instead go to seminary, to serve God and His holy purpose, so no I have not experienced work study programs. However, I also benefit from many things that have no right to exist, in my opinion, just because I benefit from it doesn't mean that it is right. Please provide arguments not excuses.

[quote]My idea is simple. Lets try to get ONE thing done. Respect life. There are enough safeguards and checks and balances to make sure the president doesn't get us all killed or have us starve to death. So why not choose one issue and unite?[/quote]

You've got me, to show you that I can agree with you, I'll say fine, your right, let's join together in the respect for life. It is a simple idea. I have one stipulation, each candidate that is nominated to represent this Catholic Coalition for a Pro-Life President will have his policies ruthlessly analysed under a highly polished lens.

Please, I have been polite enough to answer your objections without personally attacking you, could you show me the same courtesy and answer my arguments not insult my person?

Edited March 8, 2008 by petrus_scholasticus

[Mitchell_b55]

I think that we can say that we both have limited experience, since you are only twenty three. Five years is a short period of time in this pilgrimage of our life. Circumstance should also be considered, my experience could or could not be comparable to yours, depending of many factors. Time doesn't equal experience, though it certainly has an effect, action is also very important. Doing is important. A person who does not actively pursue experience gains only little. I am an extremely active person, and I contest your assertion that my experience inhibits my reasoning, considering the structure of philosophy this a rather absurd premise. Again, [i]Ad hominem[/i] arguments are informal fallacies in logic. That means, that you are attacking the person, me, making an argument rather than the argument or position the person is supporting. Specifically you are using an [i]Ad hominem abusive[/i] argument, which mean you are attacking alleged character flaws and consequently diverting attention away from my arguments. You have also used an [i]Ad hominem circumstantial[/i] argument appealing to my insincerity due to vanity or self-interest. Amusingly enough, in threatening to push me off my soapbox you employed another informal fallacy of relevance, the [i]Ad baculum[/i] fallacy, by threatening me into agreement. There are possible cases of fallacies of weak induction, also informal fallacies, like the Causal fallacy of oversimplified cause, which is actually a breaking point in you argument for focussing on one issue. Um... You have also used fallacies of ambiguity and presumption like [i]equivocation[/i], which renders my arguments meaningless because of an incorrect semantic analysis. This is sort of tiring and I think that it may be important for you to consider that logic is binding whereas emotion is not, what we want and what is are two entirely different things.

I am neither a genius nor am I stupid and I will continue to exclaim that two, mark me, two kinds of men found the Christ Child, the simple and the learned, the shepherds and the wise men, those who knew that they new nothing and those who knew that they did not know everything. I think Fulton J. Sheen said that and he was right. I know significantly less than 1% of 1/1,000,000th of what there is to to know, but I also know that I don't know the other 99% of that 1/1,000,000th and that I am always learning. I will repent of a errant idea if you can address my arguments. The human mind is an amazing thing, it can make more connections that there are positively charged particles in the universe. That accounts for something. Especially since we have a highly developed canon of philosophy from which to draw and especially from the Church and the scriptures. That said, good night.

Edited March 8, 2008 by petrus_scholasticus

[Mitchell_b55]

It also occurred that it might interest you to know that I personally find my knowledge of Philosophy to be very, very limited, but I do the best I can and my arguments are just as worthy of consideration. If L_D addressed them, not necessarily here, where there is little explicitly philosophical to consider, then I would feel truly humbled, because L_D is sweet.

[Autumn Dusk]

DUST or other mod please lock this thread. There is a rogue poster who hasn't respected the integrity of the thread and continues to belittle my mission.

[Mitchell_b55]

Now I'm a rogue with the intent of belittling your mission. I think this has gotten out of hand, I second the motion to lock this thread or to delete it. I have it backed up in full, anyway.

[MRSannie]

Ladies and gentlemen,

This is painful to read, and I wish you would both be more charitable! I think both of you have valid points, but how you are interacting is certainly not in the spirit of this site!

'They will know we are Christians by our love" does not seem to be operating here!

[Autumn Dusk]

[quote name='petrus_scholasticus' post='1474137' date='Mar 8 2008, 01:09 PM']Now I'm a rogue with the intent of belittling your mission. I think this has gotten out of hand, I second the motion to lock this thread or to delete it. I have it backed up in full, anyway.[/quote]


So you can take me to court?

I have two words for you


LAY OFF

other than that congrats for making a post that can't be turned into a short novel.

[rkwright]

[quote]Under the umbrella of governing many of the things I mentioned are equally as important as others. The belief that an anti-abortion & euthanasia issues trump all other issues, does not look at the reality of the governments purpose. Yes, the government should, through the Supreme Court, should judge that according to the constitution the inalienable right to life extends to the foetus in the womb and to non-productive member s of society, but that is not it's sole purpose and to ignore other issues is to allow for the slow collapse of our society, beyond what has already occurred.[/quote]

The Church has said the opposite. Abortion and euthanasia are non-negotiable issues - meaning they trump all other issues.

A few other points; there was no fallacy of equivocation used in Autumn's post.

We are not orators, much less bound by some author's rules of oration.

[rkwright]

Another double... I'm getting a lot today

Edited March 8, 2008 by rkwright