Suudy
Active member
Careful, I went down this path earlier…
- Status
R
rlg94086
Guest
Me too…not much point to it, from what I can tell.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I don’t think it’s at all clear whether insurance companies benefitted from the health insurance law. The jury is definitely not in on that one yet.No argument here on the insurance cos benefiting. If we’re going to force ppl to buy insurance no better reason why we should have offered a public option. Banks too. Although some folks were probably able to upgrade their transportation from their clunkers and reportedly some teachers and public safety workers have had their jobs saved.
But what we may need in govt are are less centrist Dems and certainly less conservative R’s.Peace.
Other than the “too big to fails”, banks did not benefit from the TARP(1)(b) “bailout”. It was otherwise only offered to solvent banks willing to be put on the “call list” to take over failing banks, without which they might not have been willing or able to do. Some were practically forced to take it, and some have already gotten out. The government has profited, and will profit from that program. What it really did was save the FDIC from paying off a lot of depositors it would have otherwise had to pay in full. Takeover banks “buy” those deposits from FDIC instead. Did you know that?
Cash for clunkers was a terrible program. A middle class subsidy (you still had to buy the new car, and they didn’t give them away) that deprived the poorest of transportation they could have otherwise had. Who did the government think were the ultimate buyers of “clunkers”? Why, poor people, of course; many of whom would have very much wanted those “clunkers” so they could perhaps get to work or take their kids to school or get to the doctor or a grocery store where prices might be lower. But the government destroyed them all. How could it have failed to offer them to the various welfare agencies of the various states to sell to poor people for little or nothing? All that material. All that work. All that mobility. Just wantonly destroyed. And for what? So the government could claim that it did something “green”? That was its sales pitch, you know. Better gas mileage. And so, poorer people now have to pay higher prices for “clunkers” because the supply is reduced, if they can buy them at all.
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
The points you are making are, in fact, repugnant. Why are you making them?
Who advocated for the points you mentioned? Be specific if you are able to.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I didn’t read all the posts, and perhaps I should have thought better of it. I knew it wouldn’t persuade, and I will probably ignore any responses. But I guess I just can’t help letting moral relativism go, even when it serves little or no purpose to confront it.
C
CMatt25
Guest
I have but you do not reason the same way. And that’s fine Suudy. You can believe and reason whatever you want. You have no greater means of believing or reasoning than I though. Nor visa versa.
Yes I know we are talking about life. But we were also talking about human life beginning at the moment of conception. And gain Suudy you interject your own definition, belief, and reasoning of human life beginning at conception. But newsflash. Not everyone in the country agrees with your belief or your reasoning nor mine. You and I may believe and reason one way and someone else another about this. That is why about infantcide for instance. No I do not need to admit to anything of the such. I accept Roe for the reasons I have previously discussed and am not going to deal with your nonsense about killing infants at age 1 and so forth.
In the end Suudy we may have to simply agree to disagree on our right to force onto everyone our beliefs and reasoning about whether human life begins at the moment of conception.
Peace.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
C
CMatt25
Guest
Who said a thing about a hungry person or homeless person not having the right to life? Not I.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Was it eradicated before 1973? No. Women who choose will go back to having abortions in unsafe back alley conditions, Suudy, if you have your way. And that’s what I meant. If that’s what you want, fine. I’d rather it be safe, legal but rare. Peace.
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
bbarrik8383,
I’m trying to understand what you mean. I still don’t. Becuase your post consists of quotes it doesn’t show up. When tried to quote you it showed up blank. Who are you talking about?
I’m trying to understand what you mean. I still don’t. Becuase your post consists of quotes it doesn’t show up. When tried to quote you it showed up blank. Who are you talking about?
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
I’d like to know what happened to the thread I posted, and why it ended up here. I posted an article that discussed Christ the Liberator and it ends up being glenn Beck’s restoration of American values. If I posted in the wrong forum, let me know. Don’t equate my article with the title of this thread.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Took all that time and then Rich comes along and sums up reality so concisely and brilliantly.
And that’s a wrap!
C
CMatt25
Guest
Via, I wondered the same thing. I’m lost as to how Fr Martin’s restoration of American, and Christian values for that matter, becomes morphed into Beck’s values?
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
Thanks, Rich.Took all that time and then Rich comes along and sums up reality so concisely and brilliantly.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Yeah…Rich’s point was already refuted.Took all that time and then Rich comes along and sums up reality so concisely and brilliantly.
That’s okay though because he can always come back with “it’s icky.”
Suudy
Active member
I never said I did. But I’m giving you reasons, and you have not countered any of them, other than to try and relabel them beliefs.
I know people don’t agree with my reasons. The problem is, they don’t counter any of the reasons, other than to say “Not everyone in the country agrees with your belief or reasoning…” That’s not a counterargument. That’s a cop-out.
Like I quoted earlier from Kreeft: “Give me one argument that defends abortion that doesn’t also defend infanticide.” This is why it isn’t nonsense. The argument is the same, whether we are talking about abortion, infanticide, or euthanasia. It is apple-to-apples.
You keep saying the same things over and over. It is not a belief. It is a reason. They are different. The former is grounded in opinion, the other on fact. We may disagree on opinions, but we cannot disagree on facts.
And you are insist on saying I am trying to force my beliefs. I’m not. In fact, I’m not talking about beliefs at all, but reasons. And in the end, it isn’t me forcing anything on someone else. Reason itself should do that. How dare you tell me that “2+2=4”! Who are you to impose your beliefs about mathematics on me? I’m free to make up my own truths!
Suudy
Active member
Fine. You did say eradicate. So, you are right. Abortion likely never will be eradicated (at least until Christ returns). But in the context of your post, it appears that you mean it will never be outlawed.
But you can same the same about a host of other evils. Rape will never be eradicated, so we shouldn’t do anything about it? What about murder? They still occur. Since we can never eradicate it, I guess we better legalize it, just to keep it safe, legal, and rare.
Suudy
Active member
That’s not the point! You keep missing the point. Nobody is suggesting that the hungry or homeless should not have the life. We aren’t arguing that point.Who said a thing about a hungry person or homeless person not having the right to life? Not I.
The point is that the right to have food, shelter, etc are contingent upon the right to life. That is, those rights flow from the right to be alive. They are dependent upon that right. If the right to life does not exist, it breaks that contingency, thus eliminating that right.
The born have a right to life, no? You said so yourself that you do not condone putting anyone to death for any reason. Why? I presume it is because you believe they have a right to life. Now, since they have that right to live, they also have the right to food, clothing, shelter, etc.
Now, for argument’s sake, take away that right to life for say, people over the age of 80, for whatever reason. Say that a new law is passed allowing the government, when any person is over the age of 80, may put to death at any time by any person by any means. When that person reaches 80, does that person then have a right to food, clothing, shelter? Why? They have no right to food, since they have no right to live.
Now I know this is a contrived example, but it demonstrates how other rights flow from the right to life. The right to life is paramount. It is the very basis of other rights. Other rights are meaningless without the right to life.
R
rlg94086
Guest
They merged the threads, which makes sense since your “article” was a blog entry rather than a news article. Anyway, it is post #129
Suudy
Active member
Took all that time and then Rich comes along and sums up reality so concisely and brilliantly.
Eh?
Did you read the responses to Rich?
- Status