Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[Dawnia]

Yeah, that method was created because those on the left didn’t want people to see the truth about their side. So they fashioned that political scale and were able to move fascism over the right as an offset to communism and socialism on the left. They could then pretend that fascism isn’t left, and pretend that the middle is where we want to stay.

It’s silly and insipid. There is NO government of the many in socialism or communism. It’s a false facade.

The true political spectrum measures govt control and power, and the further left you go, the higher it increases. Socialism, communism, fascism, and totalitarianism are on the extreme left.

I give this a 8.7 for creativity. But it is not based in reality at all. The political spectrum has been around since the 1700’s and scholars on both the right and left accept it as accurate.

 

[zz912]

Libertarianism doesn’t equal anarchism. In libertarianism, the means of production would be owned and run privately with no regulation.

False. Libertarianism espouses very limited govt, that only protects property rights, and enforces laws against fraud, theft, and abuse. Regulation would exist to restrict real harm to others.

In anarchism the means of production would be run by the people

No, it wouldn’t. Anarchism (root: anarchy) means that everyone is on their own and their is no govt to control anything. So the “people” wouldn’t own anything. Individuals would own everything. And they would only own as long as someone else didn’t come and take it from them.

and would be regulated by the very same people

How do you regulate anything with no govt to do so?

(no ownership at all, private or otherwise but it most certainly would be regulated to some extent).

Completely wrong. ALL property would be owned by individuals, and they would have to defend their ownership from anyone who wished to take it from them. And again, there would be NO regulation of anything in anarchy.

I’m assuming there would be some sort of money in a libertarian society, who regulates it (no money at all in anarchism)?

Govt regulation of REAL currency (backed by tangible assets) is a completely fine idea in libertarianism. In anarchism, the currency will be anything of value traded between completely free individuals. There will be no currency that we think of.

By who’s authority is a factory owned by someone if there isn’t any government?

By force, which is what it will take to retain ownership of something in anarchism.

I’m thinking there would have to be some sort of governement and that libertarianism simply means no rules for the property owners.

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Anarchism is governement decentralized to the extreme. Libertarianism is capitalism deregulated to the extreme. They are not the same thing at all.

Nope, anarchism mean NO govt.

 

[zz912]

Does this sound right wing to you?:

from ANARCHISM: WHAT IT REALLY STANDS FOR by Emma Goldman

Nope. Like I said, she’s no anarchist. She a revolutionary socialist pretending to be an anarchist. She wants to destroy private property rights and place massive govt in charge of everything. That’s not anarchy.

 

[zz912]

But there was never a point where the Pope supported the war. So, anyone who supported the war was ignoring the Pope. But I guess that is fine, since Estesbob posted a statement where the Pope said it was ok to ignore him above.

And, yes, I do ascribe sin to those who are in charge of the intelligence, get bad intelligence and then push through a bad decision. That suggests they have no business being in charge because they cannot get good information from the people beneath them or they are creating a poisonous environment where the correct information couldn’t get to them. Secretary of State Powell suggested that information supporting one point of view was hyped and another was ignored. He was very concerned about going to the UN with the intelligence he had and spent several days trying to sort through what was good and what wasn’t. But in the end, he failed, because he presented to the world bad information and he’ll have to live with that. Furthermore, all signs were that Saddam was ready to give in and let the US/UN inspect whatever they want which would have prevented an invasion and all the consequences we have today.

But if they had just listened to the Pope, none of this would have happened.

So you ascribe sin to Hillary Clinton. Good to know.

 

[Crossbones]

First paragraph. You are free to think of it as an unjust war. But let’s not confuse that with Church teaching. If you look at the “Just War Doctrine” as it has been from Thomas Aquinas onward, there is no requirement that one’s own country be attacked, nor is there a requirement that there be WMD. It is enough that the evil to be opposed be of sufficient magnitude. One can argue that starting two wars, one of them a world war, putting people in acid baths, having rape rooms and killing a million people is not of sufficient magnitude as evils to. But if not that, what?

Second paragraph. There was no one who could have dealt with it on a local level. Remember, Saddam fought Iran, a country of some 70 million, to a standstill.

First paragraph: The Pope didn’t support the war. Why did you ignore the Pope?

Second paragraph: That was before the Gulf War when he had the support of the US. He was a paper tiger at that point. That’s why he was always blathering about WMD. To keep his neighbors at bay.

 

[Crossbones]

So you ascribe sin to Hillary Clinton. Good to know.

She wasn’t in the executive branch of the government at the time; she was a senator.

You really want to give President GW Bush and his administration a pass on this, don’t you?

 

[zz912]

I give this a 8.7 for creativity. But it is not based in reality at all. The political spectrum has been around since the 1700’s and scholars on both the right and left accept it as accurate.

Socialism, communism, and fascism weren’t around in the 1700’s. Govt power in the 1700’s revolved around kings and monarchies.

And the old false political spectrum is being deconstructed and refuted over time. It is being rejected simply because people are waking up to reality.

 

[zz912]

She wasn’t in the executive branch of the government at the time; she was a senator.

You really want to give President GW Bush and his administration a pass on this, don’t you?

She and her husband most certainly in the executive branch in the 90’s, when they said the exact same thing. And she was fully supportive of the war including voting for it.

I am not giving any pass to W or his administration, only pointing out your hypocrisy in that you only ascribe “sin” to those who you oppose politically, and conveniently excuse those who are on your “team”.

 

[Path_Finder]

But there was never a point where the Pope supported the war. So, anyone who supported the war was ignoring the Pope. But I guess that is fine, since Estesbob posted a statement where the Pope said it was ok to ignore him above.

And, yes, I do ascribe sin to those who are in charge of the intelligence, get bad intelligence and then push through a bad decision. That suggests they have no business being in charge because they cannot get good information from the people beneath them or they are creating a poisonous environment where the correct information couldn’t get to them. Secretary of State Powell suggested that information supporting one point of view was hyped and another was ignored. He was very concerned about going to the UN with the intelligence he had and spent several days trying to sort through what was good and what wasn’t. But in the end, he failed, because he presented to the world bad information and he’ll have to live with that. Furthermore, all signs were that Saddam was ready to give in and let the US/UN inspect whatever they want which would have prevented an invasion and all the consequences we have today.

But if they had just listened to the Pope, none of this would have happened.

Again, President Obama’s nomination to National Security, General Clapper:

thinkprogress.org/security/2010/06/07/100994/obama-nominates-clapper/

In Oct. 2003, DNI Nominee James Clapper Said It Was ‘Unquestionably’ True That Iraq Moved WMD To Syria

A very different view than the one you are espousing and this is President Obama’s own nomination to National Security.

James Robert Clapper, Jr. (born March 14, 1941)[2][3] is a retired lieutenant general in the United States Air Force and is currently the Director of National Intelligence.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper

 

[estesbob]

First paragraph: The Pope didn’t support the war. Why did you ignore the Pope?

Second paragraph: That was before the Gulf War when he had the support of the US. He was a paper tiger at that point. That’s why he was always blathering about WMD. To keep his neighbors at bay.

I assume you are not Catholic. If you were you would know the difference between binding matters of Faith and moral and matters of prudential judgment…

 

[Dawnia]

Socialism, communism, and fascism weren’t around in the 1700’s. Govt power in the 1700’s revolved around kings and monarchies.

And the old false political spectrum is being deconstructed and refuted over time. It is being rejected simply because people are waking up to reality.

Reality? And here I thought it was called dilusion. Go figure.

 

[Crossbones]

She and her husband most certainly in the executive branch in the 90’s, when they said the exact same thing. And she was fully supportive of the war including voting for it.

I am not giving any pass to W or his administration, only pointing out your hypocrisy in that you only ascribe “sin” to those who you oppose politically, and conveniently excuse those who are on your “team”.

Again, more excuses; deflecting the blame on those that were out of power for years and didn’t start an the war itself. President Clinton got Saddam to back down without an invasion. President GW Bush could have, but that’s not what he wanted, so we got the invasion and 11 year conflict.

You keep making excuses for the man, and that’s why some voters are worried about the Republicans starting more unjust wars. If the Republicans and their supporters would admit it was a mistake and formulate new policies that show this, that would help their election chances. But first, they have to admit they made a mistake.

 

[Path_Finder]

General Clapper clearly believed WMDs were in Iraq and transported, the caravan is on film. I guess some people just wish to ignore the truth for their own aims and claim others are making excuses. You can’t have a more unbiased source than Obama’s own head of National Intelligence.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You keep making excuses for the man, and that’s why some voters are worried about the Republicans starting more unjust wars. If the Republicans and their supporters would admit it was a mistake and formulate new policies that show this, that would help their election chances. But first, they have to admit they made a mistake.

But you are assuming your premise. Your premise is that Iraq was an “unjust war”. But you have not analyzed or demonstrated that proposition. I realize the media characterize it as more evil than the Muslim Brotherhood, polio and Stalin rolled together, and a lot of people accept their view of it. But that doesn’t mean it’s so.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Again, more excuses; deflecting the blame on those that were out of power for years and didn’t start an the war itself. President Clinton got Saddam to back down without an invasion. President GW Bush could have, but that’s not what he wanted, so we got the invasion and 11 year conflict.

All kinds of offers were made to Saddam Hussein, but he defied them. He didn’t even abide by his own cease fire agreement, and shot at American and Brit planes as the spirit moved him. He also violated the “no fly” zones.

Not sure what you think Clinton backed Saddam down in. Perhaps you could tell us.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But you are assuming your premise. Your premise is that Iraq was an “unjust war”. But you have not analyzed or demonstrated that proposition. I realize the media characterize it as more evil than the Muslim Brotherhood, polio and Stalin rolled together, and a lot of people accept their view of it. But that doesn’t mean it’s so.

There may be some room for disagreement over whether the Iraq War was a just war in the popular sense of the word. But I think it is pretty clear that the Iraq War was not just in the Augustinian sense, as the criteria for just war in Catholic doctrine are very strict.

 

[freeRadical]

He said Hitler and Stalin, not two extreme leftists. Totalitarianism is a right-wing ideology.

Totalitarianism is on both the right and the left. I think you meant to say Fascism is a right-wing ideology.

 

[freeRadical]

Um, wut? No, not at all. The political spectrum runs from total govt control/power on the far left, to no govt control/power on the far right. On the far left are communism/socialism/fascism/totalitarianism. On the far right is anarchy. Democracy is on the middle left, and constitutional republic is on the middle right.

I’m not sure where you got the idea that totalitarianism is right wing. It’s the polar opposite of right wing.

No. First of all, Communism and Socialism are not political systems, they are economic systems. They are not on the political spectrum.

Total governmental control/power are on both the right and left.

 

[freeRadical]

That is not the model generally used in PoliSci. It goes from government of the many on the left to government of the few on right. Anarchy is on the left because each person is their own authority.

There are many different types of anarchy but, traditionally, anarchy is on the right.

 

[freeRadical]

It’s not bizarre at all. Just a different way of presenting the political structure. However, it’s not the model generally accepted or used.

Actually, it is very common to put anarchy on the right.