L
L_Amoneti
Guest
Going on many of the policies promoted and enacted by the Republican party that are opposed to Christian morality, couldn’t you ask the same thing about them?
- Status
U
upant
Guest
opposed to or just a different way of addressing the problem?
what new programs were introduced. not what programs are being enforced. what programs were introduced?
L
L_Amoneti
Guest
Which problem are you speaking of that you see (or wish to see) being addressed differently? Which program is being enforced? Seems you know its objectionable and are just trying to cover that particular base…
Last edited:
U
upant
Guest
i would like to know what you think has been enacted that is opposed to christian morality
O
otjm
Guest
I am not sure if a two party system is any more a problem than any of the variations around other countries with multiple parties.
The Libertarian Party, the only significant challenger, has 0.46 of the total electorate, and positions which I think prevent it from growing significantly. At this point, there is nothing indicating it has any hope of any meaningful growth.
What is interesting to watch is the leftward to extreme leftward move of the Democratic Party. Right now the candidates incipient are doing a lot of chin wagging about supporting labor unions.
Talk is cheap (if not worthless) as it was Trump who spoke to the unions directly, showing the serious lack of clear leadership in the Democratic Party to that point. Post election interviews with labor workers (as opposed to their talking heads) made it clear they felt they had been ignored for far longer than the two terms of the previous administration, significantly to job loss and other results of being (or feeling they were being) ignored.
And AOC with her hairbrained proposal to “Go Green” would cost trillions of dollars, destroy a number of industries, all to be replaced with, in some instances, far less efficient alternatives (i.e. energy). raie taxes on the middle class sufficent to put them significantly in to the low class economically, and destroy this country in short work. China will eventually eat out lunch; she simply would have hastened it by decades.
Should Trump win another election, it seems possible to me there might be a split in the Democratic Party between the far left and the moderates, and that group might pull in sufficiently from liberal Republicans and some Libertarians to be a viable party.
I remember the party of Jack and Bobby Kennedy; I remember that Nixon, for all his faults made entry to China, something the Democratic Party could not muster. And I rmember several administrations making decisions that were not just stupid, but wrongheaded.
The Far Left wing of the Dems are playing to the millennials and younger, a group that in large part seems to be illiterate in terms of economics and general governmental philosophy. They play also to the party members who are so emotionally driven in their hatred for the present administration that one cannot have an intelligent conversation with them. And most of the proposed ideas do not sit well with mainstream people, including a number of moderate Democrats. That group may actually be the swing vote, depending on whether they put emotions aside and use logic, or whether they vote with their emotions, never mind the irrationality of the proposals from the final candidate.
The Libertarian Party, the only significant challenger, has 0.46 of the total electorate, and positions which I think prevent it from growing significantly. At this point, there is nothing indicating it has any hope of any meaningful growth.
What is interesting to watch is the leftward to extreme leftward move of the Democratic Party. Right now the candidates incipient are doing a lot of chin wagging about supporting labor unions.
Talk is cheap (if not worthless) as it was Trump who spoke to the unions directly, showing the serious lack of clear leadership in the Democratic Party to that point. Post election interviews with labor workers (as opposed to their talking heads) made it clear they felt they had been ignored for far longer than the two terms of the previous administration, significantly to job loss and other results of being (or feeling they were being) ignored.
And AOC with her hairbrained proposal to “Go Green” would cost trillions of dollars, destroy a number of industries, all to be replaced with, in some instances, far less efficient alternatives (i.e. energy). raie taxes on the middle class sufficent to put them significantly in to the low class economically, and destroy this country in short work. China will eventually eat out lunch; she simply would have hastened it by decades.
Should Trump win another election, it seems possible to me there might be a split in the Democratic Party between the far left and the moderates, and that group might pull in sufficiently from liberal Republicans and some Libertarians to be a viable party.
I remember the party of Jack and Bobby Kennedy; I remember that Nixon, for all his faults made entry to China, something the Democratic Party could not muster. And I rmember several administrations making decisions that were not just stupid, but wrongheaded.
The Far Left wing of the Dems are playing to the millennials and younger, a group that in large part seems to be illiterate in terms of economics and general governmental philosophy. They play also to the party members who are so emotionally driven in their hatred for the present administration that one cannot have an intelligent conversation with them. And most of the proposed ideas do not sit well with mainstream people, including a number of moderate Democrats. That group may actually be the swing vote, depending on whether they put emotions aside and use logic, or whether they vote with their emotions, never mind the irrationality of the proposals from the final candidate.
O
otjm
Guest
(Continued)
And there is one central issue to this next election, and that is who will be put on the Supreme Court. If the Republicans win, we will have a Constitution intact. If the Democrats win, we will have another judge who thinks the Constitution is such a flexible document that anything one wants can be found in it - another way of saying it needs to be judicially rewritten.
To the OP: is it a sin? Not all proposals put out by the Dems are sinful; some are just terribly stupid. But how many have we killed by the party which now, through at least two Governors, has said killing a born-alive child is acceptable?
And there is one central issue to this next election, and that is who will be put on the Supreme Court. If the Republicans win, we will have a Constitution intact. If the Democrats win, we will have another judge who thinks the Constitution is such a flexible document that anything one wants can be found in it - another way of saying it needs to be judicially rewritten.
To the OP: is it a sin? Not all proposals put out by the Dems are sinful; some are just terribly stupid. But how many have we killed by the party which now, through at least two Governors, has said killing a born-alive child is acceptable?
L
L_Amoneti
Guest
Thanks for asking. Policies that come to mind are:
Im not sure why the distinction between “enacted” and “enforced”, but again, I please say which particular problem/policy you are thinking of.
- International policy particularly a proclivity start wars without adequate cause. Consider the Iraq war and its downstream effects.
- Policies relating to immigrants that (1) are anti-family or (2) prescribe a punishment way out of propotion to an act of desperation and/or way too long after the fact (such as when an individual is deported after decades of being a upstanding member of the community).
Im not sure why the distinction between “enacted” and “enforced”, but again, I please say which particular problem/policy you are thinking of.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
I agree that such leadership is important. However, I also know that there are other moral issues, like adultery. It is also grave matter to promote a leader who has a history of objectifying women, paying off prostitutes, and committing adultery. Is that what we want to teach our young people?
O
otjm
Guest
I think the most recent Pope to address that issue was Pope Benedict; and the answer is “No”. The immorality of continuing abortion is vastly worse than the most horrible (but not morally reprehensible) politician.
There is a whole lot of chin chatter coming from the Left about how immoral some of the current administration’s rules regulations and proposals are.
The Left’s knowledge of morality is not even nil. It is simply non-existent. The are simply recodifying language in order to weaponize it. One of the candidates went off blathering about racist economics and racist immigration and racist several other issues, She simply is weaponizing the word “racist” to mean anything she disagrees with;, not that there is anything within the common meaning of the term “racist” associated with what she does not like.
There is a whole lot of chin chatter coming from the Left about how immoral some of the current administration’s rules regulations and proposals are.
The Left’s knowledge of morality is not even nil. It is simply non-existent. The are simply recodifying language in order to weaponize it. One of the candidates went off blathering about racist economics and racist immigration and racist several other issues, She simply is weaponizing the word “racist” to mean anything she disagrees with;, not that there is anything within the common meaning of the term “racist” associated with what she does not like.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
And I think that Benedict never said that.
U
upant
Guest
as I remember this was backed by a coalition of countries, not just the USA. I was against it.
enact vs enforce is just that. immigration laws have been on the books and not enforced. some illegals have jumped hearings for years and now that they have been caught should they be let go because they evaded the law for a long period of time? aren’t all of our criminal laws anti-family? every time we send a father or mother to jail we break up a family. should we ignore their crime for their children?
we have a legal system of entry why don’t we change those rules to allow more people in instead of fighting to allow those who come in illegally to stay. let’s be honest, the illegals are not refugees, they are here for economics. let’s create a work permit system without and make everybody semi-happy.
those being deported have been convicted of a crime other than just illegal entry. I don’t see morals coming in to play when you are dealing with illegal activity.
I have no policy in mind. I just don’t see which policy was enacted that is opposed to Christian morals. I don’t see law and order as opposed to Christian morals.
I see the social/health etc issues being dealt with differently. the way we have been dealing with them have not been working. something needs to change. I don’t see this as opposing Christian morals either.
U
upant
Guest
why look at the man? what would this current generation say if king David was our current president?
is he better for the church than the opponent? according to the statement below, he is
Pope John Paul II put right-to-life above all other issues
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
I find your comment to be exceedingly offensive - and I use that term only because my real thoughts would get me banned.
In 1960 I met a young man about to be ordained to the priesthood. The short story was that what remained of his family in South Vietnam was his mother, who would never see him again after he left there to go to seminary (in Oregon).
My aunt paid his mother’s way over to see her son ordained. She never saw him again; he was ordained, and he died a few years ago.
The story behind it: he and the rest of his family were North Vietnamese Catholics, and were trying to flee south because of the Communist persecution of Catholics. He and his mother made it out, along with possibly one or two more. Some of the family were captured attempting to flee and were executed. Several others were imprisoned; and if you think a North Vietnamese prison was no big deal, read of the imprisonment of Americans captured and the trials and tortures they went through.
Yes, there was My Lai - due to the lack of control by the officer in command of that company; it was an aberration.
I went to Vietnam in 1969 - 1970 in Military Intelligence. Part of the impetus for the US to enter the war was to keep the South free from Communist rule. Another part was because of the Domino Theory; that if one country fell to Communism, others would fall.
Vietnam fell. Then Laos and Cambodia; and Thailand nearly fell. The theory was not simply someone’s pipe dream; it was real. When Nixon took over, the North was close to capitulating; but he and his advisers did not grasp that; and so the carnage continued. And McNamara might have been a great businessman, but his theory of body count and attrition as a means to win a war was insane. So also was the requirement that any strike off a carrier on the North had to be cleared by the Pentagon before the planes could launch. So also was taking known landing strips off the target list - oh my, look where the Migs all ended up, and were subsequently used to shoot down our planes.
The Church in Vietnam is still persecuted. Perhaps not as badly as before; but I certainly would invite you to go live there an preach the Gospel, and find out what reality is all about. Or if you are such a fan of Communism, please, buy all means go down to Venezuela; get a dose of the reality that Father Peter fled from in the 1950’s.
I lost classmates there. Your comment is not appreciated - nor does it reflect the reality of that war.
In 1960 I met a young man about to be ordained to the priesthood. The short story was that what remained of his family in South Vietnam was his mother, who would never see him again after he left there to go to seminary (in Oregon).
My aunt paid his mother’s way over to see her son ordained. She never saw him again; he was ordained, and he died a few years ago.
The story behind it: he and the rest of his family were North Vietnamese Catholics, and were trying to flee south because of the Communist persecution of Catholics. He and his mother made it out, along with possibly one or two more. Some of the family were captured attempting to flee and were executed. Several others were imprisoned; and if you think a North Vietnamese prison was no big deal, read of the imprisonment of Americans captured and the trials and tortures they went through.
Yes, there was My Lai - due to the lack of control by the officer in command of that company; it was an aberration.
I went to Vietnam in 1969 - 1970 in Military Intelligence. Part of the impetus for the US to enter the war was to keep the South free from Communist rule. Another part was because of the Domino Theory; that if one country fell to Communism, others would fall.
Vietnam fell. Then Laos and Cambodia; and Thailand nearly fell. The theory was not simply someone’s pipe dream; it was real. When Nixon took over, the North was close to capitulating; but he and his advisers did not grasp that; and so the carnage continued. And McNamara might have been a great businessman, but his theory of body count and attrition as a means to win a war was insane. So also was the requirement that any strike off a carrier on the North had to be cleared by the Pentagon before the planes could launch. So also was taking known landing strips off the target list - oh my, look where the Migs all ended up, and were subsequently used to shoot down our planes.
The Church in Vietnam is still persecuted. Perhaps not as badly as before; but I certainly would invite you to go live there an preach the Gospel, and find out what reality is all about. Or if you are such a fan of Communism, please, buy all means go down to Venezuela; get a dose of the reality that Father Peter fled from in the 1950’s.
I lost classmates there. Your comment is not appreciated - nor does it reflect the reality of that war.
O
otjm
Guest
Then you were not paying attention.
O
otjm
Guest
During the Jack Kennedy administration, children were not taught that he was committing adultery repeatedly. What is your point?
St Paul says we are all sinners. Unless the Blessed Virgin Mary descends from Heaven top run on a ticket, we are not going to find anyone sinless; and their sinfulness does not mean they are incapable of leading the nation.
Again, what is your point?
King David not only committed adultery with Bathsheba, but had her husband killed. And the Gospels say “The book of the geneolgy of Jesus Christ, the son of David” and “a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David”. Neither one says “David, the murderer and adulterer”.
For a third time, what is your point?
St Paul says we are all sinners. Unless the Blessed Virgin Mary descends from Heaven top run on a ticket, we are not going to find anyone sinless; and their sinfulness does not mean they are incapable of leading the nation.
Again, what is your point?
King David not only committed adultery with Bathsheba, but had her husband killed. And the Gospels say “The book of the geneolgy of Jesus Christ, the son of David” and “a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David”. Neither one says “David, the murderer and adulterer”.
For a third time, what is your point?
C
Cabeelibob
Guest
The Catholics in the United States and the Vatican have kinda been at odds since the beginning and still are to some extent.
And it was very liberal for that time indeed, but that was a time where the standard government was a monarchy.
In my opinion, a monarchy is not wrong within itself.
And it was very liberal for that time indeed, but that was a time where the standard government was a monarchy.
In my opinion, a monarchy is not wrong within itself.
C
Cabeelibob
Guest
Explain this insanity wolf meme please.
Z
ZMystiCat
Guest
What part about it needs explaining? 
M
Maximus_Power
Guest
I want our young people to be alive long enough to teach them to be like Jesus Christ.
Abortion is murder.
R
RCIAGraduate
Guest
Public help for the poor and disadvantaged?
- Status