S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
Thanks for making assumptions about me without even waiting for my answer.
PS: Oh, and by the way, how is Mrs. Claus?
PS: Oh, and by the way, how is Mrs. Claus?
Neocon Catholic leaders nurtured by GOP and Conservative Philanthropy on their heels
- Status
C
Contarini
Guest
Many people disagree with you on both these points. Opposition to government regulation can be anti-environment, if said regulation is the best way to protect the environment. Opposition to government programs can be âanti-poorâ if it leaves the poor without recourse.
Edwin
M
mark_a
Guest
I live in a state that goes 60/40 (give or take a few points) republican. My vote either way wonât amount to a hill of beans.
Until we get rid of this silly winner-take-all state electoral system, my time is better spent working during the hour it would take me to go vote and donating the money to a pro-life charity.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Yes, Edwin, but you are smart enough to know that âcan beâ and âisâ are not the same thing. The fact that people disagree with me is rather obvious isnât it? If we all agreed, we wouldnât need two parties.
As a Catholic, I am pro-environment - I support private environmental groups like Nature Conservancy, I recycle, I try to minimize garbage, etc. I also very happily work with a customer who is creating the latest and greatest solar technology. The owner of this company is a Republican. He and I both agree with President Bush, who urged fellow polluting countries to take **voluntary **steps to reduce emissions and mentioned that technology is the best solution.
As a Catholic, I give to and support many causes for the poor - St. Vincent de Paul, especially. I also do direct service through the Knights of Columbus. Many of my fellow Knights are also Republican (we are not a political group, I just happen to know the affiliation of many of my friends)
The environment and poverty do not require government intervention. It is only one way.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
The government requiring that sort of thing veers perilously close to Communism.
M
melensdad
Guest
It also tends to prevent innovation when something is mandated.
Look at the alternative fuel issues. The government is subsidizing Ethanol (E-85) Gasoline blends, doing such is creating a false market for E-85, which is less efficient than gasoline. Further if you do any cost analysis of running a car on E-85, the fuel is cheaper *(by about 30 cents a gallon) *but the effeciency is so much lower that your actual cost to drive the car using the cheaper E-85 go up!
We would be far better off working on multiple options like bio-diesel, fuel cell and ethanol simultaneously. The markets will bring out the most efficient solution. Government getting involved tends to support the industry with the best paid & best connected lobbyist.
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Fun, no?
W
Walt_Oliver
Guest
This thread has been edited to remove all names of political candidates. If candidates continue to be named or mentioned in ways that make them identifiable, infractions will be issued and/or the thread will be closed. Thank you for your cooperation.
T
tomarin
Guest
hello, sailor.
yes, you are.
nobody likes to lose. the troops arenât the issue â everyone supports them. the issue is the mission itself. there are limits to what a military action can accomplish. surely every sane person must recognize this.
thatâs ridiculous.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
I disagree with everything you say⌠but I suspect you knew that already.
And yes, the mass media is shockingly, and embarrasingly, biased against American interests, especially conservative interests. Since these mesh quite well with Catholic and Christian interests, the media is also horrifically biased against these too.
Television âentertainmentâ amounts to nothing but a prolonged dirty joke. Enemies of the country are lauded, wined and dined by major universities. This bias has existed for decades. Perhaps itâs become like wallpaperâtoo prevalent to notice.
A fish swimming in water doesnât realize there is such a thing as water.
And yes, the mass media is shockingly, and embarrasingly, biased against American interests, especially conservative interests. Since these mesh quite well with Catholic and Christian interests, the media is also horrifically biased against these too.
Television âentertainmentâ amounts to nothing but a prolonged dirty joke. Enemies of the country are lauded, wined and dined by major universities. This bias has existed for decades. Perhaps itâs become like wallpaperâtoo prevalent to notice.
A fish swimming in water doesnât realize there is such a thing as water.
T
tomarin
Guest
i couldnât agree with you more regarding catholicism in the media â itâs the last acceptable prejudice. what passes for entertainment mostly belongs in the gutter.
but endless war is not in the interest of christians or ordinary americans. i donât think a truly antiwar perspective is found in our media precisely because they do not want to be labeled unpatriotic. a truly antiwar perspective is not found in our politicians either â the topic of this thread. itâs ironic (and sad) because most americans now want to pull out of iraq and let the iraqis sort out their problems for themselves, yet neither media nor the political elite responds to the majorityâs wishes. we are the new silent majority.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
No, theyâre just anti-war when itâs America prosecuting the war.
I bet that WW I and II seemed âendlessâ to some. This war in Iraq could have been ended in a WEEK if we brought the full might of our armed forces to bear.
Itâs because weâre pussyfooting around trying to avoid collateral damage that itâs gone on for a couple of years. Sometimes itâs cruel to be kind.
I bet that WW I and II seemed âendlessâ to some. This war in Iraq could have been ended in a WEEK if we brought the full might of our armed forces to bear.
Itâs because weâre pussyfooting around trying to avoid collateral damage that itâs gone on for a couple of years. Sometimes itâs cruel to be kind.
R
RowBoat
Guest
Choose to 1) abort , or 2) carry the fetus full term and give birth.
R
RowBoat
Guest
Both the winner-take-all and the provision for two senators form each state serve a very important function: they reduce the probability that sections of the nation will secede. History shows us that regions chafe under rule from afar, and thatâs the situation various regions would encounter under a strict one-man-one-vote system.
The power of states that is disproportionate to its population lends additional standing to regions that would be most likely to go their own way. For example, Alaska could swing a presidential election under the present system, but would not have near the power under a strict one-man-one-vote system.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
How is that morally different from a choice to 1) kill your wife or husband, or 2) stay married?
R
RowBoat
Guest
Husbands and wives are considered persons under the law. A fetus is not considered a person under the law. Some moral standards will recognize a difference since they have a similar view as the law. Some will not because they do not recognize the distinction between the fetus and husbands or wives. It depends on what moral standard is being applied.
R
rlg94086
Guest
That would be the crux of the problem. The reason I canât support the Democrats is because they donât consider the unborn a person, and therefore have deemed the killing of the unborn okay. It canât be a choice if you have a Catholic understanding of personhood (i.e. life begins at conception).
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Use of the term âpersonâ to distinguish between Human Beings who are entitled to potection under the law and those who are not is a neo-logism, coined after Roe v Wade.
From a purely objective standard, whatâs the difference between killing a child in January, before it is born, and killing it in December, after itâs born?
R
RowBoat
Guest
Iâm not aware of anyone who disputes that the sperm is alive, the egg is alive, and the fertilized egg is alive. Nor do I know of anyone who disputes that all three are of the homo sapiens species. The dispute arises with the question of when a homo sapiens is considered a person.
R
RowBoat
Guest
What objective standard? What makes a standard objective?
- Status