Paul Ryan!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chrish1975
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
When an economic philosophy begin with the premise that there is no God - where does it go from there? This is why Ayn Rand’s philosophy is inherently atheist. She does not see a world populated by people who are all equally loved by their creator, but one that is divided between “prime movers” and “parasites”. There is no moral reason to care for those who cannot care for themselves.

THAT is too freaky for words! Nice observation. 😃
Perhaps you could post what Ryan has praised Rand for, rather than speculating with innuendo?

It’s a pity others aren’t so harsh on similar radical atheists and abortion supporters (Maya Angelou ring a bell?)

From Ryan’s mouth, at the 2005 Atlas Society event:
(1:45) I just want to speak to you a little bit about Ayn Rand and what she meant to me in my life and [in] the fight we’re engaged here in Congress. I grew up on Ayn Rand, that’s what I tell people…you know everybody does their soul-searching, and trying to find out who they are and what they believe, and you learn about yourself.
(2:01) I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are. It’s inspired me so much that it’s required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff. We start with Atlas Shrugged. People tell me I need to start with The Fountainhead then go to Atlas Shrugged [laughter]. There’s a big debate about that. We go to Fountainhead, but then we move on, and we require Mises and Hayek as well.
2:23) But the reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism
2:38) In almost every fight we are involved in here, on Capitol Hill, whether it’s an amendment vote that I’ll take later on this afternoon, or a big piece of policy we’re putting through our Ways and Means Committee, it is a fight that usually comes down to one conflict: individualism vs. collectivism.
(2:54) And so when you take a look at where we are today, ah, some would say we’re on offense, some would say we’re on defense, I’d say it’s a little bit of both. And when you look at the twentieth-century experiment with collectivism—that Ayn Rand, more than anybody else, did such a good job of articulating the pitfalls of statism and collectivism—you can’t find another thinker or writer who did a better job of describing and laying out the moral case for capitalism than Ayn Rand.
(3: 21) It’s so important that we go back to our roots to look at Ayn Rand’s vision, her writings, to see what our girding, under-grounding [sic] principles are. I always go back to, you know, Francisco d’Anconia’s speech (at Bill Taggart’s wedding) on money when I think about monetary policy. And then I go to the 64-page John Galt speech, you know, on the radio at the end, and go back to a lot of other things that she did, to try and make sure that I can check my premises so that I know that what I’m believing and doing and advancing are square with the key principles of individualism…
(6:53) Is this an easy fight? Absolutely not…But if we’re going to actually win this we need to make sure that we’re solid on premises, that our principles are well-defended, and if we want to go and articulately defend these principles and what they mean to our society, what they mean for the trends that we set internationally, we have to go back to Ayn Rand. Because there is no better place to find the moral case for capitalism and individualism than through Ayn Rand’s writings and works.
atlassociety.org/ele/blog/2012/04/30/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rands-ideas-hot-seat-again

(emphasis mine)

Ryan picks up on Rand’s Collectivism vs. Induvidualism themes, as many have (see Rush’s 2112, or even some Obama supporters (Anne Hathaway, Brad Pitt, Sandra Bullock, and Eva Mendes, plus Angelina Jolie).

I haven’t seen anything Ryan does, proposes, or has proposed in his career as being “Randian”.

Rand was no conservative. Rand was continually at odds with the founders of modern conservatism (just read William F. Buckley’s, a Catholict I might add, obit of Rand, or his review of Atlas Shrugged),

aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_faq#obj_nr_vs_ar

absolutely hated Reagan,

dangerousminds.net/comments/ayn_rand_absolutely_hated_ronald_reagan

and derides conservatives in general.

I want people here to put up or shut up:

Please point out what policy proposed by Ryan, what ideas espoused by Ryan (outside of the individualism vs. collectivism dichotomy) would be in agreement with Ayn Rand’s objectivism philosophy…

or to stop beating this obviously dead horse.
 
The “financial reforms” have proved to be neither friendly nor beneficial to consumers. They have parylized the banking industry, favored huge banks over small community banks, and the whole Dodd Frank bill needs to be overturned along with Obamacare.

You consistently overstate your case which makes your claims totally lacking in credibility. As has been indicated time after time, the Ryan plan does not ELIMINATE any of these programs, not a one. Further it does not even eliminate expansion of the programs. It merely reduces the PLANNED increases.

Are you aware of the way these budgets are determined? Start with last year’s budget and add on. Instead of going line by line…another Obama promise that has been forgotten, all of these proven inefficient, bloated and wasteful programs are simply increased in size and scope.

This with a heavy percentage of BORROWED money. How is that sustainable? And who will be hurt when the whole house of cards collapses?

BTW with your strong Catholic faith, please tell me why you do not hold Biden, Pelosi, Sebelius et al to the same standards? They are all abortion proponents. Yet you seem far more concerned that food stamp increases are reduced.

Lisa
Thank you Lisa for stepping in. It doesn’t take a PhD to figure out that the Ryan Budget does not eliminate these programs.
 
That’s the problem with liberal catholics : they “go after” good catholics like Paul Ryan, but do nothing when it comes to the Biden’s, Pelosi’s, and Sebelius’ who support abortion on demand and HHS mandate and such. Worse, they question the heart of Ryan - question the sincerity of his Catholic faith which is of course against forum rules. How sad.

Ishii
👍
 
Oh please! Are you simply being obtuse or do you not distinguish between someone who appreciates an economic theory of Rand but that does NOT mean he has elevated her to a deity. I am a great devotee of Ayn Rand’s ECONOMIC THEORY. I am also a Mass going, faithful and practicing Catholic. Your presumption that one cannot appreciate a secular economic theory without being unfaithful to the Church is rather arrogant I think. You presume to know another’s heart? Really?

Do you have ONE bit of evidence that Paul Ryan is not a faithful Catholic but instead is a devotee of an atheist objectivist? How many interviews, reports, articles will it take to get through to you?

And you are dead wrong in your second paragraph. Nancy Pelosi particularly has tried to explain that being pro abortion is not a violation of Catholic teachings. Now the lack of support or logic or actual Catholic teaching expressed by Ms Pelosi is legendary but that has not slowed her down at all. Ditto with Joe Biden who not only vigorously defends abortion rights but also same sex marriage. He claims this does not mean he is not a “good” Catholic.

I’m not sure why you are so invested in the Ayn Rand is Paul Ryan’s deity theory but it’s clear you have your mind made up and you aren’t really interested in either Ryan’s own words or those of his Bishop.

Lisa
Liberals are so sad sme times. It is amazing to watch their positions squirm around. There are certain posters who will literally do ANYTHING to defend the left, to the point that it shows their false outrage over truly desparate pro-life issues to be just that; a complete farce. Abortion and its evil brethren simply don’t rank as they should in their hearts, despite the ease at which they claim it does

Look at the absurdity of the discussions they suck us in to. We have Catholics and non-Catholics on the left who enthiusiastically support abortion, homosexual “marriage”, and a host of other intrinically evil things. Evil as in born out of the pits of hell, burn for all eternity, spit in the face of God type of things.

And yet, we are fretting over Ryan’s enjoyment of Ayn Rand’s philosophy? I’despect posters like Bellasbane and CMatt if they at least felt like they could not in good faith vote for *either *side. I’d think they gave to much credence to the Rand stuff, but at least it would give them some legitimacy.

De facto defending the four horsemen the on the left by eschewing Ryan like this is ridiculous, and simply not believable. It ince again highlights the lip service they pay to fundamental life issues. Sure, they’ll post how pro-life they are on a message board, but in the end, they really just don’t care about these “trivialities.” And how could they, when you have a guy who enjoyed reading about Objectivists running? A guy with an imperfet budget proposal? Granted, none of these posters have an alternative to fix our budget problems, and their own candidate doesn’t either, but who cares? Despite the fact that basic math tells us that we will in fact go belly up if we don’t do something different (and then, who is going to help the poor?), they have no plan other than the status quo. But again, that’s fine, because Ryan enjoyed Atlas Shrugged. :rolleyes:
 
Liberals are so sad sme times. It is amazing to watch their positions squirm around. There are certain posters who will literally do ANYTHING to defend the left, to the point that it shows their false outrage over truly desparate pro-life issues to be just that; a complete farce. Abortion and its evil brethren simply don’t rank as they should in their hearts, despite the ease at which they claim it does

Look at the absurdity of the discussions they suck us in to. We have Catholics and non-Catholics on the left who enthiusiastically support abortion, homosexual “marriage”, and a host of other intrinically evil things. Evil as in born out of the pits of hell, burn for all eternity, spit in the face of God type of things.

And yet, we are fretting over Ryan’s enjoyment of Ayn Rand’s philosophy? I’despect posters like Bellasbane and CMatt if they at least felt like they could not in good faith vote for *either *side. I’d think they gave to much credence to the Rand stuff, but at least it would give them some legitimacy.

De facto defending the four horsemen the on the left by eschewing Ryan like this is ridiculous, and simply not believable. It ince again highlights the lip service they pay to fundamental life issues. Sure, they’ll post how pro-life they are on a message board, but in the end, they really just don’t care about these “trivialities.” And how could they, when you have a guy who enjoyed reading about Objectivists running? A guy with an imperfet budget proposal? Granted, none of these posters have an alternative to fix our budget problems, and their own candidate doesn’t either, but who cares? Despite the fact that basic math tells us that we will in fact go belly up if we don’t do something different (and then, who is going to help the poor?), they have no plan other than the status quo. But again, that’s fine, because Ryan enjoyed Atlas Shrugged. :rolleyes:
This is one of the handful of times on CAF I have quoted an entire post. I have quoted it not mainly for its good points, but to demonstrate how precisely the partisan Left operates, and in that, to show that the partisan Left among Catholics mirrors the Talking Points and the tone on all the MSNBC shows, but especially these five: NOW, Chris Matthews, Politics Nation, The EdShow, The Last Word. (Yes, you see how broad I am in my viewing habits; I watch most everything.) These are nothing but propaganda shows, searching for opportunities for character defamation, minor weaknesses, and 45 minutes spent on sheer mockery.

One “expects” it (unfortunately) on talk-trash lamestream media. One should never expect it from voters who call themselves faithful Christians, let alone faithful Catholics.
 
What is going on here? Rand wrote a couple novels, which had an ok message about what bureaucrats, governments and crony capitalism do to ambitious entrepreneurs and the creative types. Her overtly anti-Christian morals aside the part regarding bureaucrats and government interference was spot on. So regardless, of Rand’s sexual morals and other debatable stances, she still hit one out of the park. Even nasty dictators, evil gangsters, and goofy philosophers sometimes tell the truth. So glen the field and take what is truth and leave the rest. If that is what Ryan does well good on him.

Regarding Ryan verses the social safety net, and the angst over the usual government bureaucrat hissy fit when budgets don’t keep growing like the apparatchiks want them to and heaven forbid they get really cut all I have to say is this. I believe most of the hysteria is generated because some bureaucrats feel a little threatened they won’t get to dispense other people’s money and their little bailiwick will shrink.

Now for the question I like that deals with the idea of government-coerced charity for the so-called social safety net. Why does the federal government put up signs in the national parks that read, “Don’t feed the animals,” then it turns around and gives out food stamps to humans many of whom could work for a living.
 
This is one of the handful of times on CAF I have quoted an entire post. I have quoted it not mainly for its good points, but to demonstrate how precisely the partisan Left operates, and in that, to show that the partisan Left among Catholics mirrors the Talking Points and the tone on all the MSNBC shows, but especially these five: NOW, Chris Matthews, Politics Nation, The EdShow, The Last Word. (Yes, you see how broad I am in my viewing habits; I watch most everything.) These are nothing but propaganda shows, searching for opportunities for character defamation, minor weaknesses, and 45 minutes spent on sheer mockery.

One “expects” it (unfortunately) on talk-trash lamestream media. One should never expect it from voters who call themselves faithful Christians, let alone faithful Catholics.
Good insight. 👍
 
Liberals are so sad sme times. It is amazing to watch their positions squirm around. There are certain posters who will literally do ANYTHING to defend the left, to the point that it shows their false outrage over truly desparate pro-life issues to be just that; a complete farce. Abortion and its evil brethren simply don’t rank as they should in their hearts, despite the ease at which they claim it does

Look at the absurdity of the discussions they suck us in to. We have Catholics and non-Catholics on the left who enthiusiastically support abortion, homosexual “marriage”, and a host of other intrinically evil things. Evil as in born out of the pits of hell, burn for all eternity, spit in the face of God type of things.

And yet, we are fretting over Ryan’s enjoyment of Ayn Rand’s philosophy? I’despect posters like Bellasbane and CMatt if they at least felt like they could not in good faith vote for *either *side. I’d think they gave to much credence to the Rand stuff, but at least it would give them some legitimacy.

De facto defending the four horsemen the on the left by eschewing Ryan like this is ridiculous, and simply not believable. It ince again highlights the lip service they pay to fundamental life issues. Sure, they’ll post how pro-life they are on a message board, but in the end, they really just don’t care about these “trivialities.” And how could they, when you have a guy who enjoyed reading about Objectivists running? A guy with an imperfet budget proposal? Granted, none of these posters have an alternative to fix our budget problems, and their own candidate doesn’t either, but who cares? Despite the fact that basic math tells us that we will in fact go belly up if we don’t do something different (and then, who is going to help the poor?), they have no plan other than the status quo. But again, that’s fine, because Ryan enjoyed Atlas Shrugged. :rolleyes:
👍

Well written post.

As I keep saying, we can have legitamate debate (using facts of course) about whether a proposed budget is good or not. Even the members of the USCCB have varying opinions about the Ryan budget. The bishops have said that abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research are all wrong, period. I would put more stock in this than what some random arm chair theologain says on the Internet.
 
No, he hates the situation where people love material more than God. That is what the “rich man through the eye of a needle” is all about. People become more attached to their “stuff” than to the idea of eternity in heaven with God.
People often misquote “the love of money is the root of all evil” 😉

And as you imply, people can’t serve two masters - two those who are given much, much is expected.

People have to freely give to charity or else it means nothing.
 
People often misquote “the love of money is the root of all evil” 😉

And as you imply, people can’t serve two masters - two those who are given much, much is expected.

People have to freely give to charity or else it means nothing.
I could be wrong about this but after following this thread I am beggining to believe that this issue is deeper than just forcing people to give money in charity.
I just read this, “The US Bishops Annual Labor day Statment,” and thought maybe this is what some of the posters here are trying to say.
Even if it is not, it does show how those who have been given much, much is expected.

zenit.org/article-35374?l=english
 
There are certain posters who will literally do ANYTHING to defend the left, to the point that it shows their false outrage over truly desparate pro-life issues to be just that; a complete farce.
Should they not be allowed to present their arguments, regardless of the strength of those arguments? Would you have a censor appointed to assure our posters that all opinions are in lockstep with those of the Right?
Look at the absurdity of the discussions they suck us in to.
Absurdity? Do you think these people are trolls posting their messages solely to sow discord? Might they not, even wrongly, hold their beliefs sincerely?
Sure, they’ll post how pro-life they are on a message board, but in the end, they really just don’t care about these “trivialities.”
I’m amazed at your mind-reading and heart-reading ability.
Granted, none of these posters have an alternative to fix our budget problems,
Are our posters expected to? Even the Rightwingers on the Forum haven’t a solution.
 
Not if she’s teaching them that Catherine of Siena opposed the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church (which of course anyone well-versed in both their faith and in secularly-sourced history would know instantly is untrue), and/or that a “good Catholic,” – to quote her – is one who feels free

and/or that it’s okay for Catholics to judge rashly the piety of other Catholics as

Because that is both blasphemy and deeply offensive and disrespectful. How would you have any idea who is and is not guilty of “politically motivated hypocrisy?” For example, why don’t you point out whose souls you can read on this thread?

Catherine of Siena was not an ecclesiastical rebel. She was anything but. She was docile, prayerful, and considered highly virtuous according to the traditional canons of the Roman Catholic Church. Had she not been, she would not have been sought as a papal advisor. There is no comparison between Catherine of Siena and telling CAF users that Paul Ryan worships Ayn Rand., especially since he has been quoted several times here as clearly rejecting Rand’s philsophy, while finding her books interesting (to use his word). Lots of people reject the philosophical arguments of authors they find interesting. Catherine of Siena was a model of charity, not a model of back-biting and name-calling.
🤷
Time for a history lesson and reality check!

I’m not quite sure where you got the idea that I consider St. Catherine an ecclesiastical rebel. She stuck with Urban VI despite the fact that she didn’t like his style and advised him to back off a bit. I said she told off some Cardinals - and she did. Her letter to the three Italian Cardinals who played a part in creating the Western schism is scathing. Her references to them as “devils in human form” in a letter to Urban was less than charitable. The schism itself divided the Church for nearly 40 years. Saints lined up on both sides - so who is to say who were the orthodox and who were the heretics?

The disagreement was not over Church doctrines or theology - it was political. In my opinion, political ambition has been at the root of all ills that tear apart the Church - and NOTHING is worse for the Church than schism. If you don’t think we are in the midst of a schism today, then you are not paying attention. If you welcome the separation of so many souls from Christ, then I find that deeply disturbing, because nothing grieves God more than the loss of a soul. How can anyone rejoice over that?

The message I give my students is that the Church is the People of God - and so it is NOT perfect, because people are not perfect, so don’t expect it to be. If the Church fails to meet your expectations, don’t walk out on it, but work to change it. Confront your pastor or Bishop, be respectful, begin with an open heart seeking understanding. Some of our greatest Saints have been reformers in times when the situation was really dire - things are not where near as bad today, so don’t loose faith. There is so much good all around you, focus on that.

FYI: Here’s a bit of St. Catherine’s famous diatribe against the Italian Cardinals:

"What made you do this? The poison of self love, which has infected the world. That is what has made you pillars lighter than straw. Flowers you who shed no perfume, but stench that makes the whole world reek! No lights you placed in a candlestick, that you might spread the faith; but, having hidden your light under the bushel of pride, and become not extenders, but contaminators of the faith, you shed darkness over yourselves and others. You should have been angels on earth placed to release us from the devils of hell, and performing the office of angels, by bringing back the sheep into the obedience of Holy Church, and you have taken the office of devils That evil which you have in yourselves you wish to infect us with, withdrawing us from obedience to Christ on earth, and leading us into obedience to antichrist, a member of the devil, as you are too, so long as you shall abide in this heresy.

Hardly docile. Perhaps you were thinking of Thérèse de Lisieux? She was sweet and lovely. She and Catherine had two totally different personalities, yet both are Doctors of the Church. Think about that.
 
Time for a history lesson and reality check!

I’m not quite sure where you got the idea that I consider St. Catherine an ecclesiastical rebel. She stuck with Urban VI despite the fact that she didn’t like his style and advised him to back off a bit. I said she told off some Cardinals - and she did. Her letter to the three Italian Cardinals who played a part in creating the Western schism is scathing. Her references to them as “devils in human form” in a letter to Urban was less than charitable. The schism itself divided the Church for nearly 40 years. Saints lined up on both sides - so who is to say who were the orthodox and who were the heretics?

The disagreement was not over Church doctrines or theology - it was political. In my opinion, political ambition has been at the root of all ills that tear apart the Church - and NOTHING is worse for the Church than schism. If you don’t think we are in the midst of a schism today, then you are not paying attention. If you welcome the separation of so many souls from Christ, then I find that deeply disturbing, because nothing grieves God more than the loss of a soul. How can anyone rejoice over that?

The message I give my students is that the Church is the People of God - and so it is NOT perfect, because people are not perfect, so don’t expect it to be. If the Church fails to meet your expectations, don’t walk out on it, but work to change it. Confront your pastor or Bishop, be respectful, begin with an open heart seeking understanding. Some of our greatest Saints have been reformers in times when the situation was really dire - things are not where near as bad today, so don’t loose faith. There is so much good all around you, focus on that.

FYI: Here’s a bit of St. Catherine’s famous diatribe against the Italian Cardinals:

"What made you do this? The poison of self love, which has infected the world. That is what has made you pillars lighter than straw. Flowers you who shed no perfume, but stench that makes the whole world reek! No lights you placed in a candlestick, that you might spread the faith; but, having hidden your light under the bushel of pride, and become not extenders, but contaminators of the faith, you shed darkness over yourselves and others. You should have been angels on earth placed to release us from the devils of hell, and performing the office of angels, by bringing back the sheep into the obedience of Holy Church, and you have taken the office of devils That evil which you have in yourselves you wish to infect us with, withdrawing us from obedience to Christ on earth, and leading us into obedience to antichrist, a member of the devil, as you are too, so long as you shall abide in this heresy.

Hardly docile. Perhaps you were thinking of Thérèse de Lisieux? She was sweet and lovely. She and Catherine had two totally different personalities, yet both are Doctors of the Church. Think about that.
Please stop fashioning yourself, as a modern day St Catherine. There are no parallels. St Catherine was a defender of Truth, not a defender of enemies of the Church.
 
Personally, from my reading of industrial trends that is pretty much what is going on for the past 20 odd years since Bush 1 and his air/water reauthorization acts. The only new investments have been in areas where labor can be cost effectively replaced by automation. In fact I stumbled across an article in a waiting room where the author was describing one of the construction operations not affected by the recession was in dismantling old industrial plant’s power houses and shipping them abroad.
In short we are living off a previous generations investment.
It is remarkable to me how “progressives” are actually living in nostalgia for the past. Instead of being “progressive”, they’re astonishingly “reactionary”. Examples:

No jobs? Well, try to reinstitute labor union dominated pricing of the 1950s when the rest of the world’s industry was in ruins and manufacturers could pass any cost on to consumers. Never mind that you have to tax everybody more or borrow to pay for that trip down memory lane.

Poverty? Nothing better than returning to the confiscatory/redistributive policies of the failed socialist societies and the revolutionary romanticism of the 1930s. Most of all, suppress the middle class “Kulaks”.

Social policy? Easy. Look to Virginia Woolf and Neitsche, as well as the anti-Catholicism of the French Revolution and the reign of Masonic oppressors in Mexico. And, of course, there’s always Sartre and the Marquis de Sade.

Environment? Nothing to it. Never mind incentivizing people in the countryside who actually do protect the environment and control most of it. Better turn to 1962 and “Silent Spring” emotionalism and contrived science. Ban everything you guess or want to think might have an effect on the environment, especially if it’s helpful to people.

Transportation? By golly, if riding bikes for transportation was good enough in Mao’s day for the masses, it’s good enough for American commuters today, unless, of course, they want to drive an updated 1910 electric car that will actually go 30 miles before exhausting its charge instead of 5. And people don’t need to fly from NYC to LA in a few hours when they can ride for two days in a train like Great-Grandpa did.

Energy? Our ancestors shivered in the dark during the winter, wore heavy clothing indoors and didn’t bathe very often due to lack of energy resources and primitiveness thereof. There is no reason why we should not be as conserving and intrepid as they. If we can make utility bills “skyrocket” by making energy hard to get, that ought to do it. And too, our ancestors pumped water with windmills and heated water for washing with sun-warmed tanks on their roofs. The few industries that existed in the 1700s ran on water wheels. We need to return to updated versions of that. And never mind that hundreds of elderly people died in France without air conditioning a few years back during a heat wave. It takes too much energy to keep them alive. But they’re old, and outlived their 1812 life spans anyway.

Race relations? We shouldn’t just be ignoring race as a factor in economic and social relations like the conservatives do. Hispanics and blacks should FEEL THE WEIGHT of their racial and ethnic heritage and find reasons to resent everyone else even if the reasons have to be invented. After all, just because racial oppression can’t be detected, that just means it’s more subtle. We need to talk about chains so they’ll think it’s still 1858. Since they can’t understand regular English, we have to imitate 1890 minstrel show “black accents” when we talk to them.

Food? There’s that energy thing again. It takes fuel to produce it. Better to raise our food with muscle power and make it at least as expensive relative to income as it was in 1850. A very good example can be set if the president pretends to rely on a vegetable garden on the white house grounds. Never mind that he actually eats Wagyu beef that comes all the way from Japan. That’s different. Divine right of kings, and all that.

And (for now) last, but certainly not least. We need to return to the 19th century social organization of Bismarck. Suppress Catholicism whenever possible. Propagandize children in the schools so they will think the government is right in everything and that their existence is unimaginable without government intervention at every turn. Regiment and regulate the society as much as one can. Set up an elitist bureaucracy that regulates every detail of peoples’ lives. And most of all, get in bed with the big capitalists that can help you stay in power…as long as they pay money and lip service to statism.

I have to go out of town today, burning fuel as I go. It’s probably a good thing. Don’t want to get injured by the bombs that will be thrown in response to this half-joking post. 🙂
 
Please stop fashioning yourself, as a modern day St Catherine. There are no parallels. St Catherine was a defender of Truth, not a defender of enemies of the Church.
Hurray! I must be getting under your skin if you are so keen to shut me up! Thanks for the compliment 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top