Pope’s climate views press Catholic candidates

[phil19034]

What is an American catholic ? Is it a catholic who is american or is it a catholic who has a certain ideology ?

An “American Catholic” is a person who is American first and Catholic 2nd. They value the US Constitution more than Sacred Tradition.

Personally, I’m a “Catholic American”

I will always side with the Catholic interests over American interests. If I ever ran for public office, I would be exactly what non-Catholics and cafeteria Catholics fear about orthodox Catholic politicians, that we would be loyal to the Pope and Bishops. Well, that would be me.

The Church before the Constitution. Constitution before everything except the Church

 

[phil19034]

I’ll buy one atmosphere starts warming again and/or when a single scientist is able to produce a model that actually reflects what is going on. The global warming fiasco is going to damage the credibility of science for generations to come and now I am afraid the same is going to happen to the Church

The science behind global warming is the same theoretical science behind terraforming Mars and the greenhouse affect on Venus.

However, Earth is different because we have oceans. When the Earth warms, it causes ice bergs and glaciers to melt. This lowers the salinity of the oceans and eventually triggers an ice age because it becomes easier for the ocean to freeze in higher latitudes.

The carbon we are dumping into the air has an affect. But we don’t know how bad the affect is. The problem is we cannot predict what will happen because meteorologists and other scientists do not understand climate as much as they think they do. We understand weather and climate on other planets more than on our own because of the presence of water. Water throughs a curve ball into climate predictions on Earth.

 

[ishii]

What you seem to be saying is that democrats are secretly socialists, but they are afraid to say so publicly, so we just have to take your word that they are socialists. What you also seem to be saying is that republicans are secretly free market oriented, but they act like socialists in order to get elected. Once again, we have to take your word for this because there is no external proof of these claims.
.

Stinkcat, stinkcat, stinkcat. I would be so nice if we lived in the neat, tidy, simplistic world which you live in, in which all socialists announced: “I am a socialist and wish to implement socialism on America so vote for me.” and all non-socialists announced: I am anti-socialist so I will dismantle all entitlements including social security and medicare, so vote for me." Unfortunately we live in a much more complicated world.

Ishii

 

[weller2]

What do you want to replace it with?

What would I replace it with or what it will be replaced with. Two different questions.

Let’s analyze an example: Should the free market be allowed to set the price of water during drought?

The free market advocates will say yes, because the price will go up, and the demand will drop. What they don’t tell you is that after the non-essential water use is cut, any further drop in demand will have to come from people dying of thirst because they cannot afford water. Problem is that people don’t really like dying, so before that happens, they will simply start a revolution. So while the free market in principle can alleviate resource shortage by arbitrating price, the proces involves a price overshoot phase, which is enough to destabilize the system, i.e. cause a revolution. Now, a revolution will not increase the amount of water, but it will provide an excuse to set up a quota / rationing system which will at least ensure that people are not dying.

A more forward-thinking leader facing a permanent drought will realize that the quota / rationing system is inevitable anyway, and introduce it before the price spike triggers a revolution.

There is another problem though, because under both scenarios you end up having the government decide how much water you can use. That will inevitably lead to the rise of hydraulic despotism.

Capitalism requires growth, and further growth is impossible because we have reached resource limits, both geological and climatic.

The whole “capitalism/socialism” divide is mis-named. It’s a conflict where one faction is made of capitalists who want to continue the business as usual until the system unevitably collapses, and then bail out with the money (naively hoping that they can make it to the rescue helicopter in time). The other faction is made of government technocrats who realize that if the system collapses it’s their heads who will roll (because a government employee cannot afford a rescue helicopter), so they are trying to seize control of economy and turn the unmanaged collapse into a managed one.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Stinkcat, stinkcat, stinkcat. I would be so nice if we lived in the neat, tidy, simplistic world which you live in, in which all socialists announced: “I am a socialist and wish to implement socialism on America so vote for me.” and all non-socialists announced: I am anti-socialist so I will dismantle all entitlements including social security and medicare, so vote for me." Unfortunately we live in a much more complicated world.

Ishii

And you have some special knowledge that lets you and only you distinguish the socialists from the nonsocialists?

 

[ishii]

I’m not a democrat… so I don’t have a horse in the race… but saying that the democratic party is 98% is not the truth.

godisgood - everyone who is pro-life has a horse in the race.

How many pro-life Democrat senators are there? How many pro-life congressmen? Presidents? Governors? I would be hard pressed to count more than a few.

Of all the pro-life measures passed in state legislatures, how many were sponsored and supported by Democrats?

These are rhetorical questions because the answer is none (or very few). The Democratic party is overwhelmingly anti-life. Okay, maybe not 98%. Maybe 95%? 90%? Either way, they are not worthy of support at all.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

And you have some special knowledge that lets you and only you distinguish the socialists from the nonsocialists?

I don’t know about “special knowledge” but I do have a brain.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I don’t know about “special knowledge” but I do have a brain.

And what part of that brain allows you determine that politicians who expand programs designed to take from each individual according to his ability and give to each individual according to his need and determine that such individual is not socialist?

 

[ishii]

An “American Catholic” is a person who is American first and Catholic 2nd. They value the US Constitution more than Sacred Tradition.

Personally, I’m a “Catholic American”

I will always side with the Catholic interests over American interests. If I ever ran for public office, I would be exactly what non-Catholics and cafeteria Catholics fear about orthodox Catholic politicians, that we would be loyal to the Pope and Bishops. Well, that would be me.

The Church before the Constitution. Constitution before everything except the Church

I was hoping to get the answer from the horse’s mouth - but I guess we’re not on speaking terms.

What part of “protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America” that every president has sworn to do when elected goes against the Catholic church? Are you saying that to be president and be sworn in, means you have to be American first and Catholic second? What part of our constitution that many Catholics have died to protect goes against Catholic teaching? Be specific.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

And what part of that brain allows you determine that politicians who expand programs designed to take from each individual according to his ability and give to each individual according to his need and determine that such individual is not socialist?

I think it is called the temporal lobe.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I think it is called the temporal lobe.

And why should anyone else trust your brain on this? For example, we had a program like social security, which was based on “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” and then we have a president like Reagan who makes it more marxist. He increases the tax rate, so those with more ability pay more and taxes benefits which reduces the amount to people who need it less. So why would a non marxist president take a marxist program and make it more marxist if he wasn’t a closet marxist himself?

 

[godisgood77]

godisgood - everyone who is pro-life has a horse in the race.

How many pro-life Democrat senators are there? How many pro-life congressmen? Presidents? Governors? I would be hard pressed to count more than a few.

Of all the pro-life measures passed in state legislatures, how many were sponsored and supported by Democrats?

These are rhetorical questions because the answer is none (or very few). The Democratic party is overwhelmingly anti-life. Okay, maybe not 98%. Maybe 95%? 90%? Either way, they are not worthy of support at all.

Ishii

the burden of proof is on you as you are the one making the assertions… your ‘swag’ numbers carry no weight. The party is not the leaders…just like the Church is not the hierarchy. Your opinions can’t be put off as fact… I know plenty of pro-life democrats and the pro-life movement consists of more issues than the tragedy of abortion.

 

[ishii]

the burden of proof is on you as you are the one making the assertions… your ‘swag’ numbers carry no weight. The party is not the leaders…just like the Church is not the hierarchy. Your opinions can’t be put off as fact… I know plenty of pro-life democrats and the pro-life movement consists of more issues than the tragedy of abortion.

The leaders are elected - maybe most Democratic party members are not really pro-life at all, or don’t care?

And regarding the tragedy of abortion - yes pro-life means more than opposition to abortion, but that is first and foremost the most pressing, urgent life issue. It is vastly more important than whether I put the aluminum cans in the proper recycling bin.

The burden of proof? I asked you - how many pro-life measures are supported / sponsored by Democrats. You had no answer. I rest my case completely.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

And why should anyone else trust your brain on this? For example, we had a program like social security, which was based on “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” and then we have a president like Reagan who makes it more marxist. He increases the tax rate, so those with more ability pay more and taxes benefits which reduces the amount to people who need it less. So why would a non marxist president take a marxist program and make it more marxist if he wasn’t a closet marxist himself?

You know, I always thought Reagan was a closet Marxist - he just hid it well. Same with Goldwater. In fact, I bet Ron Paul is a secret Marxist too.

 

[stinkcat_14]

You know, I always thought Reagan was a closet Marxist - he just hid it well.

Judging from his behavior, he supported a marxist program. That is something that you cannot deny. Now you are the one who wants to argue that we should ignore the behavior politicians and look at their rhetoric, but only when it comes to republicans.

As an empirical economist, what I am most interested in is people’s behavior, because we can readily observe that. How can we distinguish marxists from nonmarxists when their behavior is exactly the same? Your only answer is “trust me”.

 

[ishii]

Judging from his behavior, he supported a marxist program. That is something that you cannot deny. Now you are the one who wants to argue that we should ignore the behavior politicians and look at their rhetoric, but only when it comes to republicans.

As an empirical economist, what I am most interested in is people’s behavior, because we can readily observe that. How can we distinguish marxists from nonmarxists when their behavior is exactly the same? Your only answer is “trust me”.

What are you talking about? I’m agreeing with you that Reagan was a committed Marxist! He raised taxes after all, didn’t he? And he didn’t declare himself dictator and suspend the constitution in order to dismantle the socialist programs such as Social Security and Medicare! That proves it!

I trust you, Stinkcat.

Ishii

 

[stinkcat_14]

What are you talking about? I’m agreeing with you that Reagan was a committed Marxist! He raised taxes after all, didn’t he? And he didn’t declare himself dictator and suspend the constitution in order to dismantle the socialist programs such as Social Security and Medicare! That proves it!

I trust you, Stinkcat.

Ishii

Of course, the one thing I will give you credit for Ishii is that you have never disputed the marxist nature of social security. You are willing to live with marxism in order to have political stability. But the problem we have here, is that there are some posters who fully embrace the marxism of social security and medicare. It is kind of amusing watching people bring up the issue of subsidiarity when it comes to other welfare programs yet they become really silent when it comes to social security and medicare.

 

[anthrogirl]

I’m not a democrat… so I don’t have a horse in the race… but saying that the democratic party is 98% is not the truth.

That’s true. Most Catholic democrats I know oppose abortion, suicide and the death penalty. It’s all the same thing, opposing the taking of human life.

 

[godisgood77]

The leaders are elected - maybe most Democratic party members are not really pro-life at all, or don’t care?

And regarding the tragedy of abortion - yes pro-life means more than opposition to abortion, but that is first and foremost the most pressing, urgent life issue. It is vastly more important than whether I put the aluminum cans in the proper recycling bin.

The burden of proof? I asked you - how many pro-life measures are supported / sponsored by Democrats. You had no answer. I rest my case completely.

Ishii

Rest your case? Sorry but your case is paper thin… I won’t play in to your circular logic where you make assertions and then as questions to have someone else prove your point. I rest my case until you can substantiate (even just a little) your broad assertions with no basis in fact.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

You mean like when Bush expanded medicare to include prescription drugs? Or when Reagan signed the law increasing the Social Security payroll tax, and made SS benefits taxable?

But of course, the problem is, both parties, when it comes to economic issues are socialist parties. Neither is keen on cutting spending or reducing regulation.

If a person is in favor of income redistribution, like the way that medicare was expanded to include prescription drugs, is a socialist then isn’t education a socialist concoction as well?

I don’t know how funding is done in the US but taxes for schools are collected from property taxes from home owners. Of course some home owners don’t have kids and as such in that situation it would be income redistribution.