If one does not trust a party’s platform, one has no moral obligation to vote for that particular party. That may not justify voting for a democrat (depending on the particular candidate), but there is never an affirmative moral obligation to vote for a republican.
I Dont know of anything he has said that would cause a stir among conservatives.
I think it is clear that there has been more opposition from the right to the words of this pope (or at least to the way his words have been portrayed) than for either of the two prior popes. That said, this is a very different thing than suggesting that Republicans are suddenly at odds with the church. Since there have been no doctrinal changes, the Republican position with regard to the church is identical today to what it has been in the past. That is, there is no issue where the Republican position conflicts with that of the church. Whatever else may be said, that fact remains true. This is not to say that everything the GOP wants is supported by church doctrine (because there are no church doctrines that address the details of implementation), only that they do not conflict with doctrine. That cannot be said of the Democrat position.
Parks and streets are controlled by local rather than National Government. I’m not sure I understand the bit about the public and stocks etc
I will look forward to his thoughts on Global Warming
"YUP’
they work together in the same building , the rotten potato will spoil the group and so on.No.
Arriviste or Bourgeois. Hardly classy
I don’t own an apartment, I rent it. The owner of the building owns the lobby. My lease allows me to use the lobby to access my apartment, and not much else. If the owner of the building wanted to lease a portion of the lobby to a pharmacy or a convenience store, I’m not sure I’d have any legal basis to object. The lease does give me certain ownership rights to the apartment. For example, unless the lease or zoning laws specifically forbid it, I can sublet the apartment to a third party for the remaining term of the lease, and keep any increase in the rent I’m able to negotiate. This is not the case for a nationalized asset. The notion that they are held for the common good is a nice one, but it doesn’t reflect reality. In a free society, I determine what is in my best interests, not some government entity that doesn’t know, or particularly care about my situation.
Like banks and corporations. They call themselves private but anyone in the U.S. (or in China or the U.K. for that matter) can buy or sell their ownership thereof. If your government prohibits your buying or selling in the stock market, then you have a different form of government.
If he comes out with an encyclical on climate change, as has been predicted, this will be a game changer. He has already mentioned “climate change” as a current evil (concern? problem? issue?) but if he goes further and lends his support to the theory of AGW then it will cause more than just a stir. It will be seen as Urban v. Galileo II and the church will suffer another serious, self-inflicted wound.
I agree that your definition is arbitrary. Of course, the whole concept of middle class is arbitrary, so arbitrary that almost everyone defines themselves as middle class. I am not sure what the usefulness of the term is, but people do seem to like to use the term, even though they never seem to define it, except in such a way as to include themselves in the definition.
In UK the population owned the rail, steel, a great deal of housing stock, the coal mines et al and a government stole them and sold them on the open market. The successors of this government will sell the NHS if they can. If capitalists like them had a soul I’ve no doubt they would sell that too (after they had sold everyone else’s)
I do believe your remarks must be tempered by saying I would not pass up the opportunity to vote for Scott Walker. Wisconsin legislature and governor have shut down abortion clinics. So as for me, personally, yes, I do believe there is a moral obligation BUT it is for each individual to decide on their own.
They don’t prohibit that so in essence British socialism supports a mixed economy. But the Bank of England was nationalised and therefore in public ownership and still is but they don’t call it nationalised any more. We have de facto nationalised a couple of other banks by becoming the major investor after the crash. Of course Lassiz Faire capitalism would have left the ATMs empty. Even the most unreconstructed right wingers saw a ‘role for government’ when their own pensions were just about to disappear
The UK population don’t appear to have actually owned anything, because they didn’t have the right to sell their property. Ownership implies a right to sell. Obviously, the government owned the property, and were using it to their own benefit, not “the people’s”. For all the lofty ideals of socialism, the reality is it always ends up benefiting the political elite to the detriment of everyone else.
No. Those industries were purchased following an election where the Labour Party set out a programme of nationalisation of major industry to be owned by the people and run by the government. Margaret Thatcher sold on ideological grounds. It caused 20 years of grinding poverty in parts of the UK she had no interest in. She gleefully told us that ‘everyone now has the right to be unequal’ and ‘there is no such thing as society’. Classic case of self serving capitalists abusing the system
Thanks I was actually there the late 1970s were bad but nothing compared to Thatchers Britain. NOTHING
They were purchased in the same way a armed man giving me $10 purchases my Rolex. Prior to Thatcher de-nationalizing the industries, the UK was on it’s way to third world status. I’m not sure how allowing a formerly great nation to devolve to third world status is of benefit to the “people”. People were arguably living materially better during “The Blitz” than they were during 1960s and 1970s Great Britain.
I can see that you have no ideas about Scotland or Wales or indeed any part of the UK other than the South East. To be honest you aren’t correct but I will never persuade you