Pro-life Catholic Who Attends Latin Mass Appointed As New UK House of Commons Leader

  • Thread starter Thread starter yankeesouth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sounds great and all but didn’t parliament just vote to murder a bunch of babies in northern Ireland by a landslide? If he can do something about that…
 
His job is timetabling Government business.

Abortion isn’t a political issue in the UK.
 
I should have said “isn’t a political issue in the UK, except in Northern Ireland.”
 
Perhaps Boris Johnson’s championing of teaching Latin in the public schools has something to do with this?
 
In some ways people like Rees-Mogg and Johnson are creatures of a different age, in other ways they are modern day fantasists. Their view of the Empire is completely untethered from history, and idealized retelling that has little to do with how the British Empire was built and how it was sustained, and how it fell. Even before Suez, even before the Second World War, the Empire had become unsustainable. The whole point of the Statute of Westminster was to start carving off pieces of the Empire. Even in the closing decades of the 19th century Gladstone didn’t want to rescue British forces from the Mahdists in Khartoum.

Britain has retained its importance via the City as a major financial center, and now the man children who seem to view Britain as some sort of play set where they can move pieces around and fight imaginary wars against Europe, the Chinese and whatever other phantoms they dream up are going to cause even that last vestige of British power to collapse.

They are contemptible fools who will tell any lie they imagine for the absurd game of self-aggrandization, but like every other populist ruler in modern times all they will deliver is rubble.
 
Last edited:
There is a link above on his voting record. His actions in the House have shown he is no friend of the poor. Even if he were donating money from his own personal finances (which also caused some raised eyebrows as he’s very good at moving money around to protect it) why would he not do what he could for all of the most vulnerable in society?
 
AngelusDomini said:
There is a link above on his voting record. His actions in the House have shown he is no friend of the poor. Even if he were donating money from his own personal finances (which also caused some raised eyebrows as he’s very good at moving money around to protect it) why would he not do what he could for all of the most vulnerable in society?
Click to expand...
How do you know he doesn’t want to do all he can for the most vulnerable? Maybe he wants to do a lot, but doesn’t believe in forcing others to.
His voting record is only a reflection of how much he thinks others should help, them impose it on them.
 
Last edited:
AngelusDomini said:
he’s very good at moving money around to protect it
Click to expand...
It is financially responsible to protect one’s assets from taxation within the bounds of the law. People who want to give more of their money to the government than they are required to are, I’m sure, free to do it.
 
Last edited:
It also shows his integrity - telling the British public that Brexit will be for the best while making sure his money stays in the EU. It’s called having the courage of your convictions; at best he’s living in a fantasy world. That’s not an option for the great majority of people.

While not forcing others to help he’s certainly playing a part in forcing others to live on less and into circumstances they would rather not be in (e.g. the bedroom tax).
 
JonNC said:
How do you know he doesn’t want to do all he can for the most vulnerable? Maybe he wants to do a lot, but doesn’t believe in forcing others to
Click to expand...
Maybe he does. Indeed it would surprise me if someone as serious about his religion as Rees-Mogg did not devote a reasonable amount of his fabulous riches to charity. As a public servant his voting record shows where he fits on the British political spectrum, and what he thinks about society’s obligations to the poor. As a US Conservative you may possibly agree with him. As a British citizen one is entitled to one’s own opinion, of course.
 
AngelusDomini said:
While not forcing others to help he’s certainly playing a part in forcing others to live on less and into circumstances they would rather not be in (e.g. the bedroom tax).
Click to expand...
Well, certainly history shows authoritarianism helps the poor.
(Sarcasm)
Britain can do as it pleases. Clearly he has a constituency that supports his policy ideas.
 
Last edited:
PickyPicky said:
Maybe he does. Indeed it would surprise me if someone as serious about his religion as Rees-Mogg did not devote a reasonable amount of his fabulous riches to charity. As a public servant his voting record shows where he fits on the British political spectrum, and what he thinks about society’s obligations to the poor. As a US Conservative you may possibly agree with him. As a British citizen one is entitled to one’s own opinion, of course.
Click to expand...
Society’s obligations come in the form of what it’s citizens do voluntarily, not what government makes them do.
He, too, is a British citizen.
 
JonNC said:
Society’s obligations come in the form of what it’s citizens do voluntarily, not what government makes them do.
He, too, is a British citizen
Click to expand...
The government is the arm of society, the means by which society as a whole can act. Government, or rather Parliament, puts lots of obligations on me. They are obligations to act in socially beneficial ways. To run business ethically, to refrain from violent acts, to contribute to national defence. To pay towards the education of children, the treatment of the sick, the relief of the poor. To ensure through my contribution that the naked are clothed and the sick and the imprisoned are visited. Certainly I may do more voluntarily, and I am sure Mr Rees-Mogg does, but society can either act together towards these aims, or not.
 
PickyPicky said:
40.png
JonNC:
Society’s obligations come in the form of what it’s citizens do voluntarily, not what government makes them do.
He, too, is a British citizen
Click to expand...
The government is the arm of society, the means by which society as a whole can act. Government, or rather Parliament, puts lots of obligations on me. They are obligations to act in socially beneficial ways. To run business ethically, to refrain from violent acts, to contribute to national defence. To pay towards the education of children, the treatment of the sick, the relief of the poor. To ensure through my contribution that the naked are clothed and the sick and the imprisoned are visited. Certainly I may do more voluntarily, and I am sure Mr Rees-Mogg does, but society can either act together towards these aims, or not.
Click to expand...
This is an argument for logistics. “Government can does these better than the Church, charities, etc. “.
Assuming for the moment that is true, the solution then is for government to set up voluntary contributions to help the poor, to then be distributed as needed.
 
JonNC said:
rnment can does these better than the Church, charities, etc. “.
the solution then is for government to set up voluntary contributions to help the poor, to then be distributed as needed.
Click to expand...
Sure, and the same thing for the army.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top