L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
FWIW, I don’t see how taxing a middle income person to pay a wealthy person is justified, either.
- Status
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
It confused me, too.I think you’re inferring something that I never said.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Thank you.It confused me, too.
In any case, I wasn’t disclosing anything about whom I donate to, but only that I’m one of those who are reassessing.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Sorry about the confusing terminology.
By “anatomy” I just meant the “appearance” and by “physiology” I just meant the “function”.
So I still don’t understand why Peter J. you would mix-in “donating” to FoxNews and CNN with “donating” to CAF?
(I can see how FoxNews and CNN are giving Trump large amounts of free publicity, but I don’t see how CAF is doing that. Unless you mean CAF is guilty of this by virtue of simply allowing us to discuss this here with this venue. But even then, the sheer size of FoxNews and CNN would not seem fair to compare with CAF, much less the WAY the candidates are discussed).
The “appearance” of FoxNews and CNN are much different than the “appearance” of CAF.
The “function” of FoxNews and CNN are much different than the “function” of CAF.
And all I’m saying is: How are you conflating “donating” to these very different types of entities in the context of my earlier comment? . . .
P
Peter_J
Guest
Again, I don’t understand how your reading so much into my post.
I don’t have great knowledge of organizations that are the same size as CAF (or same appearance or whatever) that would have been appropriate to include in that post, but if you can suggest some I will try to remember them for the future.
C
carpenter383
Guest
C
carpenter383
Guest
Mark Levin says he’s sick and tired of hearing Donald Trump whine and complain about Colorado. Levin argues that Trump should have gone into Colorado, hired the right people and organized his campaign, gave his speeches to try and win the delegates and then move on to the next state.
Instead, Levin says, Trump whines like a liberal and sounds like a disgruntled employee.
And that’s just the beginning. He also talks about how Trump is running a third party campaign inside the Republican nomination process…and more. (audio)
Read more: therightscoop.com/mark-levin-slams-donald-trump-for-whining-like-a-liberal-about-colorado/#ixzz45fdqct1O
Instead, Levin says, Trump whines like a liberal and sounds like a disgruntled employee.
And that’s just the beginning. He also talks about how Trump is running a third party campaign inside the Republican nomination process…and more. (audio)
Read more: therightscoop.com/mark-levin-slams-donald-trump-for-whining-like-a-liberal-about-colorado/#ixzz45fdqct1O
C
carpenter383
Guest
redstate.com/streiff/2016/04/12/sean-hannity-interviewed-41-times-without-making-news-can-guess/
Hannity’s role is less of an interviewer than a member of Trump’s campaign staff. During his appearances, Hannity seeks to tamp down controversies, talk up Trump’s poll numbers, and tout his policy proposals. Hannity’s Trump is a reliable conservative with specific ideas who isn’t afraid to take on “PC” culture. Trump’s critics in the media, according to Hannity, are “dumb” “idiots” who don’t understand what’s happening in America.
Hannity has managed to interview Trump for hours without ever coming even close to making news.
Effectively, Hannity has given Trump something that is unprecedented in American politics: A serialized infomercial spanning nearly an entire year, targeted at the most reliable Republican voters, but presented to the public as “news.”
Hannity’s role is less of an interviewer than a member of Trump’s campaign staff. During his appearances, Hannity seeks to tamp down controversies, talk up Trump’s poll numbers, and tout his policy proposals. Hannity’s Trump is a reliable conservative with specific ideas who isn’t afraid to take on “PC” culture. Trump’s critics in the media, according to Hannity, are “dumb” “idiots” who don’t understand what’s happening in America.
Hannity has managed to interview Trump for hours without ever coming even close to making news.
Effectively, Hannity has given Trump something that is unprecedented in American politics: A serialized infomercial spanning nearly an entire year, targeted at the most reliable Republican voters, but presented to the public as “news.”
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Peter J.
My mistake. Sorry. Thanks for the clarification Peter J.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
So what? Levin is a strong Cruz supporter.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Lily Bernans. You said:
And the people who are “too rich” Lily, end up eventually being YOU!
This is WHY you must follow PRINCIPLES instead of “amounts”. To prevent this from happening.
Obama promised us no new taxes on the middle class. People asked for a number and Obama falsely said $250,000 year income.
Voters sadly gave him the “keys to the car” and he re-DEFINED “the rich” as YOU (and me–see here and here for a NEW Obama tax proposal on EVERYBODY including the poor and disabled).
This is exactly what will happen if you EXPAND the Federal Government’s POWER to “means test” Social security recipients.
This is not “taxing a middle income person to pay a wealthy person” Lily.
The whole Social Security boondoggle was sold to America based upon how the Government is a better Trustee of these monies than the people themselves could ever be.
That’s WHY they called it the “Social Security Trust Fund”.
This is not monies from “middle income” people.
It is monies from the HIGH income people that the Government took (BY FORCE) away from the wealthy promising to collectively pay them back later but TAKE free interest anyway in the meantime.
These are supposedly from monies that belong to the person “putting in”.
This is NOT money from the Government (in a taxation sense), but money taken from these people (in a "steward"sense).
Now Ridgerunner is going to say, “The Government has NEVER BEEN a good steward of that money.”
And I agree. But that does NOT make it OK to steal the money of the wealthy (remember, this IS THEIR money NOT the Government’s money. And ostensibly at least, the Federal Government was merely acting as a TRUSTEE to THEIR money TAKING FREE INTEREST for all these years from them).
Since 2011, Social Security has a NET cash liability. That means the politicians (like Kasich when he was a Congressman in Washington D.C.) now cannot steal from Social Security’s arithmetic to massage budget numbers and make them artificially look good. That’s HOW they “balanced the budget” that Kasich brags about.
Kasich challenged us to look at his record. I did and I could not vote for him for President.
This is stealing.
Now that there is a net liability, the Federal Government cannot steal from the “Social Security Trust Fund” anymore.
So people like Ridgerunner, who admits the Government failed the people, want to . . . give MORE MONEY to these guys.
And during the debates, when Rand Paul was asked “why not”? After all, this “helps the poor” and all of that, Paul essentially answered, BECAUSE the Federal Government cannot be trusted with these monies while they are on a spending spree!
The Federal Government must SHOW it can stop CREATING NEW programs first.
Listen to Bernie.
He’s got all sorts of NEW PROGRAMS that he wants to start (Just like Trump and Kasich and Hillary).
WHY keep “feeding the beast” for MORE programs in the name of “helping the poor and disabled” when everybody knows they want these monies for their new “pet programs”?
Why give up your freedom to a Social Security agent’s intrusive in-your-home “wealth audit”?
I will try to start a “back fence” thread on WHY “means testing” for Social security is a disaster.
And the argument that it is ONLY “income” testing and not REALLY “means testing” in a fuller sense, is only as good as the next administration.
Ridgerunner means well, but trusts Federal Government politicians much more than I do in the face of their multiple failures.
Bernie, Hillary and the more overt socialists think of people as a little more than beasts. They think the people are incapable of making such decisions for themselves and they NEED enlightened ones (like themselves) to MAKE such decisions and IMPOSE them upon the people . . . for their own good.
The other thing is, if this was truly (at least in “name”) a TRUST and not a “TAX” as we have been sold, then TAKING the money anyway, is stealing.
Stealing from these people is NOT OK. Even if they are rich.
The long term goal of these guys like Bernie and Hillary and possibly Kasich is elimination of privately owned land and elimination of much private property.
Trump? Is HE that way too?
I have no idea. Trump has gone in circles so many times I have no idea WHAT he stands for.
Elimination of private property, free commerce and especially privately owned land. That’s ALWAYS the end game in socialism. And its tied up in “control”.
It is using police force to pilfer money from people you think are “too rich”.
And the people who are “too rich” Lily, end up eventually being YOU!
This is WHY you must follow PRINCIPLES instead of “amounts”. To prevent this from happening.
Obama promised us no new taxes on the middle class. People asked for a number and Obama falsely said $250,000 year income.
Voters sadly gave him the “keys to the car” and he re-DEFINED “the rich” as YOU (and me–see here and here for a NEW Obama tax proposal on EVERYBODY including the poor and disabled).
This is exactly what will happen if you EXPAND the Federal Government’s POWER to “means test” Social security recipients.
This is not “taxing a middle income person to pay a wealthy person” Lily.
The whole Social Security boondoggle was sold to America based upon how the Government is a better Trustee of these monies than the people themselves could ever be.
That’s WHY they called it the “Social Security Trust Fund”.
This is not monies from “middle income” people.
It is monies from the HIGH income people that the Government took (BY FORCE) away from the wealthy promising to collectively pay them back later but TAKE free interest anyway in the meantime.
These are supposedly from monies that belong to the person “putting in”.
This is NOT money from the Government (in a taxation sense), but money taken from these people (in a "steward"sense).
Now Ridgerunner is going to say, “The Government has NEVER BEEN a good steward of that money.”
And I agree. But that does NOT make it OK to steal the money of the wealthy (remember, this IS THEIR money NOT the Government’s money. And ostensibly at least, the Federal Government was merely acting as a TRUSTEE to THEIR money TAKING FREE INTEREST for all these years from them).
Since 2011, Social Security has a NET cash liability. That means the politicians (like Kasich when he was a Congressman in Washington D.C.) now cannot steal from Social Security’s arithmetic to massage budget numbers and make them artificially look good. That’s HOW they “balanced the budget” that Kasich brags about.
Kasich challenged us to look at his record. I did and I could not vote for him for President.
This is stealing.
Now that there is a net liability, the Federal Government cannot steal from the “Social Security Trust Fund” anymore.
So people like Ridgerunner, who admits the Government failed the people, want to . . . give MORE MONEY to these guys.
And during the debates, when Rand Paul was asked “why not”? After all, this “helps the poor” and all of that, Paul essentially answered, BECAUSE the Federal Government cannot be trusted with these monies while they are on a spending spree!
The Federal Government must SHOW it can stop CREATING NEW programs first.
Listen to Bernie.
He’s got all sorts of NEW PROGRAMS that he wants to start (Just like Trump and Kasich and Hillary).
WHY keep “feeding the beast” for MORE programs in the name of “helping the poor and disabled” when everybody knows they want these monies for their new “pet programs”?
Why give up your freedom to a Social Security agent’s intrusive in-your-home “wealth audit”?
I will try to start a “back fence” thread on WHY “means testing” for Social security is a disaster.
And the argument that it is ONLY “income” testing and not REALLY “means testing” in a fuller sense, is only as good as the next administration.
Ridgerunner means well, but trusts Federal Government politicians much more than I do in the face of their multiple failures.
Bernie, Hillary and the more overt socialists think of people as a little more than beasts. They think the people are incapable of making such decisions for themselves and they NEED enlightened ones (like themselves) to MAKE such decisions and IMPOSE them upon the people . . . for their own good.
The other thing is, if this was truly (at least in “name”) a TRUST and not a “TAX” as we have been sold, then TAKING the money anyway, is stealing.
Stealing from these people is NOT OK. Even if they are rich.
The long term goal of these guys like Bernie and Hillary and possibly Kasich is elimination of privately owned land and elimination of much private property.
Trump? Is HE that way too?
I have no idea
. Trump has gone in circles so many times I have no idea WHAT he stands for.Elimination of private property, free commerce and especially privately owned land. That’s ALWAYS the end game in socialism. And its tied up in “control”.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
What is socialism?
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Tomdstone. You asked:
QUOTE:
What is socialism?
First of all, as a Catholic, I acknowledge a public dimension to goods.
But in the system of “socialism” there is a private dimension that is transgressed.
Excerpts on Socialism from Saint Pope John Paul II Centesimus Annus.
QUOTE:
SAINT POPE JOHN PAUL II . . . the Socialists encourage the poor man’s envy of the rich and strive to do away with private property, contending that individual possessions should become the common property of all . . .
. . . They are moreover emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community". The evils caused by the setting up of this type of socialism as a State system — what would later be called “Real Socialism” . . .
. . . we have to add that the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature.
Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism.
Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order.
From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property.
A person who is deprived of something he can call “his own”, and of the possibility of earning a living through his own initiative, comes to depend on the social machine and on those who control it. This makes it much more difficult for him to recognize his dignity as a person, and hinders progress towards the building up of an authentic human community.
. . . However, what is condemned in class struggle is the idea that conflict is not restrained by ethical or juridical considerations, or by respect for the dignity of others (and consequently of oneself); a reasonable compromise is thus excluded, and what is pursued is not the general good of society, but a partisan interest which replaces the common good and sets out to destroy whatever stands in its way. In a word, it is a question of transferring to the sphere of internal conflict between social groups the doctrine of “total war”, which the militarism and imperialism of that time brought to bear on international relations. . . . .
Therefore class struggle in the Marxist sense and militarism have the same root, namely, atheism and contempt for the human person, which place the principle of force above that of reason and law.
. . . It is not wrong to want to live better; what is wrong is a style of life which is presumed to be better when it is directed towards “having” rather than “being”, and . . . spend life in enjoyment as an end in itself. . . .
. . . . It is necessary to go back to seeing the family as the sanctuary of life. The family is indeed sacred: it is the place in which life — the gift of God — can be properly welcomed and protected against the many attacks to which it is exposed, and can develop in accordance with what constitutes authentic human growth. In the face of the so-called culture of death, the family is the heart of the culture of life.
Human ingenuity seems to be directed more towards limiting, suppressing or destroying the sources of life — including recourse to abortion, which unfortunately is so widespread in the world — than towards defending and opening up the possibilities of life.
The Encyclical Sollicitudo rei socialis denounced systematic anti-childbearing campaigns which, on the basis of a distorted view of the demographic problem and in a climate of “absolute lack of respect for the freedom of choice of the parties involved”, often subject them “to intolerable pressures … in order to force them to submit to this new form of oppression”.78
These policies are extending their field of action by the use of new techniques, to the point of poisoning the lives of millions of defenceless human beings, as if in a form of “chemical warfare”.
. . . the entire socio-cultural system, by ignoring the ethical and religious dimension, has been weakened, and ends by limiting itself to the production of goods and services alone.
. . . . It is the task of the State to provide for the defence and preservation of common goods such as the natural and human environments, which cannot be safeguarded simply by market forces.
. . . . . . However, the historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency.
. . . . . Among the most important of these rights, mention must be made of the right to life, an integral part of which is the right of the child to develop in the mother’s womb from the moment of conception; the right to live in a united family and in a moral environment conducive to the growth of the child’s personality
. . . . . People lose sight of the fact that life in society has neither the market nor the State as its final purpose, since life itself has a unique value which the State and the market must serve.
If you want to discuss this dimension of society more Tomdstone, I know the moderators would suggest you beginning your own thread on it, instead of unpacking this any more here on a Trump thread.
QUOTE:
What is socialism?
First of all, as a Catholic, I acknowledge a public dimension to goods.
But in the system of “socialism” there is a private dimension that is transgressed.
Excerpts on Socialism from Saint Pope John Paul II Centesimus Annus.
QUOTE:
SAINT POPE JOHN PAUL II . . . the Socialists encourage the poor man’s envy of the rich and strive to do away with private property, contending that individual possessions should become the common property of all . . .
. . . They are moreover emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community". The evils caused by the setting up of this type of socialism as a State system — what would later be called “Real Socialism” . . .
. . . we have to add that the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature.
Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism.
Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order.
From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property.
A person who is deprived of something he can call “his own”, and of the possibility of earning a living through his own initiative, comes to depend on the social machine and on those who control it. This makes it much more difficult for him to recognize his dignity as a person, and hinders progress towards the building up of an authentic human community.
. . . However, what is condemned in class struggle is the idea that conflict is not restrained by ethical or juridical considerations, or by respect for the dignity of others (and consequently of oneself); a reasonable compromise is thus excluded, and what is pursued is not the general good of society, but a partisan interest which replaces the common good and sets out to destroy whatever stands in its way. In a word, it is a question of transferring to the sphere of internal conflict between social groups the doctrine of “total war”, which the militarism and imperialism of that time brought to bear on international relations. . . . .
Therefore class struggle in the Marxist sense and militarism have the same root, namely, atheism and contempt for the human person, which place the principle of force above that of reason and law.
. . . It is not wrong to want to live better; what is wrong is a style of life which is presumed to be better when it is directed towards “having” rather than “being”, and . . . spend life in enjoyment as an end in itself. . . .
. . . . It is necessary to go back to seeing the family as the sanctuary of life. The family is indeed sacred: it is the place in which life — the gift of God — can be properly welcomed and protected against the many attacks to which it is exposed, and can develop in accordance with what constitutes authentic human growth. In the face of the so-called culture of death, the family is the heart of the culture of life.
Human ingenuity seems to be directed more towards limiting, suppressing or destroying the sources of life — including recourse to abortion, which unfortunately is so widespread in the world — than towards defending and opening up the possibilities of life.
The Encyclical Sollicitudo rei socialis denounced systematic anti-childbearing campaigns which, on the basis of a distorted view of the demographic problem and in a climate of “absolute lack of respect for the freedom of choice of the parties involved”, often subject them “to intolerable pressures … in order to force them to submit to this new form of oppression”.78
These policies are extending their field of action by the use of new techniques, to the point of poisoning the lives of millions of defenceless human beings, as if in a form of “chemical warfare”.
. . . the entire socio-cultural system, by ignoring the ethical and religious dimension, has been weakened, and ends by limiting itself to the production of goods and services alone.
. . . . It is the task of the State to provide for the defence and preservation of common goods such as the natural and human environments, which cannot be safeguarded simply by market forces.
. . . . . . However, the historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency.
. . . . . Among the most important of these rights, mention must be made of the right to life, an integral part of which is the right of the child to develop in the mother’s womb from the moment of conception; the right to live in a united family and in a moral environment conducive to the growth of the child’s personality
. . . . . People lose sight of the fact that life in society has neither the market nor the State as its final purpose, since life itself has a unique value which the State and the market must serve.
If you want to discuss this dimension of society more Tomdstone, I know the moderators would suggest you beginning your own thread on it, instead of unpacking this any more here on a Trump thread.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
You used the term socialism on this Trump thread without actually defining it.
Q
queenofheartscv
Guest
Did Mark Levin scream while he said some of this? Or did he scream all of it?
P
Peter_J
Guest
I haven’t been watching much Hannity this year, but that’s sad if true.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Hannity is doing ANOTHER full show event with Trump in Pennsylvania.
Q
queenofheartscv
Guest
Here is something Trump has never done and will never do: begging bankers, traders and Wall Street lawyers for campaign donations.
breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/13/ted-cruz-invites-wall-st-bankers-traders-lawyers-manhattan-harvard-club/
This Monday, assorted bankers, traders and Wall Street lawyers will gather inside the neo-Georgian walls of the Harvard Club in midtown Manhattan to write big checks to an unlikely recipient: Sen. Ted Cruz
.
Cruz, who attended Harvard Law School, isn’t one to trade too heavily on old school ties and friendships at the likes of Goldman Sachs, where his wife works. On the campaign trail, the Texas senator has railed against Wall Street “crony capitalism,” ripped giant banks as “too big to fail” and wrapped himself in populist garb in his quest to take down Donald Trump. But now he’s desperate: Cruz, who has already received $12 million in support from the financial industry, needs Wall Street money more than ever.
breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/13/ted-cruz-invites-wall-st-bankers-traders-lawyers-manhattan-harvard-club/
This Monday, assorted bankers, traders and Wall Street lawyers will gather inside the neo-Georgian walls of the Harvard Club in midtown Manhattan to write big checks to an unlikely recipient: Sen. Ted Cruz
.
Cruz, who attended Harvard Law School, isn’t one to trade too heavily on old school ties and friendships at the likes of Goldman Sachs, where his wife works. On the campaign trail, the Texas senator has railed against Wall Street “crony capitalism,” ripped giant banks as “too big to fail” and wrapped himself in populist garb in his quest to take down Donald Trump. But now he’s desperate: Cruz, who has already received $12 million in support from the financial industry, needs Wall Street money more than ever.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
It’s starting to get interesting in the Republican race. According to Craig Dunn, one of the people elected Saturday as a Republican delegate from Indiana after criticizing Trump:
- Status