AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@ican711nm,

ican, Don't you know how old the US Constitution is? CLUE: It's older than 114 years.

@parados,

The definition you posted fits waterboy like a glove:

Quote:

Quote:

3) Frequently disrupts the flow of conversation with non sequiturs, straw men, red herrings, and/or irrelevant information, intentionally misstates the other person’s point or intent, or nitpicks one phrase, term, or word to ensure that no discussion of an interesting topic can take place.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I skip over a lot of his posts too (for the same reasons), and I agree with over 70% of them.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I agree...I ignore his posts too.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Shall we assume that you agree that the site does not support a concept of confiscating property from Citizen A and giving it to Citizen B?

I don't know why you keep repeating the word "confiscate". They certainly support the concept of the government taxing the rich to subsidize the poor. If that falls under your definition of"confiscation", Catholic Social Teaching supports confiscation for purposes of social policy.

I use the word 'confiscate' because I believe that is what government does when it takes property in a way never intended by the Founders or authorized by the Constitution. While I will agree that certain groups of Catholic bishops and other heirarchy have supported such a concept, I disagree that you can use that website to support a concept of government taxing the rich to subsidize the poor.

Quote:

The quality of the national discussion about our economic future will affect the poor most of all, in this country and throughout the world. The life and dignity of millions of men, women and children hang in the balance. Decisions must be judged in light of what they do for the poor, what they do to the poor, and what they enable the poor to do for themselves. The fundamental moral criterion for all economic decisions, policies, and institutions is this: They must be at the service of all people, especially the poor.
Economic Justice for All, #24

It is here that we find the most fundamental division between Modern Conservatism and Modern Liberalism. Conservatives see moral criterion as both voluntary and a matter of individual conscience, though cooperative efforts are frequent and beneficial. You see the government as the vehicle of the moral criterion. I do not think you can discern which was intended from the paragraph you quoted.

Quote:

Quote:
As individuals and as a nation, therefore, we are called to make a fundamental "option for the poor". The obligation to evaluate social and economic activity from the viewpoint of the poor and the powerless arises from the radical command to love one's neighbor as one's self. Those who are marginalized and whose rights are denied have privileged claims if society is to provide justice for all. This obligation is deeply rooted in Christian belief.
Economic Justice for All, #87

Again the Conservative point of view is that first the 'rich' feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, shelter the homeless, etc., but all toward an ultimate goal of lifting the poor out of poverty. The liberal point of view is for the government to tend to the immediate needs but they rarely include the additional components of what is necessary to lift the poor out of poverty. Again I don't think you can use the quoted paragraph to make a case that direct ministry to the poor is necessarily a government responsibility.

Quote:

Quote:
someone who has the riches of this world sees his brother in need and closes his heart to him, how does the love of God abide in him?" (1 Jn 3:17). It is well known how strong were the words used by the Fathers of the Church to describe the proper attitude of persons who possess anything towards persons in need. To quote Saint Ambrose: "You are not making a gift of your possessions to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his. For what has been given in common for the use of all, you have arrogated to yourself. The world is given to all, and not only to the rich."
On the Development of Peoples, #23

I don't see how anybody can read into that anything other than a case for a personal and voluntary act.

Quote:

Quote:
Let each one examine his conscience, a conscience that conveys a new message for our times. Is he prepared to support out of his own pocket works and undertaking organized in favor of the most destitute? Is he ready to pay higher taxes so that the public authorities can intensify their efforts in favor of development? Is he ready to pay a higher price for imported goods so that the producer may be more justly rewarded?
On the Development of Peoples, #48

And here you have it spelled out. Take care of the poor out of your own pocket. Be willing to finance with your taxes the promotion of the general welfare. No idea why we should be willing to pay higher prices for imported goods to benefit a producer--why not be willing to pay higher prices for anything in order for people to receive an honest wage? I see no quarrel with that in any MAC principle.

Quote:

Generally speaking, Catholic Social Teaching endorses income redistribution through the tax system up to an equilibrium point: Redistribute more than that, and productive people will generate too little income to redistribute. Redistribute less than that, and the poor don't get as much of an income boost as they could. Or, in the language of American conservatism, Catholic social teaching is asking government to tax at the maximum of the Laffer curve and redistribute the revenue to the poor.

You read the text and see taxes.

I read the text and see personal responsibility and obligation born of conscience, not government initiative.

The text itself does not specify which it means.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cice girl frequently disrupts the flow of conversation with non sequiturs, straw men, red herrings, and/or irrelevant information, intentionally misstates the other person’s point or intent, or nitpicks one phrase, term, or word to ensure that no discussion of an interesting topic can take place. cice girl also throws temper tantrums and makes nasty comments when others disagree.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

It's Fox's definition.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxie, How did you arrive at your conclusion that "I use the word 'confiscate' because I believe that is what government does when it takes property in a way never intended by the Founders or authorized by the Constitution?"

a) How do you know what the Founders intended? Were you there?
b) How do you interpret "for the general welfare?"
c) Who besides yourself - including all the conservatives who has served in our past and present government - thinks property is being "confiscated?"
d) How is the government "taking property?"
e) What is your definition of "property?"
and f) How has federal, state and local governments controlled by conservatives accumulated their revenues?

0 Replies

@parados,

It applies to cice girl.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

It often applies to yourself as well.

I've seen you contribute value to threads. I hate to say it, but what I rembember most though are your ad hominem attacks, your petty insults, your zingy one-liners, and much of the same stuff you rightly accuse parados of doing.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

As I said, I can scroll over the mud slinging stuff between two members and it doesn't bother me so much. I have decided I don't have to tolerate intentionally unkind personally directed ad hominem or flat out insults though and currently have five people on ignore who regularly engage in that kind of thing toward me or others. It has improved my enjoyment of A2K enormously. I check periodically to see if any have cleaned up their act. If so I take them off ignore. Until then I'm not hurting them and they can be as stupid and ugly as they want.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

The Founders would have considered it unethical, illegal, and wrong for your to forcibly take property from me and give it for the benefit of another individual just so you could feel magnanimous and righteous.

Foxy's statement is untrue. Our founding fathers considered it a public responsibility to provide relief to the poor and they used taxation to pay for their relief programs.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Her decision in the firefighter case is enough to convince me she isn't all that wise, or just, or a good judge of the constitution, not at all. I have not reviewed her history of cases, but count me as a skeptic for sure.

Your statement indicates that you know nothing about the Ricci case. The circuit court applied statutory law as informed by legal standards set forth in existing precedent as did the Second Court of Appeals. In a 5-4 decision, five justices on the Supreme Court changed precedent and applied an entirely different legal standard to the facts. Doing so allowed them to find in favor of white male firefighters.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

okie's understanding of Economics 101, politics, and the law are all based on his fuzzy knowledge about all of them, and usually posts garbage information. He has more challenges than Foxie and ican put together.

Foxie is the ultimate MAC who thinks her definitions and ideas are error proof, but most of us already know the many contradictions and errors she has made in her claims about different issues. She's the queen of ad hominems, because she accuses everybody else of using it without really understanding her own.

ican is the cut and paste king who repeats so many of them that it would go around the globe several times if printed up in hard copy, and they usually don't relate to the topic at hand.

They do provide their share of entertainment, but my impatience usually gets the best of me!

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

ican711nm wrote:

Over the last 114 years, governments of the USA have been eroding those limits to the point we now have a president who, if he can, will ignore all remaining limits.

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, Don't you know how old the US Constitution is? CLUE: It's older than 114 years.

Subtract 1895 from 2009! What do you get? I'll help you! If you subtract correctly, you get 114.

It was in 1895 (i.e., May 20, 1895) that after a rehearing the income tax was ruled by the USSC to be illegal. It also stated in its ruling that the word uniform in Article I Section 8--To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States--meant that the tax rate on any kind of thing (e.g., population, dollars of income) must be the same throughout the USA.

Subsequent to 1895, our limited democratic government's evolution from a limited democracy to an unlimited democracy accelerated significantly. So from 1789 (i.e., March 4, 1879), when the USA Constitution was officially adopted, to 1895--106 years later--our limited democracy evolved much slower toward unlimited democracy than it did 1895 to 2009--114 years after that.

President Obama is, of course, the current crown prince of unlimiting our USA democracy.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

From Wiki:

Quote:

The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention (or Constitutional Congress[citation needed]) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and later ratified by conventions in each U.S. state in the name of "The People"; it has since been amended twenty-seven times, the first ten amendments being known as the Bill of Rights.

You also missed what I wrote:

Quote:

ican, Don't you know how old the US Constitution is? CLUE: It's older than 114 years.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

I think the troubling part of this is that Sotomayer may not have told the truth about what she actually believes in the hearings. She said what she knew she needed to say, to obtain the approval to the court, but their is a disconnect between what she has said in the past, and her past decisions, vs what she is saying now.

What? Shocking!

I suppose you haven't been paying any attention at all to any other SC justice in what, three decades? None of them tell the truth about how they are going to act while being confirmed, it's all a Kabuki dance for the cameras. I mean, you sure didn't see Roberts and Alito up there saying, "I'm going to side with Corporate interests, with Government interests, with the rich, and with the big guy over the little guy, the individual, the downtrodden - every single case that comes before me." But that's exactly what they have done.

Cycloptichorn

Absolutely. Roberts and Alito (Federalist Society nominees/justices) have an agenda that becomes more and more apparent with each ruling. Scalia, on the other hand, while he joins in many of their decisions, is sometimes more constrained in his efforts to roll back protections for individuals. Case in point is the odd split of justices in MELENDEZ-DIAZ v. MASSACHUSETTS. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion (joined by STEVENS, SOUTER, THOMAS, and GINSBURG,) to uphold the confrontation clause rights of criminal defendants.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yes - they all 'lie' at the hearings, the hearings are meaningless... see my above post.

I don't believe that Sotomayor lied. She promised fidelity to the law, and I expect that she will fullfill that promise. On the other hand, Roberts promised that his role on the bench would be like an umpire merely following the rules and calling balls and strikes. His tenure on the high court demonstrates that he is not like an umpire who follows the rules, but rather an agenda-driven justice who routinely changes the rules of the game.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
There are needs and common goods that cannot be satisfied by the market system. It is the task of the state and of all society to defend them. An idolatry of the market alone cannot do all that should be done.

Wait a minute.. So now you are saying that THIS is part of your definition of modern American Conservatism?

You simply amaze me Fox with the way you change meanings to make everything you think is good is conservative and everything bad is not.

Absolutely. Foxfyre, ican, and okie, et al., cannot defend their tax protestor stance against public welfare by rewriting history to suit their agenda. Their lies are too easily revealed.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Rather the emphasis seems to be on the duty of government to defend the unviolable rights of all.

Sure -- but they didn't see the right to property as unviolable. For qualifications and limits of that right, see the quotes Parados dug up.

I don't read Parados's posts.

How about you pointing to something in that website that suggests that government should have the right to take property from one citizen in order to provide benefits to another.

She does too read Parados's posts, but she won't admit that she reads them. She simply doesn't want to respond to Parados's posts. It is far easier for the coward to pretend that she is being victimized by people who disagree with her unsubstantiated claims. The reigning principle of the "conservative" movement is to feign victimhood.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know