Author Topic: You are idiots - gulf oil (Read 9687 times)

Belloc · « **Reply #90 on:** June 29, 2010, 02:33:05 PM »

nαzι's wer National Socialists, yet private ownership was intact for the most part, so we cannot just say there is 1 shade of socialism...it is a term bantered a round a lot but often the meaning is lost.....a liberal Dem becomes a "socialist" and a Repub is a "conservative" all of a sudden.

Caminus · « **Reply #91 on:** June 29, 2010, 02:42:18 PM »

State ownership and control of what exactly? The sources of wealth. Mere State ownership is not what we are referring to, obviously the State must own some property. Rather it is question of the State nationalizing the sources of wealth in this country, e.g. GM, healthcare, banks, etc. This tends towards Socialism, thus the epithet is correctly applied, even if the end, the abolition of private property, is not explicitly stated. My point stands. Your narrow, overly strict and rather naive requirements fail and actually serve to foster Socialism's advance.

The fact that the author of the article refers to misappropration of the term is moot, since I concede that such can be the case.

As regards the question of fact, rather than one of principle, we may disagree, but it stands to reason that the political opinions of Obama do in fact tend towards Socialism, because they are convertable more or less with the principles of Marxism, not to mention the fact that the fundamental premise of Socialism, the deification of the State, is certainly, to them, a foregone conclusion.

Caminus · « **Reply #92 on:** June 29, 2010, 03:31:24 PM »

Quote

So, when you can show me that Obama is implementing or has implemented the prohibition of private ownership, I will call him a socialist. But until then, without that essential note of what makes socialism what it is, he is not a socialist.

This statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the pertinent quote. Here it is again that you limit the possibility of even using the term if and only when the government explicitly revokes the right of private ownership. If the author rejected the extension of the term, he also rejects its undue restriction.

It is an obvious truth that when the government begins to own something, it necessarily follows that the thing is not privately owned. One necessarily excludes the other. Thus a government that attempts to control, i.e. own, the sources of wealth in a given nation, is Socialist because it is tending towards the ideals of Socialism. Experience shows that this phenomenon happens gradually. This also can happen even if those in authority do not explicitly espouse Socalism. In fact, this would be the natural course of progression in the minds of those who simply deify the State. This "deification" occurs ipso facto when the State itself is viewed as essentially atheistic.

Since God ceases to become the source of natural rights, the State must necessarily take His place. But if the State becomes the source and dispenser of natural rights, it will ultimately claim transcendant rights prior to any individual claim. Therefore, it happens necessarily at the level of principle that the negation of natural rights begins even before the laws follow suit.

A Catholic ought to be able to recognize these trends and tendencies before anyone else precisely because he is one of the very few who grasps necessary principles as taught by the magisterium and approved theologians. Yet you are robbing other Catholics of censuring a phenomenon simply because it is not full-blown. This is quite a mistake, even moreso in the realm of theology and doctrine.

Jamie · « **Reply #93 on:** June 29, 2010, 03:42:59 PM »

Quote from: Belloc

nαzι's wer National Socialists, yet private ownership was intact for the most part, so we cannot just say there is 1 shade of socialism...it is a term bantered a round a lot but often the meaning is lost.....a liberal Dem becomes a "socialist" and a Repub is a "conservative" all of a sudden.

nαzιs were "national socialists" - this is not the same as "socialist". Here is a syllogism:

John is a socialist
But the nαzιs were national socialists
Therefore John is a nαzι.

From this absurd conclusion we can see that the consequence does not logically follow.

National socialism is the name given to a specific political belief which does not include socialism in its true form.

From your conclusion we must say that Old Catholics are Catholic. Or members of the Liberal Catholic Church are Catholics. Obviously you can see how this is not the case - the same is true of socialism.

Oh - and here is a legitimate syllogism that proves your case wrong:

Socialists believe in the abolition of private property rights
But national socialists don't believe in the abolition of private property rights.
Therefore, national socialists are not socialists.

This is a valid syllogism AND its conclusion is true.

You (and the others who refuse to accept the correct definition of socialism) are equivocating - you are giving multiple meanings to "socialism" and using them synonymously.

Jamie · « **Reply #94 on:** June 29, 2010, 03:54:31 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

State ownership and control of what exactly? The sources of wealth. Mere State ownership is not what we are referring to, obviously the State must own some property. Rather it is question of the State nationalizing the sources of wealth in this country, e.g. GM, healthcare, banks, etc. This tends towards Socialism, thus the epithet is correctly applied, even if the end, the abolition of private property, is not explicitly stated. My point stands. Your narrow, overly strict and rather naive requirements fail and actually serve to foster Socialism's advance.

The fact that the author of the article refers to misappropration of the term is moot, since I concede that such can be the case.

As regards the question of fact, rather than one of principle, we may disagree, but it stands to reason that the political opinions of Obama do in fact tend towards Socialism, because they are convertable more or less with the principles of Marxism, not to mention the fact that the fundamental premise of Socialism, the deification of the State, is certainly, to them, a foregone conclusion.

So you believe that Obama tends toward the abolition of all rights of private ownership? If not, you can't say he tends toward socialism (as is pointed out in the CE article).

Furthermore, the fundamental premise of socialism is NOT deification of the state - it is abolition of private property. Once that has been fulfilled, the socialist state is meant to move to the third stage of communism (of which socialism is the second stage) - the total abolition of the state. How can a system which sees as its final end the abolition of the state be considered to be deifying it?

Also, let us not forget, Marx invented socialism (with his friend) - and socialism according to Marx is the abolition of private property rights. Marxism includes many other things of course (because it also includes revolution and communism, the other two stages of communism) but fundamentally, as has been shown by virtually every reputable source cited, socialism has to do with private property rights - without the intent to dissolve that right, one is not a socialist.

But I can see that at least the true reasoning is beginning to have an effect as you have now abandoned the idea that Obama is a socialist and are saying that he "tends toward socialism". A step in the right direction.

Jamie · « **Reply #95 on:** June 29, 2010, 04:05:20 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote
So, when you can show me that Obama is implementing or has implemented the prohibition of private ownership, I will call him a socialist. But until then, without that essential note of what makes socialism what it is, he is not a socialist.

This statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the pertinent quote. Here it is again that you limit the possibility of even using the term if and only when the government explicitly revokes the right of private ownership. If the author rejected the extension of the term, he also rejects its undue restriction.

It is an obvious truth that when the government begins to own something, it necessarily follows that the thing is not privately owned. One necessarily excludes the other. Thus a government that attempts to control, i.e. own, the sources of wealth in a given nation, is Socialist because it is tending towards the ideals of Socialism. Experience shows that this phenomenon happens gradually. This also can happen even if those in authority do not explicitly espouse Socalism. In fact, this would be the natural course of progression in the minds of those who simply deify the State. This "deification" occurs ipso facto when the State itself is viewed as essentially atheistic.

Since God ceases to become the source of natural rights, the State must necessarily take His place. But if the State becomes the source and dispenser of natural rights, it will ultimately claim transcendant rights prior to any individual claim. Therefore, it happens necessarily at the level of principle that the negation of natural rights begins even before the laws follow suit.

A Catholic ought to be able to recognize these trends and tendencies before anyone else precisely because he is one of the very few who grasps necessary principles as taught by the magisterium and approved theologians. Yet you are robbing other Catholics of censuring a phenomenon simply because it is not full-blown. This is quite a mistake, even moreso in the realm of theology and doctrine.

In fact you misread me - I said "implementing or has implemented" - that means he has either done it, or is taking the steps to do it.

Furthermore, you are proven wrong again by the CE article when you infer from the government owning something (taking away the private right to own it) that it is tending toward socialism - but the CE article says "State control and even state ownership are not necessarily Socialism: they become so only when they result in or tend towards the prohibition of private ownership not only of "natural monopolies", but also of all the sources of wealth."

Taking over ownership of large assets through the bailout is not an act of socialism unless it is done with the intent to eventually take over ALL the sources of wealth. Do you think Obama intends to do that?

And finally you say this: "Yet you are robbing other Catholics of censuring a phenomenon simply because it is not full-blown."

This is completely untrue. I am trying to rob all people of censuring a strawman.

Would I be robbing Catholics of censuring the Old Catholics if I said the Old Catholics AREN'T Catholic because Catholics must be subject to the Pope?

Socialism is a great evil condemned repeatedly and we should all be on guard against it (though as it usually results from revolution it can be hard to stop at the outset). Liberalism (the likes of Obama and his ilk) is equally evil and we must fight against that too.

There is no point calling Obama something he is not when you want to fight against him. Fight against each of his liberal policies and show why they are wrong.

Universal healthcare is not wrong because it is often found in a socialist state - it is wrong because it is not the role of government to provide anything more than access to basic medical needs (and by providing access I don't mean paying for it necessarily).

Legalization of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ marriage is not wrong because it is socialist (most socialist states that I am aware of forbid it) - it is wrong because it goes against the nature of man.

When you fight against things because you say they are "socialist" you are severely limiting your ability to properly argue against the fundamental error of the position. And the moment you say something like "State bailouts are evil because they are socialist" you lose your argument to any person who knows what socialism actually is. On the other hand, to say that it is evil because it unfairly takes money from one group to pay for the misdeeds of another, you can have a reasonable debate about the merits of that.

Caminus · « **Reply #96 on:** June 29, 2010, 05:17:50 PM »

Quote

In fact you misread me - I said "implementing or has implemented" - that means he has either done it, or is taking the steps to do it.

With you stated caveat that he must do so only with the explicit intention of abolishing private property. This was proven false by the reasoning above and by the C.E. article.

Quote

Furthermore, you are proven wrong again by the CE article when you infer from the government owning something (taking away the private right to own it) that it is tending toward socialism - but the CE article says "State control and even state ownership are not necessarily Socialism: they become so only when they result in or tend towards the prohibition of private ownership not only of "natural monopolies", but also of all the sources of wealth."

I'm not sure how it is possible for you to so thoroughly mutilate my plain language. In fact I stated explicitly that mere government ownership is not Socialism. The ownership must pertain to the sources of wealth and distribution. A distinction that you ignored in order to attack a straw man.

Quote

Taking over ownership of large assets through the bailout is not an act of socialism unless it is done with the intent to eventually take over ALL the sources of wealth. Do you think Obama intends to do that?

Regardless of intent, the effects are precisely the same. Tme will tell whether the government will overtake all sources of wealth, but they are certainly on track to do so. My only point of contention with you is in that you claim that we cannot label anything socialist until it is perfectly consumated and explicitly stated. This is absurd on its face.

Quote

This is completely untrue. I am trying to rob all people of censuring a strawman.

A strawman of your own making.

Quote

Would I be robbing Catholics of censuring the Old Catholics if I said the Old Catholics AREN'T Catholic because Catholics must be subject to the Pope?

There is no parity because the object of faith is absolutely simple and the denial of one truth is to vitiate the entire edifice, whereas in the order of execution regarding aberrant political beliefs, the object of which is an entirely different nature, the matter must necessarily take shape gradually.

Caminus · « **Reply #97 on:** June 29, 2010, 05:26:46 PM »

Quote

But I can see that at least the true reasoning is beginning to have an effect as you have now abandoned the idea that Obama is a socialist and are saying that he "tends toward socialism". A step in the right direction

On the contrary, I made the distinction between tending towards and fully consumated as my point of departure. And it is in this that I think you are wrong. You seem to think that maintaining a strict theoretical definition negates our ability to identify the very same phenomenon in its incipent stages or progressive forms. You forget that a Semi-Pelagian was still a Pelagian nonetheless.

Anyone can see that the article I posted admits that Socialism can come about by degrees while still retaining the name, thus we can properly label those as such whose policies and opinions amount to the negation of property rights by the governmental acquisition of the sources of wealth, even though the vestiges of private property rights simultaneously remain to some degree, at least in name.

And I don't think you have seriously considered the theoretical effects of an atheistic State.

Caminus · « **Reply #98 on:** July 05, 2010, 09:46:06 PM »

Jamie, just a quick question for you, do you think that if the political leaders of a particular nation do not hold that the right to property is a natural right, i.e. not one given by the State but antecedent to it, the government could easily devolve into Socialism? Do you think that having taken away that fundamental truth of the natural law, mentally, not in reality, the government could thereby tend towards Socialism, at least in principle? For if the said right is thought to be bestowed to cititzens by the State, the government thereby reserves the right and authority to take it away when it sees fit.

Caminus · « **Reply #99 on:** July 05, 2010, 09:46:48 PM »

Jamie, just a quick question for you, do you think that if the political leaders of a particular nation do not hold that the right to property is a natural right, i.e. not one given by the State but antecedent to it, the government could easily devolve into Socialism? Do you think that having taken away that fundamental truth of the natural law, mentally, not in reality, the government could thereby tend towards Socialism, at least in principle? For if the said right is thought to be bestowed to cititzens by the State, the government thereby reserves the right and authority to take it away when it sees fit.

Jamie · « **Reply #100 on:** September 19, 2010, 10:56:17 AM »

Quote from: Jamie

It is a shocking title but a necessary one.

The gulf oil is a disaster - there is no doubt. But it is an accidental one. I guarantee you that in six months it will be a long past memory and every member of this forums who is now running around like a headless chicken will avoid these threads.

Someone just posted a video thread of "doors opening" behind the official footage - clearly proof it is a hoax. It is not a hoax, the "doors" are an aberration of underwater filming. You make yourselves out to be idiots when you are sucked into these silly conspiracy theories.

Most alarming is the fact that Matthew is promoting this stupidity.

Wake up! This does nothing but distract you all from the true problem at hand - the destruction of the Church at the hand of modernist bishops and Popes.

The oil volcano is last year's swine flu. It is this years economic crisis which will eventually come to nothing as governments will print more money (causing prices to rise and huge inflation - but no war in the streets).

Frankly, the outpouring of comments and posts on these issues make it clear that people here WANT a disaster to happen - and I can understand that to a certain extent as it would finally prove us trads right - the end has come - but these are minor things and when the end really DOES come - you will know it - not through subtle and clever camera tricks. It will be obvious to all.

So - my advice is ignore the following - they are all bad but none are evidence of the end times:

Volcano in Iceland (oops - it didn't spell the end of the world as here predicted)
Global warming (oops - it didn't enable governments to enact emergency powers taking away property rights)
Oil Spill (okay - it isn't over yet but it will be soon and you will all have egg on your faces)
Swine flu (it is over - it wasn't the end times!)

Guys - you all distrust the media but you hate them so much that you are now so wound up in the new media (internet) that you will believe any silly conspiracy theory. It makes you look a fool (and consequently the rest of us trads).

This is the end times - I am certain of it - but the proof lies in the second vatican council - not modern technology or false-scientific errors.

Well - my prediction came true: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/11365122

"The ruptured well that has spewed millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico has finally been sealed, US officials say."

MyrnaM · « **Reply #101 on:** September 19, 2010, 11:00:26 AM »

Quote

Guys - you all distrust the media but you hate them so much that you are now so wound up in the new media (internet) that you will believe any silly conspiracy theory. It makes you look a fool (and consequently the rest of us trads).

This is the end times - I am certain of it - but the proof lies in the second vatican council - not modern technology or false-scientific errors.

I have to agree with you somwhat here above; not sure if we want a disaster but we expect it too much, too soon. Yet, God says when man least expect it.

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #102 on:** September 20, 2010, 10:29:46 PM »

The Situation in the Gulf, is just beginning. Just because
you are told on the news that it is all over with because
the well is now capped, are false.
You need to hear the 9/20 Rense Radio. The first 2 hours
were updates on the Gulf. The first hour is Chris Laudau
and the second hour is Dr. Tom Termotto, PhD. There
are many thousands of Gulf residents that are sick,
and are bleeding, complaining of severe headaches.
If you are in the Gulf region, or know anyone living
there, they need to hear this program.