Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Politics and World Leaders => Topic started by: DeMaistre on May 22, 2009, 07:47:26 PM
-
I know that Chesterton had a few amusing things to say about this, but please define "liberal".
-
Didn't you get the memo? It's called a "false left/right paradigm." It's all fake.
-
It is easier to define far right
Infallible Comstitution of Roman Catholc Church
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#4 and #6
This is not an endorsement of ewtn
-
Didn't you get the memo? It's called a "false left/right paradigm." It's all fake.
Very useful.
Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity.
-
Didn't you get the memo? It's called a "false left/right paradigm." It's all fake.
Very useful.
Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity.
As was evident in the USA in the 12 years of the Bush Monarchy here, there's really little difference in those that would apologize that they're conservative or liberal.
The Patriot Act was bi-partisan, the massive spending that went on during the Bush years was bi-partisan. There's really no difference.
The system is totally compromised to the point we're going to lose this country to communism.
-
-
The system is totally compromised to the point we're going to lose this country to communism.
How do you go from bi-partisanship, which is a centrist compromise, to communism, which is an extreme flavour of liberalism ?
-
The system is totally compromised to the point we're going to lose this country to communism.
How do you go from bi-partisanship, which is a centrist compromise, to communism, which is an extreme flavour of liberalism ?
Have you not noticed the utter abandonment of anything conservative in the last 20 years?
The most fiscally irresponsible administration we've ever had (quickly being outdone by the "lolliberals" now) was the BUSH administration. They spent more tax dollars in the last 8 years than the history of spending ever, and now, Osamabama is continuing that trend (as if it could be worse than that, but leave it to the "lolliberals" to prove me wrong) in spades.
For a full term, we had "lolconservatives" that were promised to do something about abortion, giving us a limp wristed response to the issue pushing a "partial birth abortion ban" which Doctor Ron Paul said "wouldn't save one baby." So much for "conservatism." :rolleyes:
All we got through the "lolconservative" CONgress was spending, spending, debt, debt, and more debt, "lolFREEtrade" and more worthless nonsense, further pushing us into the ground to the point that the prediction of the communists is sadly coming true, basically that they'll take over the USA without even firing a shot.
You wanna prove me wrong? Tell me, Vandeler, how are we going to get out of $10 Trillion (Yes, I did say $10 thousand BILLION) worth of debt? We're not. How are we more free with the government having the absolute right to pry into EVERY ASPECT of our lives? How is throwing out Posse Comitatus liberating us? (both of the above happening while the "lolconservatives" were "in control." What a joke.) How are we more liberated having laws regulating free speech while one person does a misdemeanant lewd act, and the other that retaliates is charged with a felony hate crime?
And this "bi-partisan" effort for "lolFREEtrade" has GUTTED our manufacturing sector to the point we are NOT self-sufficient as a nation any longer, and will never be again. Do you know how many years it takes to build manufacturing? Do you realize how much know how you need to run a manufacturing plant? I worked for a lobbyist for 3 years on this very subject and saw all the manufacturing jobs get "lolreplaced with better jobs." They even had to re-classify the HAMBURGER JOINT JOBS into Manufacturing to doctor the numbers so that the people unaware wouldn't raise eyebrows wondering wth was happening to all the jobs when they were flooding into "low cost markets" from here. I don't think you really understand that thanks to the "bi-partisan" effort of "compromised" we've fallen into the lie of "globalism"... that we have to "keep up with the times" and "we Americans shouldn't have to do these menial jobs, and we'll do better ones." What a complete and utter lie. Meanwhile, we're at an unprecedented trade deficit, that people like me, have been harping about for years.
It's all coming to a head thanks to the "bi partisan" (read: GLOBALIST COMMUNIST) agenda being pushed through.
I don't know what to tell you... I'll leave you with this, and you can decide the truth in what this former KGB agent has said. I think the rest of the people in this forum have enough discernment to understand the truth here.
And, this was 20 years ago, Vandaler. 20 years is how long it takes for things they reveal to take effect.
Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlkPkJInUmU
-
Nice post Parentsfortruth, but you fail to answer my question.
I'll agree you on the matter that both Bush administrations where not conservative in their purest form, and certainly not in the area of fiscal policy.
However, a failure to be conservative does not lead to communism, and furthermore you repeat the "bi partisan" (read: GLOBALIST COMMUNIST) without much explanation.
May I remind you that communism is the establishment of a classless society based on common ownership and where production is controlled rather then dictated by free market.
There is nothing in what you wrote, and in fact in the last 20 years in the U.S. that suggest that she is moving in that direction.
Lastly, your appealing to the boards discernment only makes me laugh, as it seems that so often, common sense would not be recognizes even if it crawled out of it's metaphoric knee cap.
With the same respect you have shown me.
Eric
-
Nice post Parentsfortruth, but you fail to answer my question.
I'll agree you on the matter that both Bush administrations where not conservative in their purest form, and certainly not in the area of fiscal policy.
However, a failure to be conservative does not lead to communism, and furthermore you repeat the "bi partisan" (read: GLOBALIST COMMUNIST) without much explanation.
May I remind you that communism is the establishment of a classless society based on common ownership and where production is controlled rather then dictated by free market.
There is nothing in what you wrote, and in fact in the last 20 years in the U.S. that suggest that she is moving in that direction.
Lastly, your appealing to the boards discernment only makes me laugh, as it seems that so often, common sense would not be recognizes even if it crawled out of it's metaphoric knee cap.
With the same respect you have shown me.
Eric
Do you not realize that this country is exactly on the mark as what you define as communism?
We haven't had a "free market" in decades with all these "FREE trade" agreements. Congress handed over that authority in the constitution to the WTO mainly through GATT in 1995.
Our farmers here are the most subsidized in the world. Haven't you seen the complaints from Mexico, and even from Canada about how heavily it's subsidized here?
There are so many regulations on any business here, that most of the big businesses have gone offshore so the laws don't apply to them. Most of the manufacturers that are left here are enduring a slow death thanks to all of it.
Didn't you see that the government here just made a HUGE grab with the auto industry, the banking industry, and there's more lurking in the background? Don't be dense.
You probably haven't seen the tent cities, (or perhaps you have) where middle class families are now homeless? Sure you can blame them for buying a house that they couldn't afford, but follow the money. Where did their jobs go? Offshore. It's called "globalism." This "globalism" is not going to be BETTER for anyone here, it's going to bring everyone down to a third world level, and you'll have two classes of society: Rich, and poor, just like in the third world, in the USA.
You're seeing communism unfold here, and it took years for the agenda to finally come through. Seriously, it's not hard to see if you just open your eyes.
-
Goals of Communism
Communist rules for Revolution:
Corrupt the young, get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial, destroy their ruggedness.
Get control of all means of publicity and thereby:
- Get the peoples' mind off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books and plays, and other trivialities.
- Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance.
- Destroy the peoples faith in their natural leaders by holding up the latter to ridicule, contempt and obloquy.
- Always preach true democracy but seize power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible.
- Encourage government extravagance, destroy its credit, produce fear with rising prices, inflation and general discontent.
- Foment unnecessary strikes in vital industries, encourage civil disorders and foster a soft and lenient attitude on the part of government towards such disorders.
- By specious argument cause the breakdown of the old moral virtues: honesty, sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness.
- Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext with the view of confiscation of them and leaving the population helpless.
-
Ah, I love this site. The truth is spoken here.
I have nothing to add to what parentsfortruth said -- I am extremely naive when it comes to economics -- except this: "Republican" means "of the Republic" and a Republic is a "government of the people." "Democrat" also means "of the people" except it's a term from Greece and not Rome.
So the "choice" you are offered is a choice between Grecian government and Roman government, that is, no choice at all. Coke vs. Pepsi. Godzilla vs. Mothra. As the posters for a dumb movie said a couple years ago, "Whoever wins, we lose."
-
Didn't you get the memo? It's called a "false left/right paradigm." It's all fake.
in politics yes-Bush was more socialist in some ways than say Clinton, but in the Church, a liberal wants to wreck and push farther with the "spirit" of V2, a conservative wants to complain but push in no other directions, just maintain. Here is a quote, now over 150 yrs old from a Presbyterian minister that is fairly spot-on for a Prot:
Conservatism's history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward to perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It tends to risk nothing serious for the sake of truth."
-R.L. Dabney
-
Liberalism is a sin, and "Conservatism" holds shades of gray. Look at the Republican Party. There is only one way and that is Catholic.
-
http://www.liberalismisasin.com/ This is the book to read.
-
Liberalism is a sin, and "Conservatism" holds shades of gray. Look at the Republican Party. There is only one way and that is Catholic.
here here :applause: :alcohol:
that book is good one too, have it.....
-
It is easier to define far right
Infallible Comstitution of Roman Catholc Church
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#4 and #6
This is not an endorsement of ewtn
I occ use their stuff, with some trepidation, but if it is right.....I also do not endorse EWTN.....
-
How do you go from bi-partisanship, which is a centrist compromise, to communism, which is an extreme flavour of liberalism ?
I think you have mixed up bi-partisanship with centrism. While bi-partisanship is simply two parties agreeing, centrisim is simply being in the middle of the two parties (usually evidenced by holding beliefs from both sides of the aisle). But just because the Republicans and the Democrats agree on something doesn't mean that it is centrist.
Bi-partisanship can be a good thing, as long as they are correct about the issue. What happens in America, however, is any "compromise" is done by the Republicans moving closer to the Liberal point of view. Voila! Then you have bi-partisanship! The parties are somewhat synonymous... they are both liberal. There really isn't a conservative party anymore.
Robert
-
How do you go from bi-partisanship, which is a centrist compromise, to communism, which is an extreme flavour of liberalism ?
I think you have mixed up bi-partisanship with centrism. While bi-partisanship is simply two parties agreeing, centrisim is simply being in the middle of the two parties (usually evidenced by holding beliefs from both sides of the aisle). But just because the Republicans and the Democrats agree on something doesn't mean that it is centrist.
Bi-partisanship can be a good thing, as long as they are correct about the issue. What happens in America, however, is any "compromise" is done by the Republicans moving closer to the Liberal point of view. Voila! Then you have bi-partisanship! The parties are somewhat synonymous... they are both liberal. There really isn't a conservative party anymore.
Robert
Something to ponder too, in Britain, all 3 major parties are por-EU, though supposedly political enemies...eventually, due to money, fame,etc-large Parites can become infiltrate and corrupted......
Parties there or in USA may work together or argue, but it is usually in small things, never on principle such questions not asked like "is this constitutional" or not......or "is this in line with God's law" or not......
just some $.02
-
Chesterton perhaps said it best: "The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."
-
Chesterton perhaps said it best: "The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."
So True!! :laugh1:
-
Chesterton perhaps said it best: "The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."
:applause:
Robert
-
How do you go from bi-partisanship, which is a centrist compromise, to communism, which is an extreme flavour of liberalism ?
I think you have mixed up bi-partisanship with centrism. While bi-partisanship is simply two parties agreeing, centrisim is simply being in the middle of the two parties (usually evidenced by holding beliefs from both sides of the aisle). But just because the Republicans and the Democrats agree on something doesn't mean that it is centrist.
Bi-partisanship can be a good thing, as long as they are correct about the issue. What happens in America, however, is any "compromise" is done by the Republicans moving closer to the Liberal point of view. Voila! Then you have bi-partisanship! The parties are somewhat synonymous... they are both liberal. There really isn't a conservative party anymore.
Robert
Something to ponder too, in Britain, all 3 major parties are por-EU, though supposedly political enemies...eventually, due to money, fame,etc-large Parites can become infiltrate and corrupted......
Parties there or in USA may work together or argue, but it is usually in small things, never on principle such questions not asked like "is this constitutional" or not......or "is this in line with God's law" or not......
just some $.02
The BNP is apparently not a major party then because they are not pro- EU unless I am mistaken.
-
How do you go from bi-partisanship, which is a centrist compromise, to communism, which is an extreme flavour of liberalism ?
I think you have mixed up bi-partisanship with centrism. While bi-partisanship is simply two parties agreeing, centrisim is simply being in the middle of the two parties (usually evidenced by holding beliefs from both sides of the aisle). But just because the Republicans and the Democrats agree on something doesn't mean that it is centrist.
Bi-partisanship can be a good thing, as long as they are correct about the issue. What happens in America, however, is any "compromise" is done by the Republicans moving closer to the Liberal point of view. Voila! Then you have bi-partisanship! The parties are somewhat synonymous... they are both liberal. There really isn't a conservative party anymore.
Robert
Something to ponder too, in Britain, all 3 major parties are por-EU, though supposedly political enemies...eventually, due to money, fame,etc-large Parites can become infiltrate and corrupted......
Parties there or in USA may work together or argue, but it is usually in small things, never on principle such questions not asked like "is this constitutional" or not......or "is this in line with God's law" or not......
just some $.02
The BNP is apparently not a major party then because they are not pro- EU unless I am mistaken.
True, they get no air time,etc like major 3..true esp in print media...but thankfully we have internet...for now....Britain seems to have fairer laws governing Parties though than many USA states....but true, media is controlled, hence access to opinions is.....
-
Liberal and Conservative, as they exist at present in the real world, simply mean two sides of the same counterfeit coin: all part of the Judaic-orchestrated, Hegelian dialectic in action. They are simply terms which refer to the "sides" within a completely bogus construct whereby the sheep are led to believe there are still some choices left in their pathetic lives. The end is the same: slaughter. :sheep:
-
Liberal and Conservative, as they exist at present in the real world.......
True- a false paradigm to keep others from thinking outside the box......