Why Catholics Shouldn't Vote For Obama Or Clinton

[MissScripture]

[quote name='kujo' post='1528441' date='May 14 2008, 11:59 AM']Sick and twisted? Come on...we can disagree with the guy, but to call him "sick and twisted" is a bit of an exaggeration. Based on that, we would have to refer to a large part of our country as "sick and twisted" because of their views on abortion, too. I know his are pretty far out there....but, again, I don't think "sick and twisted" is an appropriate criticism. Wrong? Immoral? Sad? Perhaps. But not "sick and twisted."
Haha. I hate (don't hate, appreciate) (don't hate (don't hate, appreciate), appreciate) that people won't vote for "old people." It seems like you would want someone with the experience and wisdom that an older person might have. But, then again, people look down on candidates who are "elitists" in favor of "regular folk." Is it just me, or do you want the smartest, most morally-grounded person in there, not necessarily the person who can clear brush or harvest a field?[/quote]
A large part of our country IS sick and twisted. Have you watched television lately?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1530271' date='May 16 2008, 10:15 AM']what was incorrect about what I said? I didnt claim that we are in a fascist state... I merely said that "when you get caught up mixing big business with big government, you end up with a fascist state"

emphasis on "end up"... could one not find themself in a fascist state because of this?[/quote]
I think it more likely that one would wind up in a fascist state by the state trying to put all private enterprise under its control. Political and economic freedom go hand-in-hand.
Fascism and socialism are actually closely linked, and prior to WWII, Mussolini's Fascist government was often hailed by liberals as a great example of modern progressive leadership.
Technically, Hitler wasn't a Fascist, but a "National Socialist."

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1534170' date='May 19 2008, 11:06 PM']I think it more likely that one would wind up in a fascist state by the state trying to put all private enterprise under its control. Political and economic freedom go hand-in-hand.
Fascism and socialism are actually closely linked, and prior to WWII, Mussolini's Fascist government was often hailed by liberals as a great example of modern progressive leadership.
Technically, Hitler wasn't a Fascist, but a "National Socialist."[/quote]
Well Obama is definitely a socialist.

[Socrates]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1534194' date='May 19 2008, 09:22 PM']Well Obama is definitely a socialist.[/quote]
Yeah, a philosophy condemned by the Church, which some on here seem sadly enamored of . . .

[cmotherofpirl]

Why don't you start a thread on the definition of socialism so people have a clearer idea why its so wrong.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1534170' date='May 19 2008, 10:06 PM']I think it more likely that one would wind up in a fascist state by the state trying to put all private enterprise under its control. Political and economic freedom go hand-in-hand.
Fascism and socialism are actually closely linked, and prior to WWII, Mussolini's Fascist government was often hailed by liberals as a great example of modern progressive leadership.
Technically, Hitler wasn't a Fascist, but a "National Socialist."[/quote]
Which is leftist.

[dairygirl4u2c]

in a nutshell... didy was a little sloppy using facist, or at least it could have been misinterpreted. but, soc totally jumped the gun, as it was obvious didy was against the government too, not just big business.

[mod]--Era Might[/mod]

you guys should just stop the posturing, and duke it out already, mano y mano, in the debate table, or here. i'll bring the popcorn.

Edited May 21, 2008 by Era Might

[kujo]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1535133' date='May 20 2008, 07:29 PM']in a nutshell... didy was a little sloppy using facist, or at least it could have been misinterpreted. but, soc totally jumped the gun, as it was obvious didy was against the government too, not just big business.

[mod]--Era Might[/mod]

you guys should just stop the posturing, and duke it out already, mano y mano, in the debate table, or here. i'll bring the popcorn.[/quote]

Dang....personal attack much?

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, i suppose my bias is shown, in that i don't know much about didy, other than he seems like a reasonable fellow, so i shouldn't assume who is avoiding what more, as per their bickering.
i should have noted that, for good measure.

plus, i'm secretly hoping it entices soc to challenge me to a debate. i'm like a vulture waiting for a good debate. again, for good measure, i should have noted how it's actually a compliment that i pick on him, cause not everyone is worthy of being dignified with me having a diligent desire to debate them.

plus, i didn't mean to be personal like you stink, so much as that was my way of defining what i think of his consrvatism... cause i always had trouble before, calling it status quo conserv, when what i meant was what i said above, but what he'd say is that he's not status quo but rather george bush is a typical status quo cause he ain't conservative enough and signifies a lot of people. and i'd use that word after defining it, but he'd continue to not understand. i want it to be clear so he understands. cause, maybe twisted for me to say but, i think it cookie cutter conservatism, or liberalism, is a sickness.
i do like the word cookie cutter conservatism though.

Edited May 21, 2008 by Era Might

[Didymus]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1534194' date='May 19 2008, 10:22 PM']Well Obama is definitely a socialist.[/quote]

how so? i always thought he was more of a democrat.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1534170' date='May 19 2008, 10:06 PM']I think it more likely that one would wind up in a fascist state by the state trying to put all private enterprise under its control. Political and economic freedom go hand-in-hand.[/quote]

more likely... meaning what I said was not wrong, as I did only claim it could lead to fascism:

[quote name='Didymus' post='1530271' date='May 16 2008, 11:15 AM']I didnt claim that we are in a fascist state... I merely said that "when you get caught up mixing big business with big government, you end up with a fascist state"

emphasis on "end up"... could one not find themself in a fascist state because of this?[/quote]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1534170' date='May 19 2008, 10:06 PM']Fascism and socialism are actually closely linked, and prior to WWII, Mussolini's Fascist government was often hailed by liberals as a great example of modern progressive leadership.
Technically, Hitler wasn't a Fascist, but a "National Socialist."[/quote]

I was always taught that Nazism, or National Socialism, actually has very little to do with "true Socialism" as Pius XI might put it. If you could show me otherwise, I'd appreciate it. I never claimed Hitler was a fascist. I wouldn't exactly think of using him as an example of it either.

Edited May 20, 2008 by Didymus

[Didymus]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1534220' date='May 19 2008, 10:36 PM']Yeah, a philosophy condemned by the Church, which some on here seem sadly enamored of . . . [/quote]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1534225' date='May 19 2008, 10:38 PM']Why don't you start a thread on the definition of socialism so people have a clearer idea why its so wrong.[/quote]

I said this once before in another thread, and I guess I need to repeat it here.

I do not believe in unbridled full-fledged Socialism, as laid out in Communist Manifesto. I am rather attracted merely to the ideology that takes the market and the economy and looks more towards need than profit. I am attracted to the economic idea that capitalism can still exist in society, although it remains checked by policies such as the living wage, labor unions, and fair trade. I see it more as a democratic socialism, as I would never want the ideas expressed in Communist Manifesto to ever surpass the will of the people who make up the state.

I set this apart from the current Democratic party, as my leanings towards Socialism pertain mainly to the market, and not every liberal and left issue under the sun that the Dems seem to have taken upon themselves. I also believe that the Democrats don't truly wish to actually give the middle and lower classes more regulatory control of the market, as many of them used the contributions of the corporations and individuals who benefit from this market to get to the positions they hold. In this issue I see the Democrats and Republicans as being very similar. This is one of the reasons I have grown to absolutely abhor our dirty political process today, which we still like to call "democracy" seemingly just to make us feel better about the fact that the candidate we wanted in office just couldn't scrape together enough funds to make it far enough in the public eye (through our friends in the media industry) and so we learn to settle with the lousy candidates we end up with.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1535200' date='May 20 2008, 08:32 PM']how so? i always thought he was more of a democrat.[/quote]
Go read his platform which is far to the left of the democrats.

[Didymus]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1535451' date='May 20 2008, 10:14 PM']Go read his platform which is far to the left of the democrats.[/quote]

yes I am aware of his platform but just because it is "far left of the democrats" doesn't make him a socialist.

A socialist isn't an excessively liberal democrat.

[cmotherofpirl]

you are correct.