Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

chrysostom

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
    I'm so thankful I'm no longer a Republican.
    not possible with being a feminist
    a voice crying in the wilderness :chrysost:

    Comment


    • Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
      I'm so thankful I'm no longer a Republican.
      I am so thankful you are not a republican ...
      TRUST
      is a fragile thing.

      Easy to break, Easy to lose
      and one of the hardest things to
      ever get back.







      Comment


      • I am so thankful that you two idiots throw away your votes on unelectable morons like Hillary and Bernie

        Comment


        • Originally posted by chrysostom View Post
          that turns out to be the easy part
          and
          you knew that
          Anything founded on subjective valuation is easy to fly, as flags go.

          Doesn't make them worth saluting.
          You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

          Pro-Life






          Comment


          • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
            Anything founded on subjective valuation is easy to fly, as flags go.

            Doesn't make them worth saluting.
            The Republican Party needs to either dismantle or a do-over, starting at the top.
            TRUST
            is a fragile thing.

            Easy to break, Easy to lose
            and one of the hardest things to
            ever get back.







            Comment


            • Originally posted by Rusha View Post
              The Republican Party needs to either dismantle or a do-over, starting at the top.
              With Jesus it was the publicans.

              With us, it's the Re-publicans.

              Are you saying they should become the Re-re-publicans?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                With Jesus it was the publicans.

                With us, it's the Re-publicans.

                Are you saying they should become the Re-re-publicans?
                Unfortunately, I don’t see any sign of Jesus in the Republican Party.
                TRUST
                is a fragile thing.

                Easy to break, Easy to lose
                and one of the hardest things to
                ever get back.







                Comment


                • Originally posted by Rusha View Post
                  Unfortunately, I don’t see any sign of Jesus in the Republican Party.
                  Right. And since He's not in the Democratic party either, let's just get rid of both and go back to a monarchy.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Rusha View Post
                    I am so thankful you are not a republican ...
                    I'm so thankful that you're thankful...

                    Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                      Right. And since He's not in the Democratic party either, let's just get rid of both and go back to a monarchy.
                      Horrible idea. It is so vastly inferior as system of government (unless you're the king of a favorite of him). It's on par with suggesting we reconsider adopting slavery as an integral part of our economic policy.
                      You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                      Pro-Life






                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                        Horrible idea. It is so vastly inferior as system of government
                        So God chose a "vastly inferior" system over democracy for His chosen people? It wasn't like democracy wasn't a thing back then... In fact, He rejected democracy out of hand, killing those who brought it up.

                        You need to be careful what you believe, because ideas have consequences.

                        That's an example of one.

                        God didn't use a "vastly inferior" system of government to rule His people.

                        He chose the most stable form of government, one that lasted for several hundred years, if not nearly a millennium. And let's not forget the fact that God will reign as king over the earth for another thousand years, with a rod of iron. Oh, and let's not forget that monarchies reigned (no pun intended) when it came to governments, for over 3500 years.

                        You see, God liked the idea of a monarchy, so much so that He planned to use it for His nation, and included it in the Mosaic law, fully fleshed out.

                        If I were to set up a government, I would use the same government God did, not what sinful man could come up with.

                        (unless you're the king of a favorite of him)
                        That made no sense whatsoever...

                        It's on par with suggesting we reconsider adopting slavery as an integral part of our economic policy.
                        Um, no, it's not. This is the kind of prima facie statements you keep making.

                        Though, if I may ask, which kind of slavery are you talking about? Because I am fully against the slavery that we had 200 years ago.

                        Comment


                        • hear, read, think, write, talk
                          A Means
                          to improve yourself. Learn to listen. Learn to read. Learn to think. Learn to communicate what you know. These are skills promoted by Jordan Peterson who believes our schools are doing more harm than good. Parents are also complicit in not holding the young responsible for what they do. The liberal academia does not want to listen to this kind of stuff and knows how to "destroy and devalue opposition", a phrase worth borrowing.
                          Home
                          a voice crying in the wilderness :chrysost:

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                            Horrible idea. It is so vastly inferior as system of government (unless you're the king of a favorite of him). It's on par with suggesting we reconsider adopting slavery as an integral part of our economic policy.
                            Is it necessarily exclusive to have an autocratic king /queen /monarch, and to still be a vibrant classically liberal country?

                            I'm not certain that it is. I acknowledge that our constitutional republic separates powers deliberately in an attempt to protect all of our basic human rights from being stolen by our government, and also with our constitution's Bill of Rights, which is targeted directly at that government.

                            But is it impossible for an autocrat to faithfully preserve our rights, instead of a constitutional republic with a bill of rights? I'm just not sure it necessarily is.

                            I admit that the question of succession becomes more and more important the further out from any particular monarch that you get. If the monarch has absolute power, and they just aren't classically liberal, then that does seem to contend with a monarchy being inherently able to be a sustained classically liberal state.

                            But perhaps a persistent test is required of the monarch, a classically liberal test, a test that survives each subsequent monarch's death, and each monarch must pass it, and it's up to us and not them to determine if they do pass is. This sounds more like the UK's constitutional monarchy, something closer to that, than to our constitution's government.
                            Originally posted by chrysostom View Post
                            hear, read, think, write, talk
                            A Means
                            to improve yourself. Learn to listen. Learn to read. Learn to think. Learn to communicate what you know. These are skills promoted by Jordan Peterson who believes our schools are doing more harm than good. Parents are also complicit in not holding the young responsible for what they do. The liberal academia does not want to listen to this kind of stuff and knows how to "destroy and devalue opposition", a phrase worth borrowing.
                            Home
                            Study philosophy to learn language. Philosophy understands language. Psychology is a branch of philosophy. Peterson's doctorate is in philosophy.
                            "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                            @Nee_Nihilo

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                              I I acknowledge that our constitutional republic separates powers deliberately in an attempt to protect all of our basic human rights from being stolen by our government
                              Where I'd say the Constitution follows the expressed intent of the Declaration in an affirmative sense, to establish before nations our belief in rights that the government is established to protect for the benefit of its citizens, in service to their interests.

                              But is it impossible for an autocrat to faithfully preserve our rights
                              That's a bit off though. It may be possible for a good king to preserve it as an expression of his will, but who wants their rights subject to the breath of one man?
                              You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                              Pro-Life






                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                                Where I'd say the Constitution follows the expressed intent of the Declaration in an affirmative sense, to establish before nations our belief in rights that the government is established to protect for the benefit of its citizens, in service to their interests.
                                We agree on these words as far as we as individuals use them. I suspect however that we might disagree on how to interpret "rights," "benefits," and "interests," especially wrt how they integrate together cogently.
                                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                                That's a bit off though. It may be possible for a good king to preserve it as an expression of his will, but who wants their rights subject to the breath of one man?
                                If he's a good classical liberal king I don't see any necessary conflict. But what about succession? That to me is much hairier, and lends credence to a constitution of some sort that is a higher authority than any monarch, to keep monarchs in line. And who administrates the constitution? That lends to a republic. And should we enumerate the rights? That lends to a bill of rights as part of the constitution.
                                "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                                @Nee_Nihilo

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X