Posted on 10/16/2003 6:03:43 AM PDT by presidio9
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:50:08 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Is it too much to expect a priest, you are a priest, correct?, ought to restrain himself from criticising his Pope on his anniversary?
"Happy Birthday, Dad. You are Aces. Well, 'cept the time you...and when you....and when you...."
Imagine "wright is right" a non-Catholic serving as a model of how to treat another on the day of a major milestone while a priest can't resist getting in a shot.
When you next criticise the Pope for the way things are in America, grab a mirror...
Transcending Communism (as Mr. Reagan put it) was in fact a major historical result toward which John Paul II and Mr. Reagan worked with signal success, and not entirely independently. And since this is after all a conservative political web site, it is not clear to me that my allusion is even slightly off-topic.publicly lived in adultry in the white house as a divorced and remarried man.
It may seem like a fine point to some but Mr. Reagan was, by what I have read, stunned and bitterly disappointed by the decision of Ms. Wyman (apparently because she thought Reagan was too dedicated to the Screen Actors' Guild and the problems of Communist activism in Hollywood) to divorce him. To style someone who is abandoned by his wife an adulterer is IMHO a harsh--and not clearly scriptural--judgement.The size of govt more'n doubled under his . . . presidency
Yes, in the US, the revenue of the Federal Government doubled--but not by raising tax rates but by lowering them. Is your complaint that he did not raise tax rates further into the counterproductive and exorbitant realm in which he found them? By the measure of revenue, I suppose, that would have "reduced the size" of the government . . .he gave smashing speeches.Consider also, that Mr. Reagan and Pope John Paul II labored to--and succeed in--reducing the size of hypertrophied government in what was then the Soviet Bloc--not only Russia but Catholic Poland and the Ukraine and many other nations.
Mr. Reagan proved that the US government didn't have to be utterly disfunctional in the Carter mold, and it is a historical fact that his presidency was followed (albeit not immediately) by the immoral x42. Is the x42 administration somehow therefore the doing of Mr. Reagan?
That, he did. Speeches which were bitterly criticized but, historically, had positive effects nationally and internationally.
Everything you posted as a "conservative" proved my point.
You have been inured to the reality of the death of Federalism having been bedazzled by the sturm und drang of electoral politics for only a "conservative" could think it admirable the federal government doubled its collection of taxes.
If the soi disant lay traditionalists are gracious enough to understand such rudimentary good manners, why don't you?
There is however a catch--adultery is, scripturally, a justification for divorce. So then, if a wife divorces a husband and marries another, she commits adultery--which then is scriptural justification for the husband to divorce her, and marry another. Since however his wife has already done the legal work, I would hope God doesn't judge the husband too harshly for assuming that he was free to remarry.You have been inured to the reality of the death of Federalism having been bedazzled by the sturm und drang of electoral politics for only a "conservative" could think it admirable the federal government doubled its collection of taxes.I am not certain that Ms. Wyman actually remarried first, tho Mr. Reagan was not even acquainted with Nancy Davis until after Ms. Wyman had divorced him--but if so, scripture would likewise forbid the original husband and wife to remarry under any circumstance. In any case I think you are splitting hairs on that issue.
You prefer increased tax rates to increased tax revenue, on grounds that the government wouldn't have the money to be tyrannical if it set the tax rate so high that nobody did any work. I didn't even suspect that there was a strain of libertarianism which is that wierd.
"You prefer increased tax rates to increased tax revenue, on grounds that the government wouldn't have the money to be tyrannical if it set the tax rate so high that nobody did any work. "
The fact I said no such thing deterred you not a whit. Have you submitted your name as a substitute for Rush?
I am Catholic. I am not a Libertarian. I happen to agree with Thomas Fleming of "Chronicles"
This is a part of human nature which no libertarian theory can eradicate, and my advice to them is to find another planet where they can all live in solitary caves, where they can snort coke and watch porn videos to their hearts content. Their ideas are irrelevant, not just to present circumstances, but to the human condition.
The fact I said no such thing deterred you not a whit. Have you submitted your name as a substitute for Rush?You have complained bitterly that I approve of the fact that government revenue increased in the '80s. Yet the predominant reason for that increase was the improvement in the economy, and the predominant reason for the improvement in the economy was the tax rate cut. Was the tax rate cut an evil plot to expand the government, or prudent management, or both?
Excuse me if I don't take it for granted that you are right to condemn someone who got the country going again, whipped inflation, ended the energy crisis, and transcended Communism. Self-righteousness is a temptation which is ever near.
But, so was your criticism of George W. Bush, IMO.
Don't get bounced again.
I would think the real question is why do you, a priest, need an official present to prohibit you from takin a shot at the Pope on his Anniversary?
I know you like Reagan. Faux conservatives are like that:)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.