TheScout

George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their

Funny, I don't remember that clause.

"Taxes. That's how every 1st world country with universal health care pays for it. Instead of paying a for profit health insurance company, you pay taxes. Instead of your employer paying for a group plan, they pay you your salary plus the amount they would have paid for the benefits. You pay the taxes. The taxes should equal the cost of the program. No debt. Unless you want to follow the tax break and spend policies of the last 8 years of course." But of course this will never happen. If we could just raise taxes to make our debt go away, why do we have any debt?

This all sounds nice. But how are we going to pay for it? All the proposals involve more debt. If tort reform is a state issue. So is this anyway. Where is health mentioned in the Constituion? If you make up something about general welfare you can do the same thing for tort reform.

Look at Nebraska, it elects its legislature without parties.

"I confess that I am not reconciled to the idea of a chief magistrate parading himself through the several States, as an object of public gaze, and in quest of an applause which, to be valuable, should be purely voluntary. I had rather acquire silent good-will by a faithful discharge of my duties, than owe expressions of it to my putting myself in the way of receiving them." --Thomas Jefferson

Well good thing for me one doesn't have to be a theologian for eternal salvaton! All one has to do is go to Church, listen to the Church, and confess when one doesn't do that so good. OGE, You mentioned Catholics in your last post! Isn't that a label? Shouldn't we not use labels?

I like buying good stuff cheap. It would be a shame to force the BSA to purchase more expensive products due to the location of factory in which they are made. It could raise costs for scouts. Not good in these economic times.

Robert Gates is the CIA Director?

Its a money issue. There is not enough money to hire enough quality people. Directors get paid little. Instructors, even less.

"There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation." -Innocent III, Fourth Council of the Lateran, 1215 "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for Unam Sanctam, 1302 salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." -Boniface VIII "[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which w

In what way?

You correctly point out that the stomping out of heresy has been much watered down in recent decades, especially since Vatican II. However, the Church still has an array of sanctions against heretics that are used when it deems appropriate. Nonetheless, the Church still holds it is the only earthly aid to eternal salvation. Perhaps we should go back to a more active stomping out to save more souls.

SR540Beaver, So the problem isn't with the label itself. It was a guy who didn't know what a libertarian was. OGE, Of course what you say is true. Labels make communication is quicker. I have been saying that the whole time. But you obviously do not think we should hear and understand all points of view. This is how this all started. Not listening, and in fact blocking a homophoboic, anti-semetic, pedophile. So I guess what you are saying is we should only listen to people whose views fall within your acceptable range of discourse?

Well at least you could say communism would never work in our type of society.

Well from a Roman Catholic perspective, obviously Luther and his followers were heretics. . . Why shouldn't a church do its best to stamp out heresy? It is like saying a state can't fight treason or sedition. I am sure you don't believe that. I am not sure why people make excuses for communism so much. The system is so impracticable that it always degenerates into what we saw in the old Soviet bloc states every time it is tried. Its an idea that requires coercion which requires force. Lenin himself believed that the it was the duty of the party as the "vanguard" of revolution, to s

I am honestly very suprised by the absolute HATRED of labels on this forum. I didn't know they were so bad!

But how do you quickly and simply describe a person's political beliefs?

Stalin was a member of the communist party . . . Notice I qualified FDR's capitalism with "New Dealer" So nobody has still answered the question. What is your solution for a world without labels? How will you quickly and easily describe people. Shouldn't there be a way?

I know all that. I keep saying labels are blunt. However they are easier! Pick any figure. Past or present. Describe them. Easiest way to do so is labels. Hiter - Nazi, Facist Stalin - Communist, Authoriatarian FDR - Democrat, democrat, New Dealer, capitalist Churchill - democrat, monarchist, imperialist, capitalist Gets the point across quick, though not precise. They do have a point!

What is your solution with a world without labels? I don't get how it would work.

I said labels are blunt. Thats the point. They make communication easier. We all know there are exceptions. What is easier? To say someone is a" 1. "socialist" Or 2. To say they believes in a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation, that, in its modern form originated in the late 19th-century intellectual and working class political mov

Agreed on the conservative thing. A Paleoconservative is very different from a Neoconservative. I don't disagree much with Levin's statist definition? You don't see any contradiction in calling a Modern "liberal" a "traditionalist?"

It might be a more accurate term as "liberal" can mean so many different things. I would consider myself a "classical liberal," but by no means a "modern liberal" as the term changed meanings around the turn of the 20th Century.

I want different things in my secular governments or a Boy Scout forum than in my religion. I want my government to promote liberty. I want my Church to crush heresy with all its power. I have never read his Discourse. As I mentioned I don't like the Social Contract. I have read it and some of what I thought were good libertarian critiques of it, explaining how taking the "general will" concept to a logical conclusion can lead to a very statist (forgive me OldGreyEagle) end.