Posted on 11/14/2002 3:41:02 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:41:23 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Sorry if I offended you, as I apparently did.
The Pope, on the other hand, can take the criticism.
What is "prudent" is for the Pope to not recommend clemncy for criminals.
Oh, get real, Sinky. The Italian birth rate is at 1.49 children per woman. When a society's birth rate goes below the replacement level (call it 2.1 children per woman), that society is on the road to extinction. That's mathematics, not religion.
If what you're trying to say is that societies that are economically secure are invariably enroute to extinction, then I guess economic security is a bad thing.
<> What it does have to say is, per usual, corect<>
The Holy Father opposes capital punishment and, now, appears to advocate periodic sentence reductions.
<> God Bless the Pope. His words harken back to an old tradition. In better days, European Christian Kings would routinely free prisoners during certain Holy Days.<>
What's next? One free rape? No penalty for five-finger discounts under a grand?
<> How about six months at Ryker's for questions having nothing to do with the topic?<>
I remember the irony of Pat Buchanan encouraging folks in countries with predominantly white populations to have more children when Pat never had any children himself.
<> Perhaps there are physical reasons you do not know about<>
<> Is the Catechism teaching on the Death Penalty Doctrine or not?
Can a Catholic reject Doctrine and be considered a "good Catholic?" Cite a Magisterial Document to back-up your assertion<>
Is this "racial" preference or cultural preference?
I have no doubt whatsoever that 1000 Brits would fit in better than 1000 Zulu as Virginia citizens. And no, it's not because Zulu are darker-skinned. (Even dark-skinned, African-descended Brits would fit better than Zulus, you see.)
I'm not saying I'm a Buchanan fan (I'm not), it's just that you could have chosen, I imagine, a much worse quote of his to pick on. This one is, quite frankly, indisputable.
Although I am partially English, I am also partially Irish and have generally imagined the Zulu quite admirable based on Islandwhana, Roark's Drift
It seems like you are praising the Zulus' bravery and courage in swarming opponents on the battlefield. Uh, I won't argue, but what exactly does that have to do with how well they would fit in as citizens of the state of Virginia? Because they display selfless valor in rushing the enemy, they'd make good neighbors?
This is ridiculous. How does this explain welfare moms with 7 children by 3 different fathers? They have no idea what their "income and life style" will be like tomorrow (because it all depends on the government). This must confuse you.
Too, you completely ignore the role of religion. Mormons and Catholics have large families for reasons which have nothing whatsoever to do with whether they "know their income and life style tomorrow".
Causes are todays liberal or right wing models of economy.
You seem confused. 1. I'll assume you are using "liberal" in the European sense, not the American sense (where it is usually used to mean leftist or socialist). 2. A model of the economy can't be "right wing" or "left wing". A model of the economy is either true or false. If it's true (i.e. the law of supply and demand) then what sense does a label like "right wing" or "left wing" make? 3. So I'll assume you meant to say not "model of the economy" but "economic policy" as in, laissez-faire (more or less). You blame what you call "right-wing" economic policy (namely, laissez-faire) for uncertainty about the future. 4. One problem is that we do not have a laissez-faire economy, by any stretch. Does 40-50 percent taxation with heavy regulation sound like laissez-faire to you? There is complete socialism for the poorest class. And that's here in the U.S., never mind the European "social democracies". So what are you talking about? 5. It is a fallacy to imply, as you do, that with left-wing economic policies (socialism) the people "know their income and life style tomorrow", but under "right-wing" policies (laissez-faire) they don't. People receiving government checks don't "know their life style tomorrow" because those government checks could change with every election. 7. It's more correct to say that people living under "left-wing" (socialist) economic policies don't take responsibility for their actions, because they have gotten used to the idea that the government takes care of them.
So, 8. In that sense you are correct to point out that "left-wing" economic policies encourage dependent people to have more children (because they are irresponsible) than "right-wing" policies do (because then people are responsible for their own behavior).
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.