THE PALEOCRAT TRIBUNE

Little more than a gaggle of hacks and geeks.

16 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. […] Dirty Rotten Pinko! Oh, and lest I forget, I don’t hate the government, much less the Democrat party.  Uh-oh! If the former beliefs didn’t do me in, the last… […]

    Dirty Rotten Pinko!

    December 5, 2008 at 1:54 pm

  2. Wanting universal health care is pinko.

    Much of Catholic Social doctrine is socialist. Be careful what you read. Many Catholics are socialists and put out socialist things and call it “catholic”. And just because a bishop signs it doesn’t matter either. Many bishops are socialists and communists. Liberation theology is big and held by some 90% of the South American clergy.

    Where in God’s name is universal health care? Medicine throughout the ages has always been private and the “ability to pay”. Catholics have individually and by religious orders have provided health care for the indigent but I don’t recall historically anywhere “universal health care”.

    Who’s going to pay for it? California is broke. Our country is broke. Medicare which is not even Universal is becoming broke—and you want universal health care? Where is this pie in the sky going to get paid for?

    WLindsayWheeler

    December 5, 2008 at 10:14 pm

  3. Wheeler,

    Blah, blah, Catholic Church is socialist, blah, blah.

    The Church has condemned socialism time and time again. But socialism is much more (and different) than certain functions being socialized. I would go on, but why waste time telling someone what they already (or should already) know?

    Do you know where Catholics get their definition of Socialism?

    HINT: It starts with an “e” and ends with “cyclicals.”

    Do you know what the encyclicals have said concerning socialism in its various forms?

    Can you provide me with examples, derived from encyclicals or Catechisms, that fall into your statement that “much of Catholic Social Doctrine is socialist”?

    Then again, I must admit to not being at all surprised by your distaste for much of Catholic Social Doctrine. You aren’t the biggest fan of the Catholic Church, much less Her Magisterium.

    Paleocrat

    December 6, 2008 at 10:48 am

  4. Totus Tuus ad Jesum per Mariam

    Dear WLindsayWheeler,

    What you say goes against not only the Church but also the Founding Fathers. Not every principle laid out by the Founders was right, but all the same they were brilliant men and their ideas deserve study. Read “Vindicating the Founders” by Dr. Thomas West especially the section on Poverty and Welfare. Before you can do that go to http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/index.asp?category=6 and read the documents and find out what the writers of the Constitution said on Poverty and Welfare. (It is also advisable that you read the other sections as well.)

    Thomas Jefferson wrote a draft of a Bill for Support of the Poor in 1779, and in it wrote the following; “And the said Aldermen shall meet together, at the court-house of their county… and by taxation of the persons and property, in their county, according to the mode of assessment prescribed by the law which shall be then in force, for raising money for the public exigencies, shall raise competent sums of money for the necessary relief of such poor, lame, impotent, blind, and other inhabitants of the county as are not able to maintain themselves. And also for the putting out the poor children apprentices, as well as for defraying the expences of putting so much of this act in execution as relates to setting the poor to work and keeping them so employed; they shall collect appropriate taxes.” Now Thomas Jefferson was very a liberal Founding Father, and even he said we must help the poor. Read the entire document, (its not long), and see the completeness of his thinking.
    http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/index.asp?document=84

    And in his Notes on the State of Virginia, in Query 14, Thomas Jefferson wrote on the welfare policy of Virginia;
    ‘The poor who have neither property, friends, nor strength to labour, are boarded in the houses of good farmers, to whom a stipulated sum is annually paid. To those who are able to help themselves a little, or have friends from whom they derive some succours, inadequate however to their full maintenance, supplementary aids are given, which enable them to live comfortably in their own houses, or in the houses of their friends. Vagabonds, without visible property or vocation, are placed in workhouses, where they are well cloathed, fed, lodged, and made to labour. Nearly the same method of providing for the poor prevails through all our states; and from Savannah to Portsmouth you will seldom meet a beggar… A subsistence is easily gained here: and if, by misfortunes, they are thrown on the charities of the world, those provided by their own country are so comfortable and so certain, that they never think of relinquishing them to become strolling beggars. Their situation too, when sick, in the family of a good farmer, where every member is emulous to do them kind offices, where they are visited by all the neighbours, who bring them the little rarities which their sickly appetites may crave, and who take by rotation the nightly watch over them, when their condition requires it, is without comparison better than in a general hospital, where the sick, the dying, and the dead are crammed together, in the same rooms, and often in the same beds….’
    Now that’s quite a statement. Read it again. If you don’t believe me look it up: http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/index.asp?document=39. [From Notes on the State of Virginia, ed. William Peden (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Virginia, 1954), 133-4.]

    And in a letter to Joseph Milligan, Jefferson says,
    “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.” If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra taxation violates it.” Unless you wish to claim that Jefferson was a socialist, and you will be laughed out of the arena, you have to admit that their is a difference between socialism and proper social assistance provided by the state.

    All this is merely Jefferson! A non-Catholic and a liberal.

    As far as the infallible Catholic Church’s position on the matter you need to look at the Encyclicals; Rerum Navarum (On the Condition of the Worker), Immortale Dei, (On the Christian Consitution of States), Diuturnum, (On the Origin of Civil Power), Quod Apostolic Muneris, (On Socialism), and those are just Leo XIII, and don’t exhaust his contribution to Catholic Social thought. Many other encyclicals were added by the Popes that followed him. [Mater et Magistra, (Mother and Teacher), Pacem in Terris, (Peace on Earth), Centesimus Annus, Populorum Progressio, (On the Development of People), et cetera, et cetera, et cetera] Even if you aren’t Catholic, read what the brightest mind in the Catholic world has to say on the matter. (www.papalencyclicals.net)

    Paleo and I had a discussion on the matter, and you can read it in “When Conservatives hate the Troops”. It might be of interest to see how our plans for social welfare in health care would operate.

    As far as you Paleo, quit being such a dogmatic “Papist”. You think that just because the Pope is “infallible” that gives you some right to agree with everything he said just because he said it? How is that free thinking?

    It is funny how we Catholic’s are “dogmatic” and “close-minded”, yet we are also attacked for being too independent.

    AD MAJOREM DEI GLORIAM

    Apostle of Mary

    December 6, 2008 at 2:56 pm

  5. We are talking about Universal Health care and I get this:

    And the said Aldermen shall meet together, at the court-house of their county… and by taxation of the persons and property, in their county, according to the mode of assessment prescribed by the law which shall be then in force, for raising money for the public exigencies, shall raise competent sums of money for the necessary relief of such poor, lame, impotent, blind, and other inhabitants of the county as are not able to maintain themselves. And also for the putting out the poor children apprentices, as well as for defraying the expences of putting so much of this act in execution as relates to setting the poor to work and keeping them so employed; they shall collect appropriate taxes.”

    I don’t see health care in that. Where is the health care? A county poor house is not Universal health care. Besides at the county poor house, all work, so I don’t see “universal health care”.

    How about dying? is that not health care? How much money do we take from other people to give out “health care” to some other people?

    WLindsayWheeler

    December 6, 2008 at 9:38 pm

  6. With a man on welfare or homeless, how much money from other people, forcibly taken, to shower medical benefits on him?

    $50,000 dollars?

    $75,000 dollars?

    You want universal health care?

    What did the American Indian do?

    They took their old and infirm, laid them up against a tree, and they died there, while the rest of the tribe went off as they travelled.

    Did they have Universal health care? If it is a “right”—where is that right exhibited in the American Plain Indian tribes? If there is meant to be universal health care where is it in nature?

    WLindsayWheeler

    December 7, 2008 at 8:26 pm

    • It is truly remarkable how little you care for the poor. Better living, better medication, better health care (preventative and treatment) is contingent upon how rich you are. How remarkable! Worse yet is that there are doctors who, like you, see green before the health of a fellow human being.

      You wish to use the Indians as an example? Are you serious??? Most tribes also lived like hippies, passing around women and making their children a part of breast feeding ring that turned out to be little less than a full communalization of their offspring.

      Where is this in nature? I presume you mean natural law. Otherwise, we could find ourselves a case for eating different “kinds” (as you would say it) of people. At any rate, Catholic Social Doctrine is not only concerned with the natural law, but with the divine law, of which solidarity is central.

      Why talk of it as a right? We could just as well talk of it as a responsibility, leaving the “right” chatter to the wind.

      Paleocrat

      December 8, 2008 at 10:35 am

  7. Totus Tuus ad Jesum per Mariam

    Dear WLindseyWheeler,

    “Their situation too, when sick, in the family of a good farmer, where every member is emulous to do them kind offices, where they are visited by all the neighbours, who bring them the little rarities which their sickly appetites may crave, and who take by rotation the nightly watch over them, when their condition requires it, is without comparison better than in a general hospital, where the sick, the dying, and the dead are crammed together, in the same rooms, and often in the same beds….’”

    That applies directly to health care! Again it was Jefferson. Now it may not be universal health care, were the government pays for everyone, but that’s not what were talking about, go and read Paleo’s and my discussion in “when conservatives hate the troops”. Many things laid out in that discussion included; a federalist system of payment, providing for only those who can’t afford it at all, strict punishments for all who can afford it and try to scam the government, the reason why this system is just; (it is just because all can potentially be sick and unable to pay, even the rich can lose all their money), promotion of self-reliance in health care, punishment for abusing health insurance companies, separation of the Pharma companies and doctors, and other principles. It may not have dealt with every problem and principle, for I certainly don’t know every problem and don’t have every solution or even the best. Nonetheless a program was promoted that while it gave government power and control and it certainly wasn’t socialistic universal health care. It was a welfare program much like Jefferson proposed and promoted, for those who need it the most.

    The program was humane however. If I were you I would seriously considered your beliefs, if you are Catholic or Christian read the Bible and the Encyclicals. And pray, for your beliefs are evil and of the devil in plain English. To care about the dollars and cents over your brother who is dying? What is taking ten dollars from you and all your neighbors if it means that your friend from across the street can help his daughter survive cancer? Or helping your co-worker die in relative ease? Are you unwilling to sacrifice a little for your brother?

    Please realize the gross error of your position.

    One more thing on welfare. You must have only read part of what Jefferson wrote for very clearly he says what to do with those who are poor and unable to care for themselves: “The poor who have neither property, friends, nor strength to labour, are boarded in the houses of good farmers, to whom a stipulated sum is annually paid. To those who are able to help themselves a little, or have friends from whom they derive some succours, inadequate however to their full maintenance, supplementary aids are given, which enable them to live comfortably in their own houses, or in the houses of their friends.”

    When they are sick, they are put “in the family of a good farmer, where every member is emulous to do them kind offices, where they are visited by all the neighbours, who bring them the little rarities which their sickly appetites may crave, and who take by rotation the nightly watch over them, when their condition requires it, is without comparison better than in a general hospital, where the sick, the dying, and the dead are crammed together, in the same rooms, and often in the same beds….”

    He says that these poor have neither; “property”, with which to pay their expenses; “friends”, who can support their friend; or “strength to labour” and thus unable to provide for themselves. They are then “boarded in the houses of good farmers” and a “stipulated sum is annually paid” to them by the government through “taxation of the persons and property”. Health care for those who are destitute is also included and is payed for by the government. He even went so far as to say that “is without comparison better than in a general hospital, where the sick, the dying, and the dead are crammed together, in the same rooms, and often in the same beds.”

    Unless Jefferson is lying, it seems that not only was government health care around in the founding of our country, {and our country was founded upon “nature and nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence)}, but that it was “through all our states”, and it was better then “the general hospital”.

    AD MAJOREM DIE GLORIAM

    Apostle of Mary

    December 8, 2008 at 9:50 pm

  8. “””What is taking ten dollars from you and all your neighbors if it means that your friend from across the street can help his daughter survive cancer? Or helping your co-worker die in relative ease? Are you unwilling to sacrifice a little for your brother?””

    Wow, spoken like a true communist. I mean the above statements are truly taken from the communist playbook.

    “A gross error” when is not believing in universal health care and Catholic distributism a “gross error”. It is your opinions. And now you make them articles of faith? That one is in “gross error”?

    Everything Christianity preaches on is done by moving the conscience of the person, not by “taking” ten dollars from somebody and giving it to somebody else.

    And your nonsense about “solidarity”? Any Catholic denies race exists. Then, you have the balls to talk about solidarity. If solidarity doesn’t exist in racial kinship, why would it exist at all? I find your stances totally hypocritical. Solidarity only for Catholic distributists and their pet ideology and not where nature intends it. Your talk about “solidarity” is really specious.

    WLindsayWheeler

    December 9, 2008 at 6:57 pm

  9. Totus Tuus ad Jesum per Mariam

    Dear WLindsayWheeler,

    Spoken like a communist?? I don’t understand?? Communism consists in taking every asset from every member of the state and giving it to the state for the state to distribute.

    Or if you prefer the definition from “dictionary.com”
    Communism: 1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
    (Emphasis is my own).

    My system isn’t communistic. It is a tax welfare system. It is no different in practice then free-schools and public libraries, (and education is necessary for a free republic), it is only different in who were giving the funding, (to the destitute sick), and the purpose of the funding, (health-care). Even with that said this safety net is still available for everyone, for have the potential of being destitute and sick.

    To say that your positions are only gross errors is using my most kind term. I more truthfully deemed them “evil and of the devil.” Your position for how a just and advanced society should treat the sick is “leave them on the side of the road and die.” How is that just and right? How is my position more evil then ours? How is yours good?

    You do need to realize the ramifications of what you just said. If I am a commie, and I’m using the arguments of Jefferson and quoting him exactly, then Jefferson is a communist! If Jefferson is a communist, then only the most profound anarchist, laisser faire capitalist, isn’t a communist.

    You need to go and study the great thinkers who founded this country, the actual Catholic Social teaching, written and authorized by the Vatican, and other Christian moral philosophy. The only conclusion that I can respectfully make is that you are grossly uninformed or misinformed. You can change that, please do. At the very least you will be able to argue Catholic Social teaching from a position of strength for as of now you speak in great weakness. (How many Encyclical’s have you read, or portions of the Catechism, or official Vatican approved documents?) And did you read Paleo’s and my conversation about “universal” health care? And if so, why no comment?

    As far as everything Christianity does is moving the conscience of people is a ridiculous sentiment. Even in the Europe that was entirely Catholic laws existed, both secular and Church related. The Church has always understood that man doesn’t always follow their conscience and that even if they do a conscience isn’t infallible, it must be well formed. Man can justify anything. Men like Hitler could have been following their conscience but what should have been the Catholic’s response to Hitler; try to convince him that he is wrong while he destroys Europe or resist him?

    Both is the correct and Christian answer. We must seek to bring him to repentance, (even then penance and atonement must be made), and we must also prevent him from doing grave evil.

    From an official Church publication:
    “Solidarity:
    We are one human family whatever our national, racial, ethnic, economic, and ideological differences. We are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers, wherever they may be. Loving our neighbor has global dimensions in a shrinking world. At the core of the virtue of solidarity is the pursuit of justice and peace. Pope Paul VI taught that “if you want peace, work for justice.” The Gospel calls us to be peacemakers. Our love for all our sisters and brothers demands that we promote peace in a world surrounded by violence and conflict.”
    (Text is drawn from Sharing Catholic Social Teaching: Challenges and Directions (Washington, DC: USCCB, 1998) and Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility (Washington, DC: USCCB, 2003) http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/projects/socialteaching/excerpt.shtml)

    You misunderstand what the Church means by race. True, all men are part of the human race. We Catholic’s have always opposed to the evolutionary notion that man came from apes and therefore genetically some races are superior to others. (That belief was promoted by the Nazi’s, the KKK, et cetera.) But the vernacular is the vernacular and you can’t blame us for using the terms “race” and “racism”. One can belong to the black race or the white race and the human race at the same time.

    Why does it exist? Because we need to love our neighbor whatever our “national, racial, ethnic, economic, or ideological differences” may be, not just our racial ones. If you had read only a small portion of the briefest of summaries, (which is what that document is), then you would have understood that.

    Communism, by the way, has been condemned by the Catholic Church. (cf. DIVINI REDEMPTORIS, (On Atheistic Communism), http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11DIVIN.HTM )

    AD MAJOREM DEI GLORIAM

    Apostle of Mary

    December 9, 2008 at 10:04 pm

  10. Never mind Wheeler. He knows nothing of the encyclicals. Rather than discussing things in a competent fashion, he resorts to his fallback tirades concerning Marxism and how any and all who disagree with his take on any given matter must, by some unknown necessity, fall into this grave error.

    To say Catholics deny race is so stupid it doesn’t deserve a refutation.

    I am an Encyclical enthusiast. This has led me, in many areas, to adhere to elements of Distributism. But I am not a purist like others. There are elements of Pesch’s Solidarism and Corporatism within my system.

    This is to say that I do not allow the Distributist tail to wag the dog of Catholic Social Doctrine. In short, I may be dogmatic about Catholic Social Doctrine, as any traditional Catholic must, but I am by no means dogmatic about Distributism.

    Paleocrat

    December 9, 2008 at 11:35 pm

  11. I finally figured out your catholic theology. Your catholic theology of universal health care is based on feminine sentimentality—feeling sorry, it is softness. Softness defines your thinking. It seems that Catholic Christianity is all wrapped up in effeminacy, in being soft.

    The saying is “The Good comes thru the Hard”. But you can’t be hard–that’s cruel. And you know what. That is not the Good.

    Your Christianity is milquetoast, all buttery and soft. Might as well call it jelly Catholicism for we are all to swoon over every problem like a woman. It is no wonder Leon Podles wrote a book called “The Church Impotent”. Soft decisions are made by soft people who live soft lives.

    It is simple to see that you really have no understanding of the Good or what it entails. Your stance on universal health care shows no measure of common sense but huge amounts of feminine sentimentality–that is the direction of much of Christian thought these days, it seems.

    WLindsayWheeler

    December 11, 2008 at 9:30 pm

  12. Ah, the old “everyone on the planet has been feminized except for the men like me” card. Never seen that one before, Wheeler. Seriously, your playbook is very small. Marxism! Feminization! Not enough knowledge of the “apostles of nature.” Those arguments are about as overused as $0.02 hooker, Wheeler… or is it as lame as FDR’s legs?

    There are times to be hard, this is for certain. Times to kill, times for destroy, a time to rend, a time of hatred, and a time of war. But I am not at all sure that there is a time to deny the poor, the widow, or any creature created in the image of God medical care, whether preventative or corrective.

    Fine, Wheeler, toss the ministry of medicine into the hands of those who use preventative and corrective treatment for financial gain. Health no longer has to do with being created in the image of God, or even for the love of one’s neighbor, but with money. This is as pathetic as it is inhumane.

    The entire “soft” portion of your reply was absurd. Then again, your worship at the altar of the manly pederast philosophy kings over against Holy Mother Church gives a contextual backdrop for such buffoonery.

    You’ll have to do better if you wish to make any ground here, Wheeler. So far, your shooting blanks into the wind.

    Paleocrat

    December 12, 2008 at 12:09 am

  13. Totus Tuus ad Jesum per Mariam

    Dear WLinseyWheeler,

    To say that Christianity is soft is utterly absurd. You fail to realize that it’s not only the Catholic Church, but also the Founding Fathers of our country who believed in humane treatment of the poor and sick. I pray I needn’t remind you of how the Declaration of Independence was a death sentence to all who signed it and that its author was the “effeminate” Thomas Jefferson, the same man who wrote the “Bill in Support of the Poor”.

    You can’t yell at us for being “impotent” and at the same time have never read our actual documents. It is precisely because the Catholics and Christians haven’t read the actual Church teaching that they can be pulled away by all kinds of “strange teaching” filled with effeminate doctrine and false compassion. But true compassion isn’t effeminate, it isn’t weak, it attempts to take the suffering of another upon yourself in an attempt to alleviate that suffering. It is done in love which is more than some petty emotion. (Case in point; a Crucifix.) It takes strength to make a sacrifice, but what strength does it take to ignore another and suite your own best interest?

    I would like a counter argument against the positions I have articulated, for as of now you have switched from insulting Catholics as socialist, to insulting my intelligence without just cause, (and just cause isn’t usually hard to find), to calling me a communist, to calling us impotent, effeminate, milquetoast and soft. However, not once have you conceded any point, argued against any point, read about what our health care system would look like, researched actual Catholic Social Doctrine, admitted that Thomas Jefferson was by your definition a communist, or any such act necessary for a proper and civilized debate. This isn’t a debate, this is you making an outlandish and ignorant claims and statements, (if these statements aren’t made out of ignorance than they are made out of malice and I can’t in fairness assume that), followed by refutation; to which you insult us and change the topic and make another ignorant and outlandish claim, which we refute and the processes starts all over again. I say this that you can honestly assess your own actions and return to a proper method of debating, one in which enlightened discussion takes place and where you walk away wiser.

    AD MAJOREM DEI GLORIAM

    Apostle of Mary

    December 12, 2008 at 1:17 pm

  14. As for me, I’m a pinko liberal and proud of it.

    Although “liberal” has been pretty well skunked by now, and is understood by many people in the opposite sense to what it really means.

    Steve

    January 3, 2009 at 12:24 am

  15. Paleocrat, you’re not a pinko. I saw your video on atheism and moral bankruptcy. You are definitely not soft.

    I do think you may just be the ‘liberal’ in the sense of being charitable. “Liberal distribution” is an old English Bible phrase(2 Corinthians, KJV).

    There are those who use the word ‘liberal’ to mean “I hate it.” To me, that’s not good enough. Words have meaning or they don’t.

    I agree with you about the healthcare thing. To me, the present system ‘privatizes’ what should be publicly available and wishes to make public what should be private. And not just with the health care issue.

    I’ve seen you shred militant atheists on the youtube. I would not ever refer to you as ‘soft,’ so I don’t really get where Wheeler is coming from with that.

    Bubba

    January 12, 2009 at 1:53 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: