tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post8126611054980833054..comments2023-10-25T08:46:20.242-05:00Comments on The Distributist Review: Social InsecurityJohn Médaillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-68046312657215010432007-12-05T19:54:00.000-06:002007-12-05T19:54:00.000-06:00Concerning the dead, nothing but good things shoul...Concerning the dead, nothing but good things should be said?<BR/><BR/>Better? And no, I think that snide comments, especially when they don't pertain to your argument (which is an admirable one) portray you in the wrong light. This makes the reader abrasive to your argument and unlikely to agree.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I realize Ken Lay is dead. I'm sorry I should have written in the past tense, my mistake. This does not retract at all from my argument. So Ken Lay has been judged, however it is not for a human to assume where he has gone. God has decided and you won't know until God decides for you. In judging you sin yourself.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, this is getting out of hand. I merely wanted to point out that the snide side-comments (regardless of whom they concern) are a turnoff for the casual reader. By refraining from them your argument would be stronger, not weaker, and it would have a much larger influence among people outside of the minority that is "Distributivism."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-5218837607510386432007-12-04T19:34:00.000-06:002007-12-04T19:34:00.000-06:00Yes, nothing that descends to hell is good (pardon...<I>Yes, nothing that descends to hell is good (pardon my Latin, or lack thereof)</I><BR/><BR/>Wrong translation. But you keep trying.<BR/><BR/><I>Meaning that anything which remains on earth is in some way connected with God, the Good.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm sorry to have to be the one to break the news to you: Ken Lay died over a year ago.John Médaillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-35998105480806981202007-12-04T18:56:00.000-06:002007-12-04T18:56:00.000-06:00Yes, nothing that descends to hell is good (pardon...Yes, nothing that descends to hell is good (pardon my Latin, or lack thereof), I agree. However, nothing that remains on earth is yet in Hell. Meaning that anything which remains on earth is in some way connected with God, the Good. I have not said that Ken Lay does not deserve to be punished for breaking the law. But he is human and he is being punished by our system. Our system is not perfect, in my opinion it is far from perfect. God, however, is perfect. God will judge. He will do so upon the death of each person, including me and including you. God will judge Ken Lay without your snide little comments. Now, as I said earlier, sticking in snide remarks when they are not applicable to your point does nothing but weaken your argument, especially, as I said, for the casual reader. Taking out-of-the-way shots at people does nothing but turn them away from your purpose. You would be wise in your position to be respectful, yet firm rather than brash and abrasive. Unless, that is, you prefer to remain in the vast minority.<BR/><BR/>That is my point, "and I'm sticking to it"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-21444357588644209562007-12-03T19:17:00.000-06:002007-12-03T19:17:00.000-06:00First, putting in the Ken Lay jabs, in parentheses...<I>First, putting in the Ken Lay jabs, in parentheses no less, discredits your argument...</I><BR/><BR/>De mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est?John Médaillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-6640261687268979422007-12-03T17:44:00.000-06:002007-12-03T17:44:00.000-06:00Also, realize that you are ADVERTISING SOCIAL SECU...Also, realize that you are ADVERTISING SOCIAL SECURITY GRANTS on your blog. Just a little contradictory, don't you think. I wasn't aware that a precept of "distibutivism" was "perpetuate the system."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-86527572470969273102007-12-03T17:40:00.000-06:002007-12-03T17:40:00.000-06:00First, putting in the Ken Lay jabs, in parentheses...First, putting in the Ken Lay jabs, in parentheses no less, discredits your argument for the casual reader. You would be wise to take heed of the casual readers opinion if you think "distributivism" is a worthy argument. If you do not, its already thin chance will quickly disappear. Publicly bashing people, even if they may deserve it (which I am not going to judge), is not acceptable, even though politicians who do it all the time.<BR/><BR/>Second, is it just me or did congress steal the money? Anonymous may want to read, understand, then comment. Top income earners are by no means the reason for our social security mess. Congress and the President are responsible for using the SS, Medicaid, etc. funds, not high wage earners. Don't call people out who don't deserve it, it is a common reaction of the wrong kind of radical. By the way, good luck repaying TRILLIONS of dollars by reinstating the tax levels of 2000.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-209350397360472192007-11-22T22:37:00.000-06:002007-11-22T22:37:00.000-06:00That should be "..NOW they make restitution".That should be "..NOW they make restitution".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-86760582676598471152007-11-22T22:36:00.000-06:002007-11-22T22:36:00.000-06:00You might be willing to work extra years past 65, ...You might be willing to work extra years past 65, but personally, I prefer to reinstate the tax rates of 2000 on the top income earners, then increase it until we fully repay the TRUST funds.<BR/><BR/>Call me what you like, but they stole it, not they make restitution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com