If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   Paul Ryan: My budget is based on Catholic values. Bishops: No, it's based on Ayn Rand - now go read this Catholic Social Doctrine and try again   (dailykos.com) divider line 319
    More: Amusing, Paul Ryan, Catholic Social, Ayn Rand, Catholics, Catholic Faith, rich get richer, suede, Health Care, International  
•       •       •

6815 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Apr 2012 at 8:32 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



319 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-26 12:57:19 PM

Bontesla: Smackledorfer: Bontesla:
The point is: to what degree should political figures be seeking counsel from religious organizations in order to create a federal budget? Is this really a practice we want to encourage?

How about you draw the line, so we can point out how arbitrary a spot you end up placing that line, instead of you trying to get people to set themselves up?

I mean, I'm an atheist and think all religious is pretty stupid, but its pretty silly to play thought police with elected officials. Is THAT really a practice you want to encourage?

Who said anything about thought police? No need when representatives self-identify their policies as adhereing to a religious principle or belief.

I'm not advocating for another Red Scare (swap religion for communism).


So, to what degree should political figures be seeking counsel from religious organizations in order to create a federal budget? Surely you can answer your own question. If you can't, then realize how silly a line of thinking it is.

I mean look, I'm an atheist. I'd prefer there be zero influence between religious texts and my leadership, because "god said so" is meaningless to me. But in a nation of religious people, to expect zero religious influence on our legislators (who are elected by proudly waving a bible, mind you, because that is what the people want- and even the democrats have to be christian to get elected) is silly. Beyond that, we already have, in place, separations of church and state as you yourself have already mentioned. What more do we need than that?
 
2012-04-26 01:07:11 PM

skullkrusher: thamike: skullkrusher: because you have a hard on for nonsense?

Who doesn't have a hard-on for nonsense?

Nonsense is code for barely legal Japanese cosplay chicks?


Everything Japanese is legal.
 
2012-04-26 01:08:43 PM

thamike: skullkrusher: thamike: skullkrusher: because you have a hard on for nonsense?

Who doesn't have a hard-on for nonsense?

Nonsense is code for barely legal Japanese cosplay chicks?

Everything Japanese is legal.


except for pubic hair or single row log flumes.
 
2012-04-26 01:41:57 PM

CaspianXth: Take a look at who gives more to charity, and then let's talk about taking care of the poor.


Yeah, we keep hearing that ridiculous "Republicans give more to charity" meme, but I think anyone sane and/or over the age of twelve understands that sending your money to a televangelist or tithing to the Catholics/Mormons so that they can spread hate against blacks, women and gays hardly counts as "charity."

Liberals try and create a social structure under which there are no poor, because everyone benefits from being a citizen of the richest nation on Earth. Republicans send money to Jim and Tammy Fae Baker so that they can blow it on whores and eyeliner while assuring their congregation of idiots of how "Christian" they are.
 
2012-04-26 01:43:23 PM
The link to the Vatican's Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church makes for lengthy but interesting reading.

I wonder how well attitudes of American Catholics line up with the nominal doctrine.
 
2012-04-26 01:49:29 PM

Smackledorfer: Bontesla: Smackledorfer: Bontesla:
The point is: to what degree should political figures be seeking counsel from religious organizations in order to create a federal budget? Is this really a practice we want to encourage?

How about you draw the line, so we can point out how arbitrary a spot you end up placing that line, instead of you trying to get people to set themselves up?

I mean, I'm an atheist and think all religious is pretty stupid, but its pretty silly to play thought police with elected officials. Is THAT really a practice you want to encourage?

Who said anything about thought police? No need when representatives self-identify their policies as adhereing to a religious principle or belief.

I'm not advocating for another Red Scare (swap religion for communism).

So, to what degree should political figures be seeking counsel from religious organizations in order to create a federal budget? Surely you can answer your own question. If you can't, then realize how silly a line of thinking it is.

I mean look, I'm an atheist. I'd prefer there be zero influence between religious texts and my leadership, because "god said so" is meaningless to me. But in a nation of religious people, to expect zero religious influence on our legislators (who are elected by proudly waving a bible, mind you, because that is what the people want- and even the democrats have to be christian to get elected) is silly. Beyond that, we already have, in place, separations of church and state as you yourself have already mentioned. What more do we need than that?


Again, you're trying to make an argument something I have't asserted. I never said the goal should be zero.

The Supreme Court has already set standards to prevent legislative entanglement. To ponder the degree society feels about religious adherence to legislative intent is well within our right as citizens that will be policed under that legislation.

We have been doing that already to some extent. This thread, for example, explores the level of comfort we have with Ryan's entanglement. JFK also vowed to keep his religion out of his politics in an attempt to reassure voters. Santorum's rants led to discussions about religious guidance and legislative goals.

Don't be silly by pretending this is too speculative to work and too vague to be informative.
 
2012-04-26 01:50:38 PM

abb3w: The link to the Vatican's Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church makes for lengthy but interesting reading.


Wow. I wonder how Republicans manage to reconcile their deification of Greed with the portion of that document labeled "Wealth exists to be shared".

It's interesting to me that when faced with a choice between altering their politics to adhere with their so-called "Christian values" and altering their religions beliefs to conform with their political agenda, Republicans go with Politics over Christ every time.
 
2012-04-26 01:51:27 PM

abb3w: The link to the Vatican's Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church makes for lengthy but interesting reading.

I wonder how well attitudes of American Catholics line up with the nominal doctrine.


Makes you think "Conservative Catholic" is an oxymoron.
 
2012-04-26 02:23:22 PM

Bontesla: Again, you're trying to make an argument something I have't asserted. I never said the goal should be zero.


I asked you the same question that you yourself posed. You have failed to answer it twice now. If someone is deliberately being unclear here, its you.

Bontesla: The Supreme Court has already set standards to prevent legislative entanglement. To ponder the degree society feels about religious adherence to legislative intent is well within our right as citizens that will be policed under that legislation


Absolutely.

Bontesla: Don't be silly by pretending this is too speculative to work and too vague to be informative.


A good rule of thumb, and I have to apply it to myself from time to time, is that when you are posting and find yourself repeatedly, and by multiple posters, misunderstood, it might well be your fault for being precisely too vague to be providing real information about your views. Combine that with the fact that you are unwilling to answer the questions you yourself ask, and that I have answered that question, and I really don't think you can pin the miscommunication on me here.


To what degree should political figures be seeking counsel from religious organizations in order to create a federal budget? If you will not answer that question, how can claim you aren't being vague with regards to the line of discussion here? If you don't want to discuss something, that's perfectly fine.
 
2012-04-26 02:42:19 PM

Smackledorfer: Combine that with the fact that you are unwilling to answer the questions you yourself ask


I must say, this must be one of the most confounding rhetorical arguments I've seen today.
 
2012-04-26 02:47:12 PM

CaspianXth: Take a look at who gives more to charity, and then let's talk about taking care of the poor.

Jesus never said to route the care of the poor through the government. He said give to Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God's. I'll give to God and take care of the poor without passing it through the bureaucratic laundry machine, thanks.


Do you know what Caesar did with his tax monies? Ever heard of the grain dole?

Jesus also never said anything about the uses that the government made of those tax monies.
 
2012-04-26 03:12:17 PM

Smackledorfer: Bontesla: Again, you're trying to make an argument something I have't asserted. I never said the goal should be zero.

I asked you the same question that you yourself posed. You have failed to answer it twice now. If someone is deliberately being unclear here, its you.

Bontesla: The Supreme Court has already set standards to prevent legislative entanglement. To ponder the degree society feels about religious adherence to legislative intent is well within our right as citizens that will be policed under that legislation

Absolutely.

Bontesla: Don't be silly by pretending this is too speculative to work and too vague to be informative.

A good rule of thumb, and I have to apply it to myself from time to time, is that when you are posting and find yourself repeatedly, and by multiple posters, misunderstood, it might well be your fault for being precisely too vague to be providing real information about your views. Combine that with the fact that you are unwilling to answer the questions you yourself ask, and that I have answered that question, and I really don't think you can pin the miscommunication on me here.


To what degree should political figures be seeking counsel from religious organizations in order to create a federal budget? If you will not answer that question, how can claim you aren't being vague with regards to the line of discussion here? If you don't want to discuss something, that's perfectly fine.


This isn't a communication error. This is me disregarding what I understood to be attempt to lose the entire forest for a particular tree. I have no desire to reframe the discussion so that it's easier for you. I have said plenty of disagreeable things. Instead of trying to encourage a new and narrower discussion perhaps you should try first addressing your reservation behind the principle.

I understand that you've hard a difficult time carrying on the discussion. Perhaps if you stopped trying to anticipate my argument it would help. I've given you plenty to refute and disagree with. That would be a good place to start.
 
2012-04-26 03:13:19 PM

thamike: Smackledorfer: Combine that with the fact that you are unwilling to answer the questions you yourself ask

I must say, this must be one of the most confounding rhetorical arguments I've seen today.


Ha!
 
2012-04-26 03:21:37 PM

coco ebert: This is the side of the Catholic Church that I admire. Awesome slapdown.


Hell to the farking yes. I grew up thinking this was the Church, and I've really missed it.
 
2012-04-26 03:47:25 PM

Bontesla: Smackledorfer: Bontesla: Again, you're trying to make an argument something I have't asserted. I never said the goal should be zero.

I asked you the same question that you yourself posed. You have failed to answer it twice now. If someone is deliberately being unclear here, its you.

Bontesla: The Supreme Court has already set standards to prevent legislative entanglement. To ponder the degree society feels about religious adherence to legislative intent is well within our right as citizens that will be policed under that legislation

Absolutely.

Bontesla: Don't be silly by pretending this is too speculative to work and too vague to be informative.

A good rule of thumb, and I have to apply it to myself from time to time, is that when you are posting and find yourself repeatedly, and by multiple posters, misunderstood, it might well be your fault for being precisely too vague to be providing real information about your views. Combine that with the fact that you are unwilling to answer the questions you yourself ask, and that I have answered that question, and I really don't think you can pin the miscommunication on me here.


To what degree should political figures be seeking counsel from religious organizations in order to create a federal budget? If you will not answer that question, how can claim you aren't being vague with regards to the line of discussion here? If you don't want to discuss something, that's perfectly fine.

This isn't a communication error. This is me disregarding what I understood to be attempt to lose the entire forest for a particular tree. I have no desire to reframe the discussion so that it's easier for you. I have said plenty of disagreeable things. Instead of trying to encourage a new and narrower discussion perhaps you should try first addressing your reservation behind the principle.

I understand that you've hard a difficult time carrying on the discussion. Perhaps if you stopped trying to anticipate my argument it would help. I've given you plenty to refute and disagree with. That would be a good place to start.


To be completely honest, I'm totally half-assing this from my phone in an attempt to avoid working. So there may even be some questions that I legitimately didn't see. I apologize for that. I'm fairly notoriously bad at using my Sidekick effectively.
 
2012-04-26 04:58:46 PM

Bontesla: To be completely honest, I'm totally half-assing this from my phone in an attempt to avoid working.


Favorited!
 
2012-04-26 07:18:57 PM

skullkrusher: Mavent: jso2897: Objectivism is autism expressed as a personal philosophy.
Libertarianism is autism expressed as a political philosophy.

Reason #5,423 why you're one of two people I have Favorited.

because you have a hard on for nonsense?


Ron Paul?
 
2012-04-27 02:50:05 AM

skullkrusher: Nonsense is code for barely legal Japanese cosplay chicks?


me likey
 
2012-04-28 05:01:39 AM
I read Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged when I was around 18, and found both books rather childish and boorish back in the 1980's. WTF is wrong with you, Ryan. If you are a Catholic with a good Catholic upbringing, and education, you would recognize her work for the nonsense it is. Apparently, your parents are either complete failures, or you consider this your rebellious stage.
 
Displayed 19 of 319 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report