Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Amusing, Paul Ryan, Catholic Social, Ayn Rand, Catholics, Catholic Faith, rich get richer, suede, Health Care, International  
•       •       •

6820 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Apr 2012 at 8:32 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-04-25 11:11:53 PM  

Quasar: Elandriel: Is this the thread where Catholicism is OK now? I can't keep up with which Catholics are evil bastards hell-bent on destroying the world and remaking it in their image, which ones are rape raping, which ones are imposing theocratic rule on America, and which ones are nice kind loving people who actually think with their farking brains and not only with what is written in a two thousand year old book.

You make it sound like I have to choose between disliking Paul Ryan and disliking the Catholic Church.


Well to be fair it is a choice between and organization that wants to fark little boys, and an organization that wants to fark everyone. Either way, someone is going to get it in the end.
 
2012-04-25 11:12:11 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: The Church's official statement on the cause of child-rape in the Church since the 1950s: Gay Al Qaeda and time-traveling hippies.


Isn't Jesus a time-travelling hippie?
 
2012-04-25 11:14:10 PM  

WombatControl: welfare state


I yawned.
 
2012-04-25 11:15:08 PM  

WombatControl: r, but entrap them into a culture of dependency and subservience.


So the poor should then suffer until someone shows up to take care of them? And the problems with the social programs we have is because so many people try to make them fail. Also you might want to look up on the difference between having social programs and being a welfare state. But at the end of the day, if you allow just one person to suffer because of your decisions, you are fully responsible and liable for that person's suffering. It is in every way your fault.
 
2012-04-25 11:15:28 PM  
Oh Snapus Magnus
 
2012-04-25 11:15:54 PM  

WombatControl: And again:


Also read the linked to encyclicals in TFA.
 
2012-04-25 11:17:28 PM  

Guntram Shatterhand: The only thing funnier than Paul Ryan being called on his bullshiat is how far his fortunes have fallen. Over 16 months ago this gollum-like loser was positioning himself to be the Republican nominee. He was all ready and set to give the rebuttal to the State of the Union address and finally make it big time. He was actually cunning enough to realize that maybe the next Republican nominee should start early and get on top of a Republican 'win' (that just happened to shiat itself when coming close to gaining the Senate).

Then three things happened: the Medicare bill was revealed to be a way of getting rid of the program and Ryan took credit for it, Bachmann upstaged him during the 'Teabagger Response' where she looked like she was about to behead a soldier, and then the Republicans figured that Donald Trump would be a better candidate than Paul Ryan. And now that stupid shiathead is begging to be second fiddle to the Romney campaign by doing everything short of sticking his nose up a Book of Mormon.

The fact that Paul Ryan has failed at even trying to attempt to gain power and now has to resort to asking for the VP slot in a doomed campaign tells you everything you need to know about the man. The fact that he looks like his mother still dresses him. The way he shoots off the Republican rhetoric in the most half-assed way. The way he looks like Kirk Cameron pushing another crocoduck and selling it with all the glee of a door-to-door salesman five days away from hanging himself with his unclean socks.

Paul Ryan isn't smart enough to realize Romney is a sinking ship. What the fark does anybody think he has to add to the national discourse if he's this pathetic?


So...what I'm hearing is that you think he's a shoe-in for the VP slot. Cool! ;)
 
2012-04-25 11:18:08 PM  

WombatControl: o argue that it is moral to create a system of permanent welfare entitlement that can never be challenged,


And who is advocating that? Social programs do not a welfare state make. Indeed many encyclicals are very clear that social programs that are accessible to all are not only good but essential.
 
2012-04-25 11:18:29 PM  

StoneColdAtheist: Guntram Shatterhand: The only thing funnier than Paul Ryan being called on his bullshiat is how far his fortunes have fallen. Over 16 months ago this gollum-like loser was positioning himself to be the Republican nominee. He was all ready and set to give the rebuttal to the State of the Union address and finally make it big time. He was actually cunning enough to realize that maybe the next Republican nominee should start early and get on top of a Republican 'win' (that just happened to shiat itself when coming close to gaining the Senate).

Then three things happened: the Medicare bill was revealed to be a way of getting rid of the program and Ryan took credit for it, Bachmann upstaged him during the 'Teabagger Response' where she looked like she was about to behead a soldier, and then the Republicans figured that Donald Trump would be a better candidate than Paul Ryan. And now that stupid shiathead is begging to be second fiddle to the Romney campaign by doing everything short of sticking his nose up a Book of Mormon.

The fact that Paul Ryan has failed at even trying to attempt to gain power and now has to resort to asking for the VP slot in a doomed campaign tells you everything you need to know about the man. The fact that he looks like his mother still dresses him. The way he shoots off the Republican rhetoric in the most half-assed way. The way he looks like Kirk Cameron pushing another crocoduck and selling it with all the glee of a door-to-door salesman five days away from hanging himself with his unclean socks.

Paul Ryan isn't smart enough to realize Romney is a sinking ship. What the fark does anybody think he has to add to the national discourse if he's this pathetic?

So...what I'm hearing is that you think he's a shoe-in for the VP slot. Cool! ;)


You, of course, mean VP nominee, not actually VP.
 
2012-04-25 11:19:01 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Sin_City_Superhero: Father Reese: "Survival of the fittest may be okay for Social Darwinists but not for followers of the gospel of compassion and love."

Well said. Though I still maintain that the budget shouldn't be based on ANY religion. Well, maybe Voodoo.

I'm trying to figure out how you even CREATE a budget based on religion.

"And on the fourth day, we shall allocate education and social services programs!"


The Bible has a Book of Numbers, and the budget is numbers in book form...
 
2012-04-25 11:19:41 PM  

qorkfiend: Gyrfalcon: Sin_City_Superhero: Father Reese: "Survival of the fittest may be okay for Social Darwinists but not for followers of the gospel of compassion and love."

Well said. Though I still maintain that the budget shouldn't be based on ANY religion. Well, maybe Voodoo.

I'm trying to figure out how you even CREATE a budget based on religion.

"And on the fourth day, we shall allocate education and social services programs!"

The Bible has a Book of Numbers, and the budget is numbers in book form...


Whar Book of Job Bill whar?
 
2012-04-25 11:20:30 PM  

Mrtraveler01: The Ayn Rand reading retards thinking Paul Ryan is a true Catholic forgot this part as well:

42. Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?

The answer is obviously complex. If by "capitalism" is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a "business economy", "market economy" or simply "free economy". But if by "capitalism" is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.

Link


OK, now explain what you think that actually means - because it doesn't contradict what Pope John Paul II wrote later on in that same encyclical. Yes, the Catholic Church teaches that capitalism has to be tempered with moral concerns - but that doesn't tell you anything unless you understand the nuances of that position and what it actually means as applied to the circumstances of the moment.

This is the problem for what passes for "logic" around here. The left creates a silly little straw man, beats the living hell out of it, and thinks they've won. The idea that their silly little straw man has nothing to do with the real substance of the other side's arguments never seems to enter into the equation.

Instead of thought, it's just more drive-by snark and calling people "retards." I thought calling someone a "retard" went out of fashion after you graduated the fourth grade. But then again, there are probably a good percentage of fourth graders with better developed reasoning skills than the average commenter here.

(For the record, I'm not a fan of Ayn Rand. And if you actually want to understand how Catholic social teaching fits into capitalism, I strongly suggest reading The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism by Michael Novak, which does an excellent job of laying out the arguments in great detail.)
 
2012-04-25 11:21:42 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: Father Reese: "Survival of the fittest may be okay for Social Darwinists but not for followers of the gospel of compassion and love."

Well said. Though I still maintain that the budget shouldn't be based on ANY religion. Well, maybe Voodoo.


cfcoleman1992.files.wordpress.com
Approves.
 
2012-04-25 11:22:14 PM  

skullkrusher: qorkfiend: Gyrfalcon: Sin_City_Superhero: Father Reese: "Survival of the fittest may be okay for Social Darwinists but not for followers of the gospel of compassion and love."

Well said. Though I still maintain that the budget shouldn't be based on ANY religion. Well, maybe Voodoo.

I'm trying to figure out how you even CREATE a budget based on religion.

"And on the fourth day, we shall allocate education and social services programs!"

The Bible has a Book of Numbers, and the budget is numbers in book form...

Whar Book of Job Bill whar?


That was more than clever. Well done.
 
2012-04-25 11:22:55 PM  

Gov Ryan,

collider.com



what you've just said ... is one of the most insanely immoral things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a charitable thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points.
 
2012-04-25 11:23:04 PM  
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
 
2012-04-25 11:23:18 PM  

WombatControl: but that doesn't tell you anything unless you understand the nuances of that position and what it actually means as applied to the circumstances of the moment.


It tells you that if you raise your own pay without raising the pay of those who work for you or if you cut their benefits, you are doing something that is morally wrong and indefensible.

which does an excellent job of laying out the arguments in great detail.)

Or you could talk to a Catholic priest. Or listen to what the ones in TFA have to say.
 
2012-04-25 11:24:06 PM  

Sabyen91: skullkrusher: qorkfiend: Gyrfalcon: Sin_City_Superhero: Father Reese: "Survival of the fittest may be okay for Social Darwinists but not for followers of the gospel of compassion and love."

Well said. Though I still maintain that the budget shouldn't be based on ANY religion. Well, maybe Voodoo.

I'm trying to figure out how you even CREATE a budget based on religion.

"And on the fourth day, we shall allocate education and social services programs!"

The Bible has a Book of Numbers, and the budget is numbers in book form...

Whar Book of Job Bill whar?

That was more than clever. Well done.


*curtsey*
 
2012-04-25 11:24:08 PM  

andrewagill: Gov Ryan


Nooo! Wrong Ryan!
 
2012-04-25 11:24:51 PM  

WombatControl: OK, now explain what you think that actually means - because it doesn't contradict what Pope John Paul II wrote later on in that same encyclical. Yes, the Catholic Church teaches that capitalism has to be tempered with moral concerns - but that doesn't tell you anything unless you understand the nuances of that position and what it actually means as applied to the circumstances of the moment.


It's telling us that an unregulated free market will end up hurting us in the long run is basically what I got out of the bolded part. Even though this is what "conservatives" are striving for because they believe that it will help us in the long run.

In other words the Catholic Church is smart enough to know that an unregulated market will result in some people taking advantage of it and hurting the population as a whole in the long run. A State is needed to ensure that everyone plays fair.
 
2012-04-25 11:27:03 PM  

andrewagill: andrewagill: Gov Ryan

Nooo! Wrong Ryan!


mimg.ugo.com
RIP Jack Ryan

/wrong meme?
 
2012-04-25 11:28:16 PM  

WhyteRaven74: WombatControl: r, but entrap them into a culture of dependency and subservience.

So the poor should then suffer until someone shows up to take care of them? And the problems with the social programs we have is because so many people try to make them fail. Also you might want to look up on the difference between having social programs and being a welfare state. But at the end of the day, if you allow just one person to suffer because of your decisions, you are fully responsible and liable for that person's suffering. It is in every way your fault.


You know what? Fark you.

We've given the voodoo economics and "trickle down" bullsh*t plenty of time to work. After a third of a century later, things have gotten worse not better. The rich got more money, but the sick bastards decided to hold onto it instead or spend it in ways deliberately designed to be of as little "trickle down" value as possible.

Maybe from all the screaming and wailing you goobs do every time at the slightest hint of caring for people who AREN'T filthy rich, perhaps we SHOULD go full-tilt into a bona-fide and unabashed welfare state. If you guys hate it so god-damned much, perhaps it IS the best way to go.

Don't want everyone on the dole? CREATE SOME FUGGIN' JOBS THEN SO WE WON'T HAVE TO BE ON THE DOLE!!
 
2012-04-25 11:31:05 PM  

skullkrusher: andrewagill: andrewagill: Gov Ryan

Nooo! Wrong Ryan!

[mimg.ugo.com image 288x288]
RIP Jack Ryan

/wrong meme?


What...you gay? :)

www.wearetheborg.com
 
2012-04-25 11:32:21 PM  

WhyteRaven74: WombatControl: r, but entrap them into a culture of dependency and subservience.

So the poor should then suffer until someone shows up to take care of them? And the problems with the social programs we have is because so many people try to make them fail. Also you might want to look up on the difference between having social programs and being a welfare state. But at the end of the day, if you allow just one person to suffer because of your decisions, you are fully responsible and liable for that person's suffering. It is in every way your fault.


The point of Rep. Ryan's budget is that we already have a welfare state, and it isn't working.

Do a modicum of research into the system of social welfare we have in this country. Yes, we have a welfare state. Not just in the level of spending, but in the culture of dependency it creates. We spend over $1 trillion on various welfare programs, and that number increases each and every year. Yet the poverty level has remained relatively consistent. Does that not suggest to you that the amount of spending has very little to do with its actual effect on poverty?

And if you really believe that everyone is personally responsible for the suffering they create, directly or indirectly, than the architects of the welfare system bare a massive amount of blame for creating a system that has failed to fight poverty but has created a near-permanent underclass locked in a brutal and inhuman cycle of poverty and dependence. That is a moral problem that this country faces, and we cannot face it without jettisoning the tired slogans of the past.

Rep. Ryan's budget is a start - but to say that a budget which does not actually cut spending, merely the rate of increase and spends more as a percentage of GDP than under President Clinton is somehow terribly immoral is a deeply irresponsible and illogical argument.
 
2012-04-25 11:33:57 PM  

WombatControl: The point of Rep. Ryan's budget is that we already have a welfare state, and it isn't working.


No, the point of his budget is "fark everybody but the rich".
 
2012-04-25 11:38:11 PM  

WombatControl: And if you really believe that everyone is personally responsible for the suffering they create, directly or indirectly


I don't.

than the architects of the welfare system bare a massive amount of blame for creating a system that has failed to fight poverty but has created a near-permanent underclass locked in a brutal and inhuman cycle of poverty and dependence. That is a moral problem that this country faces, and we cannot face it without jettisoning the tired slogans of the past.


Compared to how impoverished people lived before these programs. I don't think you can make that argument with a straight face. I do admit that there are people taking advantage of these programs but I don't think that we should punish everyone for what a few people are doing.

WombatControl: Rep. Ryan's budget is a start - but to say that a budget which does not actually cut spending, merely the rate of increase and spends more as a percentage of GDP than under President Clinton is somehow terribly immoral is a deeply irresponsible and illogical argument.


It's the combination of this as well as the tax plan he has in place which has a heavy bias towards the rich is what is ridiculous about his plan.

It's also ridiculous that this is a serious plan when Paul Ryan can't even answer questions about the specifics in HIS OWN FARKING PLAN!!!
 
2012-04-25 11:38:33 PM  

Sabyen91: WombatControl: The point of Rep. Ryan's budget is that we already have a welfare state, and it isn't working.

No, the point of his budget is "fark everybody but the rich".


It isn't working because half of our elected officials have a vested interest in making sure it doesn't work.
 
2012-04-25 11:38:46 PM  

Sabyen91: StoneColdAtheist: So...what I'm hearing is that you think he's a shoe-in for the VP slot. Cool! ;)

You, of course, mean VP nominee, not actually VP.


I guess that word "slot" slipped right past you, eh? You know...slot, as in "place on the ticket".

So yeah... :)
 
2012-04-25 11:43:30 PM  

StoneColdAtheist: Sabyen91: StoneColdAtheist: So...what I'm hearing is that you think he's a shoe-in for the VP slot. Cool! ;)

You, of course, mean VP nominee, not actually VP.

I guess that word "slot" slipped right past you, eh? You know...slot, as in "place on the ticket".

So yeah... :)


Palin wasn't ever the VP so slot doesn't apply.
 
2012-04-25 11:45:01 PM  

qorkfiend: Sabyen91: WombatControl: The point of Rep. Ryan's budget is that we already have a welfare state, and it isn't working.

No, the point of his budget is "fark everybody but the rich".

It isn't working because half of our elected officials have a vested interest in making sure it doesn't work.


Yeah, the government ROI is incredible on food stamps but conservatives don't actually use facts when it comes to their pet projects.
 
2012-04-25 11:45:30 PM  

Mrtraveler01: It's telling us that an unregulated free market will end up hurting us in the long run is basically what I got out of the bolded part. Even though this is what "conservatives" are striving for because they believe that it will help us in the long run.

In other words the Catholic Church is smart enough to know that an unregulated market will result in some people taking advantage of it and hurting the population as a whole in the long run. A State is needed to ensure that everyone plays fair.


For one, conservatives do not believe in a totally unregulated market. This is grown-up time, and you don't need to believe in straw men any more. You don't actually believe that conservatives support no regulation - you don't strike me as being that naive. So let's drop the silly little internet forum B.S. and get into the real issues.

Now, your interpretation is not totally off-kilter, but you're making a couple of ingrained assumptions here. You say that "[a] State is needed to ensure that everyone plays fair." OK, now go deeper with that concept. What specifically does that mean?

Does it mean that the state should punish fraud? No one really disagrees with that concept.

Does that mean that the state should determine what is "fair?" Well, that doesn't mean anything by itself. "Fairness" is arbitrary. I don't think it's "fair" that someone who does not work and does not want to work can receive long-term government assistance. Others disagree. Whose side should government take and why?

Should the government regulate industry? Guess what, no one actually disagrees with that. Not me, not Paul Ryan, not Obama, not Bush. The question is to what degree?

If you want to play the silly little game that Paul Ryan's budget gets rid of all regulation and ends all welfare, fine. But that's intellectual masturbation, because that's not even remotely the case and anyone with even the tiniest sliver of an open mind can see through it.

So again, take the part you quoted and the part I quoted and try to fit them together - since they're meant to be read together. Pope John Paul II is indeed saying that anarcho-capitalism and Ayn Rand-style ideas don't work - but he's also criticizing the welfare state.

So what does the Pope mean when he talks about "a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious"? How does that boil down to making people "play fair?"
 
2012-04-25 11:47:51 PM  

Elandriel: Is this the thread where Catholicism is OK now? I can't keep up with which Catholics are evil bastards hell-bent on destroying the world and remaking it in their image, which ones are rape raping, which ones are imposing theocratic rule on America, and which ones are nice kind loving people who actually think with their farking brains and not only with what is written in a two thousand year old book.


This is the thread where the party who most pushes religion, religious morality, and all that rubbish gets called out for hypocrisy.

Don't be purposefully ignorant.
 
2012-04-25 11:50:22 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Don't want everyone on the dole? CREATE SOME FUGGIN' JOBS THEN SO WE WON'T HAVE TO BE ON THE DOLE!!


so... instead of money you want job handouts?
 
2012-04-25 11:51:19 PM  
The budget should be based on The Hobbit. It's a much better read.
 
2012-04-25 11:52:26 PM  

WombatControl: WhyteRaven74: WombatControl: Everyone is expected to help others. Personally

Everyone is expected to have compassion and empathy for all others at all times. And you are expected to help others by those means you personally have. Ergo, if you're a legislator you don't cut off assistance to those in need. Nor do you demonize those in need, or minorities, or women etc etc. Basically what Catholic teachings say is that if you're a CEO and take a bonus for yourself while cutting bonuses for your employees, you fail. If you're a legislator and allow people to go without help, you fail.

And again:

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.
.


So your argument is that the church is opposed to the government competing for the disenfranchised?
Even if I bought into some of the assumptions present, the one I can't buy, as a matter of observation, is that government is any more prone to "bureaucratic ways of thinking" than an organization like the Catholic Church. This whole line of argumentation presented is documentation of that very mindset which is about preserving the institution rather over fulfilling it's mission. This isn't a particular failure of any specific religion, it's a consequence of large organizations become composed of people and the simple fact of how people in large organizations act. Denying this, and hiding behind a cloak of sanctimonious virtue compounds the problem.
 
2012-04-25 11:52:47 PM  
Is the church on that long ass list of enemies of the gop?
 
2012-04-25 11:53:18 PM  

WombatControl: Do a modicum of research into the system of social welfare we have in this country. Yes, we have a welfare state. Not just in the level of spending, but in the culture of dependency it creates.


I would suggest that you are the one who needs to do a little research. I have no doubt your assumed knowledge on the subject rivals your revealed expertise in the cost of building permits. You seem to be under the impression that there is some sort of welfare program that able bodied people can leech off of for an unlimited amount of time. This is not the case. Even the program that is closest to what ignorant people like yourself who don't actually have the slightest farking clue what they are talking about imagine "welfare" to be, TANF, has "temporary" as the first word in its name.
 
2012-04-25 11:53:35 PM  

skullkrusher: TV's Vinnie: Don't want everyone on the dole? CREATE SOME FUGGIN' JOBS THEN SO WE WON'T HAVE TO BE ON THE DOLE!!

so... instead of money you want job handouts?


Please let me work for you!

/More reality than I like.
 
2012-04-25 11:54:40 PM  

WombatControl: If you want to play the silly little game that Paul Ryan's budget gets rid of all regulation and ends all welfare, fine. But that's intellectual masturbation, because that's not even remotely the case and anyone with even the tiniest sliver of an open mind can see through it.


He doesn't want to end it. Just radically reform it. I mean look at Medicare, before he got called out on it, his plan was to ditch the system we have now and replace it with a voucher-system that will become more worthless and less valuable with each passing yea since it's only pegged to the inflation rate whereas health-care costs are being inflated at an even higher rate.

But I digress...

So what does the Pope mean when he talks about "a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious"? How does that boil down to making people "play fair?"

Like I said before, the goal of the State in this case should be to ensure that no one takes advantage of the system and negative impacts everyone else.
 
2012-04-25 11:56:27 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Erix: . He's the one that first noted it.

Darwin explicitly stated that what goes for nature does not go for human institutions. Darwin thought social darwinism was a complete sham.


There's something called the is::ought fallacy. Noting that something is does not imply one thinks it ought to be.
I believe in gravity but this does not mean I want bridges and buildings to fall down.
I believe in entropy but I'm not rooting for the heat death of the universe.
I believe in Murphy's law but I'm not cheering for things to go wrong.
I believe "roughly" in the truth of survival of the fittest, but that doesn't mean I want the strong to kill the weak.
 
2012-04-25 11:57:08 PM  

Mrtraveler01: WombatControl: If you want to play the silly little game that Paul Ryan's budget gets rid of all regulation and ends all welfare, fine. But that's intellectual masturbation, because that's not even remotely the case and anyone with even the tiniest sliver of an open mind can see through it.

He doesn't want to end it. Just radically reform it. I mean look at Medicare, before he got called out on it, his plan was to ditch the system we have now and replace it with a voucher-system that will become more worthless and less valuable with each passing yea since it's only pegged to the inflation rate whereas health-care costs are being inflated at an even higher rate.

But I digress...

So what does the Pope mean when he talks about "a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious"? How does that boil down to making people "play fair?"

Like I said before, the goal of the State in this case should be to ensure that no one takes advantage of the system and negative impacts everyone else.


The most misleading, evil term in the English language is "block grant".
 
2012-04-25 11:58:19 PM  

wademh: WhyteRaven74: Erix: . He's the one that first noted it.

Darwin explicitly stated that what goes for nature does not go for human institutions. Darwin thought social darwinism was a complete sham.

There's something called the is::ought fallacy. Noting that something is does not imply one thinks it ought to be.
I believe in gravity but this does not mean I want bridges and buildings to fall down.
I believe in entropy but I'm not rooting for the heat death of the universe.
I believe in Murphy's law but I'm not cheering for things to go wrong.
I believe "roughly" in the truth of survival of the fittest, but that doesn't mean I want the strong to kill the weak.


I believe Poland is a bit backward but I don't want Hitler to conquer them.

/Godwinned!
 
2012-04-26 12:13:38 AM  

tinderboxer: Quasar: Elandriel: Is this the thread where Catholicism is OK now? I can't keep up with which Catholics are evil bastards hell-bent on destroying the world and remaking it in their image, which ones are rape raping, which ones are imposing theocratic rule on America, and which ones are nice kind loving people who actually think with their farking brains and not only with what is written in a two thousand year old book.

You make it sound like I have to choose between disliking Paul Ryan and disliking the Catholic Church.

Well to be fair it is a choice between and organization that wants to fark little boys, and an organization that wants to fark everyone. Either way, someone is going to get it in the end.


Hey, don't be ignorant.

There are plenty of Catholic operatives who have farked and want to fark little girls.

Oh shiat, there's a whole documentary about just one of them. Oliver O'Grady? It's a pity there's no hell for him to go to.
 
2012-04-26 12:17:07 AM  
isn't Georgetown the same school that the stupid slut, who needed 8 grand a month for birth control, was enrolled?
 
2012-04-26 12:17:28 AM  

lazfx: Is the church on that long ass list of enemies of the gop?


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-04-26 12:18:30 AM  

Johnnyknox: isn't Georgetown the same school that the stupid slut, who needed 8 grand a month for birth control, was enrolled?


Yeah, that prostitute was having ten grand worth of sex a month!
 
2012-04-26 12:19:42 AM  

Johnnyknox: isn't Georgetown the same school that the stupid slut, who needed 8 grand a month for birth control, was enrolled?


The one that had a friend that needed BC for medical reasons? Yes, it is, you stupid, mouth-breathing piece of fecal matter.
 
2012-04-26 12:27:56 AM  
DOUBLE STANDARD!!1! DOUBLE STANDARD!!1!

The Catholic Church gives books to Republican candidates in gentle reproof.

The Catholic Church denies the eucharist and threatens excommunication upon Democratic candidates.

Why does the Catholic Church hate Democrats? Why???

Oh yeah...that pro-choice thingy.

Of course the Ryan budget will probably kill thousands but they'll be poor minority women, mostly.
 
2012-04-26 12:30:02 AM  

Sabyen91: Johnnyknox: isn't Georgetown the same school that the stupid slut, who needed 8 grand a month for birth control, was enrolled?

The one that had a friend that needed BC for medical reasons? Yes, it is, you stupid, mouth-breathing piece of fecal matter.


cmon dude. If you were a piece of fecal matter, you'd probably breath through your mouth too
 
2012-04-26 12:38:47 AM  

WombatControl: The point of Rep. Ryan's budget is that we already have a welfare state, and it isn't working.


How can social programs work when they are badly underfunded, many of the most needy are excluded and we seek to demonize those who receive benefits? And we don't have a welfare state. We barely have anything resembling a social safety net. And no charities aren't the answer, they can't manage even simple problems. Also it goes beyond social programs, like working conditions. How do you defend someone having to work two jobs to keep a roof over the head? How do you defend people working 70 hours a week with no overtime, crap ass health insurance, almost no vacation etc? How do you defend that CEOs in many companies receive benefits that aren't available to other employees? Why should a CEO get 6 weeks of paid vacation when no non-exec at the company gets any paid vacation? Why should a kid working at McDonalds not have top shelf health insurance?
 
Displayed 50 of 319 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report