|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 12 2012 07:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 05:28 Signet wrote:On September 12 2012 04:41 Velr wrote:On September 12 2012 04:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 12 2012 03:55 farvacola wrote:On September 12 2012 03:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 12 2012 03:35 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 12 2012 03:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:
gotta say, i think Catholics might break right this time and help put Romney over the top. would be nice to see my fellow Catholics finally start following the gdamn teachings of the Church (abortion, gay marriage, religious freedom, etc.) Haven't Catholics traditionally been opposed to such things (abortion & gay marriage)? How would this election be any different? Catholics are traditionally opposed to those things, but then they traditionally go out and support the politicians that try to enact those laws. also, for whatever reason, Catholics are more likely to support gay-marriage and abortion than other Christians... God, but i hope that changes soon... No, this is totally wrong. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_legal_abortion+ Show Spoiler +Before the Roe v. Wade decision, the right-to-life movement in the U.S. consisted of lawyers, politicians, and doctors, almost all of whom were Catholic. The only coordinated opposition to abortion during the early 1970s came from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Family Life Bureau, also a Catholic organization. Mobilization of a wide-scale pro-life movement among Catholics began quickly after the Roe v. Wade decision with the creation of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). The NRLC also organized non-Catholics, eventually becoming the largest pro-life organization in the United States. Connie Paige has been quoted as having said that, "[t]he Roman Catholic Church created the right-to-life movement. Without the church, the movement would not exist as such today."[15 + Show Spoiler +Much of the pro-life movement in the United States and around the world finds support in the Roman Catholic Church, Christian right, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Church of England, the Anglican Church in North America, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).[31][32][33][34] However, the pro-life teachings of these denominations vary considerably. The Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church consider abortion to be immoral in all cases, but permit acts[citation needed] which indirectly result in the death of the fetus in the case where the mother's life is threatened. In Pope John Paul II's Letter to Families he simply stated the Roman Catholic Church's view on abortion and euthanasia: "Laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law." i was talking about Catholics, not the Catholic Church. The Church is firmly, 100% against both gay marriage and abortion, I believe to the point of calling both: "intrinistic evil", as in, something that is always wrong, no matter what circumstances. however, many Catholic men and women (especially women) do not follow the Church's teachings about those issues, far more than other Christian groups. so yeah, the Church is against it, but I wasn't talking about the Church, i was talking about the congregation. On September 12 2012 03:57 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 12 2012 03:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 12 2012 03:35 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 12 2012 03:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:
gotta say, i think Catholics might break right this time and help put Romney over the top. would be nice to see my fellow Catholics finally start following the gdamn teachings of the Church (abortion, gay marriage, religious freedom, etc.) Haven't Catholics traditionally been opposed to such things (abortion & gay marriage)? How would this election be any different? Catholics are traditionally opposed to those things, but then they traditionally go out and support the politicians that try to enact those laws. also, for whatever reason, Catholics are more likely to support gay-marriage and abortion than other Christians... God, but i hope that changes soon... There are two types of cathlics, a fairly liberal fairly tolerant left wing, and a more conserative wing. Biden and ryan are both catholics, just from the opposite wings of the church. yeah, and only one type actually follows the teachings of the Church, but i guess that's kind of irrelevant for here... just a gripe i've had with my fellow Catholics for a long time now. tbh, i kinda wish the Church would start excommunicating people like Biden and Pelosi, but they never will, and i suppose its for the best that they don't they would take massive losses in europe, actually they asllready are because they are so backwards. Probably also because, historically, the religious position on abortion hasn't been so one-sided. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/In the US, Catholics may also be more wary about breaching the separation of church and state, since it wasn't that long ago that Catholicism itself was frowned upon by the Protestant majority in this country. (this would probably apply more to gay marriage than to abortion, since the latter is seen as an issue of life-or-death, while the former is about who gets what legal rights) that is a slightly disingenuous article. i can see why they wouldn't excommunicate people, and i half approve of their (and your) reasoning, but at the same time... it's kinda weird not to.
I would love it if churches began to excommunicate everyone that didn't bend over backwards for their teachings. It would be exactly the kind of spark needed for people to see how nutsy the Christian-right are.
You guys are better off keeping everyone, no matter how blasphemous they may seem to you. =)
|
I'm kinda surprised by Obama's handling of the Israel-Iran situation. He has let the situation devolve to a point where there it is obvious to everyone that there is a rather large rift between the US and Israel.
|
|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Hopefully Romney follows this advice.
What he may need is a "Secretary of Explaining Stuff."
MIAMI – Professor Bill Clinton’s explaining stuff tour began here with a sober dissertation on the 2012 election. ... The former president – whom Obama spent last weekend telling crowds should be tapped as the “secretary of explaining stuff” – made several pitches to the students in the crowd of 2,300 at Florida International University's basketball arena to get themselves registered to vote and make sure they do in November. He deployed armloads of statistics about how many Floridians benefit from Obama's health care law, higher education program and 2009 stimulus package. http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/09/bill-clintons-explanation-tour-begins-135234.html?hp=f3
|
On September 12 2012 05:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 05:36 Adreme wrote:On September 12 2012 04:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i kinda wish the Church would start excommunicating people like Biden and Pelosi, but they never will, and i suppose its for the best that they don't It probably is for the best because I dont think there is a single politition in the US who actually follows the exact teachings of church from there opinion on death penalty and abortion to there opinions on wars and helping the poor and a myriad of other things that are rarely obeyed by your typical catholic. I wouldn't be surprised if the Church started excommunicating people. I don't know if anyone here is familiar with how Catholicism is trending in the United States, but they are on a super-conservative track at a diocesan level.
I for one would be pretty freaking surprised if they tried to revive the battle with temporal authority. I wouldn't be surprised if some Conclavist antipope has already been excommunicating politicians for a while though.
|
I feel Romney is in a lose/lose situation as far as details go. If he said he wants to reform social security for example, even though it's absolutely needed he will get killed by the irrational elderly vote. As soon as your start giving out details you open yourself up to all sorts of criticism and nitpicking and fear mongering. Of course he loses as well by keeping quiet, but loses much less.
Talking about a "secretary of explaining stuff" implies that the American people actually want to or are capable of understanding complicated issues, which I feel is a false assumption. The article seems to mention "armloads of statistics" about how Obama's policies help people, so sounds more like "secretary of spin" to me.
|
|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 12 2012 08:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I feel Romney is in a lose/lose situation as far as details go. If he said he wants to reform social security for example, even though it's absolutely needed he will get killed by the irrational elderly vote. As soon as your start giving out details you open yourself up to all sorts of criticism and nitpicking and fear mongering. Of course he loses as well by keeping quiet, but loses much less.
Talking about a "secretary of explaining stuff" implies that the American people actually want to or are capable of understanding complicated issues, which I feel is a false assumption. The article seems to mention "armloads of statistics" about how Obama's policies help people, so sounds more like "secretary of spin" to me.
If Romney does not explain his ideas now, he may have to when the debate comes up. He would have much better control of his message and a lot more time to get it across now than if he were to do it at the debate. Now, if he decides to continue to keep quiet during the debate, Obama is going to just pummel him for it. Of course, he can always try to keep it just about Obama during the debate, but I doubt Obama is just going to swallow it without firing back.
And on the topic of Clinton, spin with statistics makes for some pretty good spin.  Besides, the people attending his lectures ARE those who want to understand and are most likely capable of understanding complicated issues.
Yeah, that little huge bite from Clinton still stings. =/
|
Yes sir, he absolutely demolished it in Charlotte. He is a great man.
|
I dunno during office when you look at what he did it is hard to argue he wasn't a good president during his period in office.
|
On September 12 2012 09:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:I dunno during office when you look at what he did it is hard to argue he wasn't a good president during his period in office.
Just because the mess he helped create didn't take hold until he was out of office doesn't mean it's okay. If not for the 22nd amendment he'd probably have been re-elected and would've been around when the shit hit the fan (then again he probably also would have prevented 9/11 so there's that).
|
On September 12 2012 07:36 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 07:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 12 2012 05:28 Signet wrote:On September 12 2012 04:41 Velr wrote:On September 12 2012 04:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 12 2012 03:55 farvacola wrote:On September 12 2012 03:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 12 2012 03:35 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 12 2012 03:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:
gotta say, i think Catholics might break right this time and help put Romney over the top. would be nice to see my fellow Catholics finally start following the gdamn teachings of the Church (abortion, gay marriage, religious freedom, etc.) Haven't Catholics traditionally been opposed to such things (abortion & gay marriage)? How would this election be any different? Catholics are traditionally opposed to those things, but then they traditionally go out and support the politicians that try to enact those laws. also, for whatever reason, Catholics are more likely to support gay-marriage and abortion than other Christians... God, but i hope that changes soon... No, this is totally wrong. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_legal_abortion+ Show Spoiler +Before the Roe v. Wade decision, the right-to-life movement in the U.S. consisted of lawyers, politicians, and doctors, almost all of whom were Catholic. The only coordinated opposition to abortion during the early 1970s came from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Family Life Bureau, also a Catholic organization. Mobilization of a wide-scale pro-life movement among Catholics began quickly after the Roe v. Wade decision with the creation of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). The NRLC also organized non-Catholics, eventually becoming the largest pro-life organization in the United States. Connie Paige has been quoted as having said that, "[t]he Roman Catholic Church created the right-to-life movement. Without the church, the movement would not exist as such today."[15 + Show Spoiler +Much of the pro-life movement in the United States and around the world finds support in the Roman Catholic Church, Christian right, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Church of England, the Anglican Church in North America, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).[31][32][33][34] However, the pro-life teachings of these denominations vary considerably. The Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church consider abortion to be immoral in all cases, but permit acts[citation needed] which indirectly result in the death of the fetus in the case where the mother's life is threatened. In Pope John Paul II's Letter to Families he simply stated the Roman Catholic Church's view on abortion and euthanasia: "Laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law." i was talking about Catholics, not the Catholic Church. The Church is firmly, 100% against both gay marriage and abortion, I believe to the point of calling both: "intrinistic evil", as in, something that is always wrong, no matter what circumstances. however, many Catholic men and women (especially women) do not follow the Church's teachings about those issues, far more than other Christian groups. so yeah, the Church is against it, but I wasn't talking about the Church, i was talking about the congregation. On September 12 2012 03:57 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 12 2012 03:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 12 2012 03:35 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 12 2012 03:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:
gotta say, i think Catholics might break right this time and help put Romney over the top. would be nice to see my fellow Catholics finally start following the gdamn teachings of the Church (abortion, gay marriage, religious freedom, etc.) Haven't Catholics traditionally been opposed to such things (abortion & gay marriage)? How would this election be any different? Catholics are traditionally opposed to those things, but then they traditionally go out and support the politicians that try to enact those laws. also, for whatever reason, Catholics are more likely to support gay-marriage and abortion than other Christians... God, but i hope that changes soon... There are two types of cathlics, a fairly liberal fairly tolerant left wing, and a more conserative wing. Biden and ryan are both catholics, just from the opposite wings of the church. yeah, and only one type actually follows the teachings of the Church, but i guess that's kind of irrelevant for here... just a gripe i've had with my fellow Catholics for a long time now. tbh, i kinda wish the Church would start excommunicating people like Biden and Pelosi, but they never will, and i suppose its for the best that they don't they would take massive losses in europe, actually they asllready are because they are so backwards. Probably also because, historically, the religious position on abortion hasn't been so one-sided. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/In the US, Catholics may also be more wary about breaching the separation of church and state, since it wasn't that long ago that Catholicism itself was frowned upon by the Protestant majority in this country. (this would probably apply more to gay marriage than to abortion, since the latter is seen as an issue of life-or-death, while the former is about who gets what legal rights) that is a slightly disingenuous article. i can see why they wouldn't excommunicate people, and i half approve of their (and your) reasoning, but at the same time... it's kinda weird not to. I would love it if churches began to excommunicate everyone that didn't bend over backwards for their teachings. It would be exactly the kind of spark needed for people to see how nutsy the Christian-right are. You guys are better off keeping everyone, no matter how blasphemous they may seem to you. =)
eh, a big chunk of the Christian right is made up of evangelicals, who are Protestant, not Catholic. excommunication is generally not practiced by Protestants, although I think technically it's up to the individual church.
|
On September 12 2012 09:08 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 09:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:I dunno during office when you look at what he did it is hard to argue he wasn't a good president during his period in office. Just because the mess he helped create didn't take hold until he was out of office doesn't mean it's okay. If not for the 22nd amendment he'd probably have been re-elected and would've been around when the shit hit the fan (then again he probably also would have prevented 9/11 so there's that).
The guy who passed up multiple opportunities to kill bin Laden would have prevented 9/11? Not only is this a hilariously stupid statement, but do you realize what today is?
|
On September 12 2012 08:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I feel Romney is in a lose/lose situation as far as details go. If he said he wants to reform social security for example, even though it's absolutely needed he will get killed by the irrational elderly vote. As soon as your start giving out details you open yourself up to all sorts of criticism and nitpicking and fear mongering. Of course he loses as well by keeping quiet, but loses much less.
Talking about a "secretary of explaining stuff" implies that the American people actually want to or are capable of understanding complicated issues, which I feel is a false assumption. The article seems to mention "armloads of statistics" about how Obama's policies help people, so sounds more like "secretary of spin" to me.
This is a funny post. You say it's bad for Romney's chances at election if he actually is specific about his policies. If they were good policies, one would think it would benefit him to explain them, no?
|
Does anyone have a good source on Obama's economic plans for the next four years? His website is mostly about what he did during his first term.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 12 2012 09:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Does anyone have a good source on Obama's economic plans for the next four years? His website is mostly about what he did during his first term.
Sec, let me ask Bill Clinton. 
Honestly, I hate how Obama needs to rely on Clinton to do his dirty work. He needs to be out on the front lines addressing all of his plans and the details.
|
On September 12 2012 09:20 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 08:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I feel Romney is in a lose/lose situation as far as details go. If he said he wants to reform social security for example, even though it's absolutely needed he will get killed by the irrational elderly vote. As soon as your start giving out details you open yourself up to all sorts of criticism and nitpicking and fear mongering. Of course he loses as well by keeping quiet, but loses much less.
Talking about a "secretary of explaining stuff" implies that the American people actually want to or are capable of understanding complicated issues, which I feel is a false assumption. The article seems to mention "armloads of statistics" about how Obama's policies help people, so sounds more like "secretary of spin" to me. This is a funny post. You say it's bad for Romney's chances at election if he actually is specific about his policies. If they were good policies, one would think it would benefit him to explain them, no?
Not really. People are often opposed to "good" reforms if it affects them in a negative way.
Ex: We need to raise taxes on everyone to pay down the debt. But no one wants THEIR taxes raised.
|
On September 12 2012 09:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 09:08 HunterX11 wrote:On September 12 2012 09:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:I dunno during office when you look at what he did it is hard to argue he wasn't a good president during his period in office. Just because the mess he helped create didn't take hold until he was out of office doesn't mean it's okay. If not for the 22nd amendment he'd probably have been re-elected and would've been around when the shit hit the fan (then again he probably also would have prevented 9/11 so there's that). The guy who passed up multiple opportunities to kill bin Laden would have prevented 9/11? Not only is this a hilariously stupid statement, but do you realize what today is?
I'm clearly not sure 9/11 would not have happened under a Clinton third term, but to pass off Clinton as a guy who did not do much against terrorism and gave Bin Laden a free pass is ridiculously ignorant.
|
On September 12 2012 09:29 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 09:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Does anyone have a good source on Obama's economic plans for the next four years? His website is mostly about what he did during his first term. Sec, let me ask Bill Clinton. Honestly, I hate how Obama needs to rely on Clinton to do his dirty work. He needs to be out on the front lines addressing all of his plans and the details.
To be fair, that was just the DNC, which is mostly an infographic for the dems--just like the RNC was a huge infographic for the republicans. Also Bill Clinton is just too boss of a speaker, that really was quite a good speech I thought.
I feel like Obama will probably win the reelection, but the House may go to the republicans. I think it was David Stockman who said that both Obama's and Ryan's plans are "utter fantasies" or something along those lines, and he actually advocated letting the Bush tax cuts expire so that we could pay off debts and balance the budget, at the cost of going into a big recession :X though fwiw many conservatives say that he has sort of gone off his rocker and become more liberalized lol.
I personally don't have a particularly solid position or well-pondered ideas but I do like to soak up some of the ideas around me and listen to what others have said ><
|
On September 12 2012 09:34 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 09:16 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2012 09:08 HunterX11 wrote:On September 12 2012 09:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:I dunno during office when you look at what he did it is hard to argue he wasn't a good president during his period in office. Just because the mess he helped create didn't take hold until he was out of office doesn't mean it's okay. If not for the 22nd amendment he'd probably have been re-elected and would've been around when the shit hit the fan (then again he probably also would have prevented 9/11 so there's that). The guy who passed up multiple opportunities to kill bin Laden would have prevented 9/11? Not only is this a hilariously stupid statement, but do you realize what today is? I'm clearly not sure 9/11 would not have happened under a Clinton third term, but to pass off Clinton as a guy who did not do much against terrorism and gave Bin Laden a free pass is ridiculously ignorant.
It's also worth throwing out there that, no matter how much you hated Bin Laden, we really ought to want our presidents to pass on opportunities to take lives. I'm REALLY not comfortable with a president ordering assassinations. If it absolutely must be done, so be it. But we shouldn't be slamming Clinton for showing some restraint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
