Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Replaced_Texan]

Despite my not really setting foot in a Catholic Church for non-wedding masses in the last 15 or so years, I sorta still consider myself a Catholic. No more. There are efforts in the works to hunt down and excommunicate pro-choice Catholics, and there's apparently support from the Vatican on this.

I'm sorta shocked. I'm not sure that this is a can of worms that the Catholic Church really should open. Attendance is down as it is.

On the other hand, I do like Catholic rituals. What do you wear to your own excommunication?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall

It seems to me that Al Quaeda was going to lay low over here after pulling off 9/11 because they're not stupid. They know we're sensitive to things we weren't sensitive to before. That happens no matter who is in office and no matter how many colors are on the terrify-people-chart.

The fact is, because of the type of attacks they engage in, we are not safer over here. They're just waiting til we get lazy again. But you can't live in a constant, indefinite state of fear, despite Cheney's best efforts. That's why terrorists choose these kinds of attacks. It's very difficult to defend.

After 9/11, for like 6 months, security was tight at my building. Everyone had to be credentialed to gain access. Security was visible and posted all over -- not just at every entrance. Now, I could swipe anyone's access card and go up because security just doesn't pay attention anymore. It's all bullshit anyway. If someone wanted to blow the building up, they wouldn't be trying to get upstairs. They'd plant the bomb in the areas everyone has unlimited access to.

TM

Hi TM. We cannot secure every high-rise, every plant, every church, every port, every terminal and so on. Its simply an impossible task. This should in no way be construed as a threat against anyone, but I was taught long ago that any defensive security measure can be overcome and every targetted individual can be killed. Which is to say, there is a flip side to the security you describe, and its what *some* complain about.

The Federal government has investigated everybody and their brother. They've put creeper programs on the internet. They've set up overly-broad watchlists. They've set up threat detectors for entire cities. They've fingerprinted every single visitor from certain countries. Etc. etc. etc. At the end of the day, our goal here is to have a fairly comphrehensive domestic intelligence system in place. Since the frantic days after 9/11, you'll notice that the government has moved more and more towards preemptive measures in arresting groups of suspected terrorists and individuals. No more, we received information that they were conducting war games in the Virginia woods. More like, she's illegal, she crossed from Mexico, she was carrying a lot of money she couldn't justify, and she's on our middle east watchlist. She's deported.

Which is to say, I think the federal government is taking a lot more action to track networks and individuals before they come through the lobby of your building. Its not foolproof, but neither are defensive (as compared to preemptive) security measures.

Hello

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan


I'm sorta shocked. I'm not sure that this is a can of worms that the Catholic Church really should open. Attendance is down as it is.

On the other hand, I do like Catholic rituals. What do you wear to your own excommunication?

Don't polls, at least in the US, suggest that overall catholics views on abortion generally mirror the entire US? That is, half the catholic church in the US would be excommunicated?

As for clothing, I'd wear a carpenter's belt, with a hammer and nails.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I do like Catholic rituals. What do you wear to your own excommunication?

something made of virgin wool?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The "bush lied" part misses that everyone, the UN, Blix, everyone thought the guy had the weapons. He was bluffing and for a decade everyone bought the bluff.

I guess this is where the disagreement lies. I think that there was evidence out there (like SH himself trying to keep weapons inspectors at bay) that made one think that he was up to something. But there was also no evidence of the weapons actually existing. At best, Bush and Co. strained their reading of the evidence we did have to make it sound like there was no doubt that there were weapons. At worst, his administration out-and-out lied because he wanted to attack somebody and SH was as arab and annoying as anyone he could think of.

But that's not what we needed. We needed someone who could look at the evidence and not act on gut. We needed someone who would keep our collective eye on what was important. We needed someone to be responsible and focused. We got someone who wanted to strike back. That's cool. But don't just strike out for the sake of hitting someone. Use your fucking brains.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what is BS about "Iraq is a distraction" and "we should have waited longer then we'd have 200K troops to throw at the real problem" is that we don't need 200K troops to attack the real problem. the only possible place where even 10000 troops could be used would be maybe in Pakistan or the Philippines, and both governments, while friendly don't want our troops there.

I think if the President had put $87 billion into uncovering terrorist cells all over the world and was successful first in the countries that couldn't wait to step up and show support, that when something like Madrid happened, it would only strengthen everyone's resolve. At a certain point, Pakistan and the Philippines cave because the whole world is putting the pressure on. Now, everyone is trying to distance themselves from us. If Iraq was the only problem, that would be fine. But how the hell are we going to find these people when they are spread all over the world and we piss on the leaders of the countries they're in every chance we get?

TM

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Don't polls, at least in the US, suggest that overall catholics views on abortion generally mirror the entire US? That is, half the catholic church in the US would be excommunicated?

As for clothing, I'd wear a carpenter's belt, with a hammer and nails.

Its obviously a matter of the public and noticeable stance. If someone gets an abortion, the Catholic church would (I guess) say they could be forgiven if and when they atone. And Not_Me says a lot of these women do regret their decision (not all).

Its another matter entirely standing up on national TV and saying "I'm a Catholic, and I think everybody should have a partial birth abortion, in fact I hear they are fun for everybody". Obviously, that's way more than Kerry said, but it would be impossible to make his actual public position more contrary to the Church's.

RT, no offense, but I'm not sure they'll bother to ex-communicate you. They are sending a clear signal to many Catholic Democrats (including numerous priests and nuns --sometimes ex-- I know) that it is impossible for a person to be considered a Catholic and still take a stance that is so entirely opposed to a fundamental position of the Church.

I will accept any corrections Atticus makes to this.

What will y'all call yourselves now? Protestants?

Hello

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
They are sending a clear signal to many Catholic Democrats (including numerous priests and nuns --sometimes ex-- I know) that it is impossible for a person to be considered a Catholic and still take a stance that is so entirely opposed to a fundamental position of the Church.

What is the position of the church--that one must believe no abortions should occur and to work towards that end through all (lawful?) means possible? Seems to me that Kerry has said (or could be saying) -- I don't like abortion, I don't believe in it, but I do believe that each individual must make that decision for herself. Is that inconsistent with the Church's position?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Despite my not really setting foot in a Catholic Church for non-wedding masses in the last 15 or so years, I sorta still consider myself a Catholic. No more. There are efforts in the works to hunt down and excommunicate pro-choice Catholics, and there's apparently support from the Vatican on this.

I'm sorta shocked. I'm not sure that this is a can of worms that the Catholic Church really should open. Attendance is down as it is.

On the other hand, I do like Catholic rituals. What do you wear to your own excommunication?

That evil, hypocritical motherfucker. Is he going after (Catholic) Governor Jeb Bush for signing death warrants in Florida?

(I won't even mention all of the violations of the "social justice" teachings by economic conservatives.)

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what is BS about "Iraq is a distraction" and "we should have waited longer then we'd have 200K troops to throw at the real problem" is that we don't need 200K troops to attack the real problem. the only possible place where even 10000 troops could be used would be maybe in Pakistan or the Philippines, and both governments, while friendly don't want our troops there.

I thought W didn't let the opinions of other countries determine our national security policies.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What is the position of the church--that one must believe no abortions should occur and to work towards that end through all (lawful?) means possible? Seems to me that Kerry has said (or could be saying) -- I don't like abortion, I don't believe in it, but I do believe that each individual must make that decision for herself. Is that inconsistent with the Church's position?

I'm not entirely certain that they oppose abortion in every case (there may be an exception for e.g., a serious threat to a mother), but I think the "I do believe that each individual must make that decision for herself" thing is inconsistent.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I thought W didn't let the opinions of other countries determine our national security policies.

Are you awake?

we can't send troops into a friendly country where the government says no. believe me, if we could, invading French Canada and cleaning up its terror cells would be going on right now.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
The Federal government has investigated everybody and their brother. They've put creeper programs on the internet. They've set up overly-broad watchlists. They've set up threat detectors for entire cities. They've fingerprinted every single visitor from certain countries. Etc. etc. etc. At the end of the day, our goal here is to have a fairly comphrehensive domestic intelligence system in place. Since the frantic days after 9/11, you'll notice that the government has moved more and more towards preemptive measures in arresting groups of suspected terrorists and individuals. No more, we received information that they were conducting war games in the Virginia woods. More like, she's illegal, she crossed from Mexico, she was carrying a lot of money she couldn't justify, and she's on our middle east watchlist. She's deported.

Okay. That's a step. I think we, as a country have agreed somewhat that some of our liberties have to be curtailed to increase safety. Although, I think Ashcroft and Bush have gone a little overboard, I'm not going to go nuts because if they're going to err on this front, it should be on the side of safety.

The problem is, they count on that. They have been using it to get themselves re-elected. Whether it be Cheney using the art of the soundbite to get the message across that if you don't vote for them, you're putting us all in danger, to having the convention in New York and playing up 9/11 as often as possible (and if I see Giuliani one more time sucking Bush's dick, I'm going to lose it). I think it is dishonest and disgusting.

It wouldn't be so bad if what he was doing overseas made sense. Maybe I would be able to give him the benefit of the doubt on domestic safety issues if he wasn't so full of shit about Iraq. But he is full of it when it comes to foreign policy. And then he turns around and wraps himself in the bodies of the people who died on 9/11, while trying his best to keep you scared. Don't question him. Don't criticize him. He knows how people think. Follow, follow, follow. Don't think. Follow.

TM

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
French Canada

Arghhh. There is no such thing as French Canada. The name of the province is Quebec. Many francophones live in other parts of the country. If you mean Quebec, say it. If you say French Canada, you are referring to the entire country.

This lack of precision really pisses me off for reasons I don't fully understand, no offense Hank.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Are you awake?

we can't send troops into a friendly country where the government says no. believe me, if we could, invading French Canada and cleaning up its terror cells would be going on right now.

If they're so friendly, why would we need to send troops in? If they're harboring terrorists, they're "against us." W's failure to act shows that he is incapable of successfully waging a war on terror. He is a flip-flopping equivocator.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
If they're so friendly, why would we need to send troops in? If they're harboring terrorists, they're "against us." W's failure to act shows that he is incapable of successfully waging a war on terror. He is a flip-flopping equivocator.

Your treasonous questioning of the decisions of the President during a time of war and while troops are at risk is shameful. It also has been noted by the authorities.