Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Bob
[Murderers bad, fetuses good] is absolutely the general feeling among the laity. Sadly, it looks like this attitude is starting to gain ground in the Church itself. One of the things that used to impress me about the Church was its consistent position on being "pro-life" -- no abortion, no euthanasia, no death penalty. Now it looks like they are picking and choosing, and choosing to go after those who dissent on the "liberal" side of the life issue.

I totally agree. I think the conservative intelligent Catholic people even kind of agree, but they are happy to see the Church cracking down so are not quibbling with exactly how it's being carried out.

Originally posted by Not Bob Wrong-o, my little cabbage. The Church has evolved and will contiue to evolve. It hasn't burned a witch in years, and seems to have stopped perpetrating the blood libel as well. Dissent within the bounds of individual conscience has always been part of Catholicism.

Hmm. I seem to be unduly agitated by this. Maybe I should either go to Mass more than once a decade or stop this......

I did not intend to upset you, my big cucumber. It just seems like rejecting a huge chunk of the beliefs kind of goes beyond the "dissent within the bounds of individual conscience" and that RT's issue was being very unhappy with the Church for wanting to excommunicate such dissenters. I still think y'all would be reasonably happy being Episcopalians who don't go to church rather than Catholics who don't go to church.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Yes, gorgeous, the Church does have a caveat about death possibly being appropriate if there are no alternatives, but, as a practical matter, it doesn't apply to a situation where the state can put you in a jail. Your intelligent devout conservative Catholic (is that some sort of oxymoron?) friends are correct.



That is absolutely the general feeling among the laity. Sadly, it looks like this attitude is starting to gain ground in the Church itself. One of the things that used to impress me about the Church was its consistent position on being "pro-life" -- no abortion, no euthanasia, no death penalty. Now it looks like they are picking and choosing, and choosing to go after those who dissent on the "liberal" side of the life issue.



Wrong-o, my little cabbage. The Church has evolved and will contiue to evolve. It hasn't burned a witch in years, and seems to have stopped perpetrating the blood libel as well. Dissent within the bounds of individual conscience has always been part of Catholicism.

Hmm. I seem to be unduly agitated by this. Maybe I should either go to Mass more than once a decade or stop this......

How do I sign up to be excomminicated? Just about every revolutionary thinker in history who has done something productive for mankind has been threatened with this sanction. I don't think I'll ever be as smart or useful as Galileo, but I'd like to be on a list with him somewhere.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
But in most countries, you don't limit the funding of retirement benefits to the wage base, effectively adding that cost to the cost of goods. And to the extent expenses like retirements costs are added to the cost of goods through the VAT, there is a refund on export (virtually all VATs are refundable on exported goods). This puts us at a competitive disadvantage.

I think reform based on leveling the competitive playing field could be something both Rs and Ds could agree on, and they could fix a regressive tax while they are at it.

That's an interesting point. I'll have to think about this.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You could just as easily attack Bush for refusing to ask the rich to forego tax cuts while the country is at war.

Hmmmm. Wasn't somebody arguing this around here? It sounds familiar.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Possibly -- just possibly -- they figured that while the Taliban let OBL use their country as a launching pad for heinous attacks against us, Saddam Hussein might not have WMD and wasn't allied with Al Qaeda.

Nah. It's got to be the government contracts. All I can say is, we're lucky that Poland didn't have those deals with Iraq.

Rope-a-Dope answer.

Completely non-reponsive with a snarky riposte. I like this. touche.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The definition employed generally is "bullshit."

Infallible? What the hell kind of organization is the Church? Sounds like some fucking silly fraternity ritual... "And now, we shall read from the infallible text of our founder, Cornelious Bottomely." Nonsense. I mean, I get being spiritual, but this "Institution Worship" is bizarre. How in the hell can any of this bureaucratic, self-perpoetuating corpotrate horseshit have anything to do with getting closer to God.

You want to find God? Stay as far away from a Church as possible. I think Mencken, perhaps Twain said that. Couldn't agree more.

Absurd, fucking absurd. Infallibility... I mean, really... what are we laity, a mass of imbeciles?

Outside of Unitarianism, and perhaps some Western interpretations of Buddhism, every religion, and I'd go farther and say every organization of any sort, has some fundamental beliefs. Infallibile doctrine represents those fundamental beliefs in the Catholic Church.

For the US, infalliability is enshrined in our concepts of freedom and democracy. Yes, how we interpret them will change with every generation, but not our fundamental belief in freedom and democracy.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me

Atty says 50% would leave. Others here say 40% will leave. I'm guessing its going to be about 10-15%, and not the ones who go to Church anyways. Ya know something else? I heard a few other major denominations want back in. Hell, I'll bet some conservative Jews would reconsider their religious beliefs if the Catholic church ends the hypocricy and kicks out the Kennedys and Heinz-Kerrys.

And lets not forget to kick out those people who sodomize young boys also. You know, those men who grab a young kid and fuck him in the ass. Ever heard of it? Really nasty, really fucks up the kid. Kind of thing you don't want to hear about when you're busy making lists of sinners like the Kennedys and patting yourself on the back for perfect mass attendance (are you sure you put enough in the collection plate last week? Father murphy's Jag has a bent tailpipe, and his subscription to Boy's Life is about to tun out). While we're about getting rid of the scum of the earth who merely support allowing someone to have the legal right to do something our republic has determined is an individual's right, lets make sure we also get rid of those pesky misdemeanor offenders who fuck small children. Oh, and lets be sure to slap the "management" who covered up the child-screwing with some sanctions as well. Maybe knock a few stars off their frocks?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I'm still waiting to hear the name of one relevant Ally that wasn't involved, other than perhaps [a big perhaps] Canada.

I can't help it if you're waiting because you asked the wrong question.

Being involved in the war in Iraq does nothing to answer the following question: "What type of help would we have garned if we had avoided Iraq and gone after the actual people who attacked us?"

We don't necessarily need to classify countries as allies in the classic sense (meaning they will back us up by sending troops to war), but we may have been able to exploit cooperation on other levels. That's what I'm interested in. Share some intelligence with me on the people you know are shady in your country -- you know, the ones that may or may not be plotting the next big attack on the US. As it stands, unless you are England or Australia (or Tonga), you've been treated like an annoying fucking child. Why the hell would another country expend time, money and energy to expose cells that aren't necessarily an immediate threat to them for us? This "US lays down the law, you're either an Ally or something to be stepped on in our path to the spread of democracy" ain't gonna cut it. That isn't going to get us any closer to closing in on these cells that pose the real threat.

TM

[bilmore]

INTERESTING INTERVIEW with new Economics Nobelist Edward Prescott:

Prescott, speaking from Minnesota, where he advises the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, described Kerry's plan to roll back tax cuts for top wage-earners as counterproductive.

"The idea that you can increase taxes and stimulate the economy is pretty damn stupid," he said.

Bush's campaign on Monday released a letter signed by Prescott and five other Nobel laureates critical of Kerry's proposal to roll back tax reductions for families earning $200,000 or more.

In The Republic interview, he said such a policy would discourage people from working.

"It's easy to get over $200,000 in income with two wage earners in a household," Prescott said. "We want those highly educated, talented people to work."

Prescott also gave Bush the nod on another controversial campaign issue, dismissing Kerry's claims that outsourcing of jobs is damaging the economy. . . . Prescott also backed the idea, espoused by Bush, to reform Social Security by allowing some workers to place a portion of their payroll taxes into private savings accounts.

http://www.azcentral.com/php-bin/cli...rescott19.html

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
And lets not forget to kick out those people who sodomize young boys also. You know, those men who grab a young kid and fuck him in the ass? Ever heard of it? Really nasty, really fucks up the kid. Kind of thing you don't want to hear about when you're busy making lists of sinners like the Kennedies. While we're about getting rid of the scum of the earth who merely support allowing someone to have the legal right to do something our republic has determined is an individual's right, lets make sure we also get rid of those pesky misdemeanor offenders who fuck small children. Oh, and lets be sure to slap the "management" who covered up the child-screwing with some sanctions as well. Maybe knock a few stars off their frocks?

I'm on board in spirit, but I do think there is such a thing as repetance and forgiveness. But, of course, I wouldn't leave a bunch of unrepentant Cardinals milling about in charge of things, and for many like Cardinal Law, I think the proper penance would be a life of solitude and repentance in a monastery.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

For the US, infalliability is enshrined in our concepts of freedom and democracy. Yes, how we interpret them will change with every generation, but not our fundamental belief in freedom and democracy.

It is as intellectually dishonest when used to further a form of government as it is when use to further a form of belief.

To say that the founding fathers believed that democracy was an infallibly correct form of governance is incorrect. They fought like bastards over what form of a republic we should have.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Instead of impugning his motives, why don't you look at what Kerry actually did. According to factcheck.org, which comes endorsed by Dick Cheney, Kerry "voted for an alternative resolution that would have approved $87 billion in emergency funds for troops and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was conditioned on repealing much of Bush's tax cuts, and it failed 57-42." That was a vote for funding the $87 billion. Your objection is not that he wouldn't vote to fund the troops, but that he wouldn't borrow to do it. You could just as easily attack Bush for refusing to ask the rich to forego tax cuts while the country is at war.

Right, there were two votes. The first didn't pass. The second did, and Kerry voted against it. 30 of the senators that voted for the first bill also voted for the second bill. Kerry did not. So after his bill was defeated, he voted against the only remaining bill that would fund the troops - hence, "I voted for it before I voted against it." That's responsible.

This is a new code of conduct for Presidents that apparently just got pulled out of Karl Rove's ass. So during an election, political candidates are supposed to avoid dissent on the most important issues of the day? If that's what you think, you should be writing in a vote for Putin.

We've talked about this before. It is not the disent, it is the manner in which it is done. Without rehashing the entire debate, there is a way to do it that is presidential, and a way to do it that is not. Kerry has, at times, chosen the latter, although he positioned it much more presidential in the debates.

It would apply to the French if Allawi were their puppet. WTF are you talking about?

I'm talking about the fact that when Bush calls the French on their bullshit you squawk about a lack of diplomacy, but when Kerry calls Allawi on something Kerry thinks is bullshit he is just calling a spade a spade.

Is that not true of many of the countries on the list?

I don't know but that's not the point. A good diplomat never utters words remotely like this.

After you act, you open your mouth and say things that are true and correct, not bullshit. The issue here is that Bush thinks he should be above explaining anything to anyone. William Saletan in Slate (internal links omitted) said it better than I can:

If you can't understand Kerry's explanation of the so-called "global test," it's no wonder that you think he doesn't have a platform.

Heh. They don't issue us the decoder rings that Gatti passes out at your meetings.

You conservatives like to pretend that Democrats were somehow opposed to the war in Afghanistan. Barbara Lee voted against the $$$, but every other Democratic Senator and Representative was in favor. It's a straw man.

And you like to forget that the Democrats were also in favor of the war in Iraq, until Howard Dean started to pull away in the polls. Then it became OK to be against it, even if you were for it.

eft

[bilmore]

I've not read all the posts about the Catholics and excommunication, and someone may have posted this, but the vatican has stated that the "auto-excommunication" memo being bandied about is NOT its position, and represents only the writer of the letter.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/sto...ns/0405749.htm

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I'm on board in spirit, but I do think there is such a thing as repetance and forgiveness. But, of course, I wouldn't leave a bunch of unrepentant Cardinals milling about in charge of things, and for many like Cardinal Law, I think the proper penance would be a life of solitude and repentance in a monastery.

Jail is more like it. If a mother allowed her husband to rape her daughter for years and was complicit in covering it up, she'd be charged. Law should have been charged. You don't "clean house" by slapping people on the wrist. make the fat bastard taste what he was complicit in allowing. I can think of no more correct punishment than having someone teach him what its like to have a hand up his frock.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
I've not read all the posts about the Catholics and excommunication, and someone may have posted this, but the vatican has stated that the "auto-excommunication" memo being bandied about is NOT its position, and represents only the writer of the letter.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/sto...ns/0405749.htm

Got a taste of what you're in bed with yet on the pro-life front? Its a real cavalcade of Mensa members and real pillars of society. Great group. Real open minded folks.