• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT3| 1,000 Years of Darkness and Nuclear Fallout

Status
Not open for further replies.

besada

Banned
I find it bizarre that anyone thinks the Republicans are following the teachings of Christ. He was pretty clear what our responsibility to the poor was. Not one of us, but all of us.

We are to feed them, give them drink when they are thirsty, clothe them when they are poor, and visit them when they are in prison.

And he makes it pretty clear what the consequences of ignoring that mandate are:
Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels
 
I find it bizarre that anyone thinks the Republicans are following the teachings of Christ. He was pretty clear what our responsibility to the poor was. Not one of us, but all of us.

We are to feed them, give them drink when they are thirsty, clothe them when they are poor, and visit them when they are in prison.

And he makes it pretty clear what the consequences of ignoring that mandate are:

This is where conservatives and liberals often diverge. Look at Samarecarm's post. The government is some other taking money from our paychecks instead of a social construct that is the product of everybody working together through and instrument called the government, its not 'the government' its us.
 

Gotchaye

Member
But also, of course Jesus was pro-theocracy. That's the whole idea, right? We should all be hoping that the Kingdom of Heaven is near, etc. And that government will see to it that the meek inherit the earth, and so on.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
But also, of course Jesus was pro-theocracy. That's the whole idea, right? We should all be hoping that the Kingdom of Heaven is near, etc. And that government will see to it that the meek inherit the earth, and so on.

I don't have time to respond to your larger post right now (though I agree with much of it) or some of the other posts that have popped up, but I meant that Christians don't have to believe that human government must be theocratic. Otherwise I agree with your point.
 
Ananias and Sapphira were killed for lying, not for withholding property. Though the early Christians "shared everything they had" and did not claim "that any of their possessions was their own," (Acts 4:32), they did not do so through force, but voluntarily.

Are you suggesting that broader society is imposed on people through force rather than undertaken voluntarily? In other words, you think you are involuntary forced to accept the immense benefits that society affords you? If so, I welcome you to a deserted isle. But leave your cell phone behind when you do, because that's a product of society.

I find people who decry being forced to enjoy the immense benefits that society brings to be extremely tiresome. You are free to leave.

I don't think Jesus had a whole lot to say about politics or economics. I agree that His teachings don't necessarily apply to government--He never specified either way--but to say He taught capitalism is anachronistic. His focus was on spiritual matters. And the kind of capitalism that treats greed as a virtue seems particularly ill-suited to Christ's teachings. "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal," He taught. "But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" (Matt. 6:19-21).

Jesus had a ton to say about politics and economics. He directly challenged the political order of his day. And he absolutely adopted and propagated a communistic outlook that insisted upon relinquishing wealth and joining the poor. Deniers or equivocators of this need to be honest with themselves. It's a classic example of rationalization to resolve cognitive dissonance.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
When it comes to the gays, sluts and contraception, Jesus expected, nay, demanded intense government intervention and enforcement. But when it comes to taxing the wealthy, that was merely a suggestion or a guideline, if you will.

Did I get that right?
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
I don't have time to respond to your larger post right now (though I agree with much of it) or some of the other posts that have popped up, but I meant that Christians don't have to believe that human government must be theocratic.

Wait, what? If you don't have human government, then you have non-human government. What's that supposed to look like?
 

Aylinato

Member
When it comes to the gays, sluts and contraception, Jesus expected, nay, demanded intense government intervention and enforcement. But when it comes to taxing the wealthy, that was merely a suggestion or a guideline, if you will.

Did I get that right?


You forgot the part where Jesus said "and let it be known that God and I have talked. He says unto me that the United States of America shall bring about peace through the sword, and that Americans will be thy righteous servants of God's will. Bringing the sword to the throats of thine enemies and spilling their blood with drones from the air like angels in the sky."
 

Joe Molotov

Member
Blessed are the meek, for they will have military grade assault rifles to stand their ground with. And blessed are the poor, for they shall be allowed to work Thanksgiving day for $7.75 an hour.
 
Ugh...EVEN WHEN ITS FUCKING SPELLED OUT THEY STILL DON'T GET IT

Moseley writes. “Jesus was a capitalist, preaching personal responsibility, not a socialist.”

Fucking amazing. Poe's Law.

Al Franken creates the Supply Side Jesus satire . . . and they literally now push it.

600px-Supplysidejesuspoor.JPG


Jews and atheists are better Christians than the Christian-right.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Wait, what? If you don't have human government, then you have non-human government. What's that supposed to look like?

It would be rule by GORDOK, GOD-KING of the LIZARDMEN. He would be a just ruler, though all conflict would be decided by THUNDERDOME COMBAT, as that was the way of his people.
 
I certainly don't categorically reject government assistance programs, and they can serve as an important role when private charity comes up short, but our ultimate goal should be that we help our fellow citizens ourselves. That's why it's great that Cyan is doing his OT giving thread and so forth.

I don't get this. Maybe not you personally as you seem to be for some social programs, but why do concervatives think we as a society are capable of charitable efforts large enough to help a whole population? I just don't see the evidence to support this.

I've seen this argument numerous times as well. I personally think it wouldnt be as efficient or as all encompassing as a centralized approach, but this still ignores a major aspect of the argument altogether. If we as a society are altruistic enough to be capable of supporting the poor with nothing but our individual goodwill, why are we not capable of creating an altruistic centralized goverment for the people?

This is the same argument against single payer too. Concervatives are all about American Exceptionalism, but we cant provide healthcare that other countries can to their citizens?

I agree that getting ones hands dirty is a good thing though.
 
Wait, what? If you don't have human government, then you have non-human government. What's that supposed to look like?
There are many biblical scholars who would argue that Jesus had a very apocalyptic worldview. His followers certainly did. Their vision of theocracy was literally a new world ruled directly by God.

In the meantime, they were like, get along with the government inasfar as day to day life goes.
 
Everybody, breaking news!

Cal Thomas has become an anti-capitalist!

Today we are out of control as we pursue happiness through prosperity in the false hope that money and things will satisfy.

...

In my neighborhood there are old houses built during World War II, and at that time they sold for less than $20,000. One of these houses is for sale for more than $1 million. Far larger and more expensive homes stand on lots where smaller and cheaper homes once stood. These new homes are called “tear-down houses.” How many regard these larger houses as stepping-stones to an even bigger next house? What is the purpose, other than ego fulfillment? The estate sale is the end of it all.

If things satisfied, wouldn’t Americans be the most satisfied people on Earth? We have more stuff than any generation before ours. The overflow we deposit in rented public storage units. The stock market is up substantially, but we want it to go higher with no bursting bubble this time. Then what? What will we do with more? Will tomorrow’s more satisfy when today’s more hasn’t?

Also includes standard the Cal Thomas column template, including:
- Blaming Black Friday injuries on "politicians and “income inequality” alarmists!
- Referencing people being ill but refusing to see a doctor while making no mention of why they probably don't have this metaphorical doctor!
- Vague homophobia and slut shaming with the dog whistles "old values" and "cultural decay"!
- Calls to follow Cal Thomas's god!
- No understanding of inflation and/or economics!
- Bible verses!
- Warning of the apocalypse/downfall of America!
- And more!
 
I don't get this. Maybe not you personally as you seem to be for some social programs, but why do concervatives think we as a society are capable of charitable efforts large enough to help a whole population? I just don't see the evidence to support this.

Well, anything that's coming out of our paycheck (like Social Security) could, in principle, be going to charity.

But, I recognize that doesn't always happen in practice, which is I don't object to government programs trying to make up the difference.
 
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/04/obama-support-minimum-wage-inequality-speech

I'm glad Obama is pushing the issue of income inequality, and I'm glad he's pushing for a higher minimum wage.

It's amazing how against the majority the Congressional GOP is.

The vast majority of Americans support increasing the national minimum wage, according to a recent poll commissioned by the National Employment Law Project Action Fund, a non-profit group that supports increasing the minimum wage.

The poll, which was conducted by the public opinion research firm Hart Research Associates, found 80 percent of the respondents agree that the minimum wage should be raised to $10.10 an hour and increased periodically to account for rising costs.

Support for the measure among registered Democrats was especially high, with 92 percent in favor of the proposal. Among Republicans, 62 percent supported the wage increase. About three quarters of the respondents said that raising the minimum wage should be a top Congressional priority.

Background checks 90% support. Minimum wage 80%.

I've asked this before but I'll ask again, is there any position the Congressional GOP holds that the Democrats do not also hold that is a majority opinion in this country? Does such a position exist right now?
 
Does the Democratic Party support late-term abortions?

I think most congressional Democrats would vote against a late-term abortion ban, and I imagine there would be plenty of outrage among Democrats and Democrat-leaning forum members if such a ban was introduced in Congress.

The Democrats' party platform states they "oppose any and all efforts" to restrict the ability to get an abortion.

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...rchs-obama-god-help-us/?cmpid=cmty_twitter_fn

These people turn on their own religion...
Pope Francis is undergoing a popularity surge comparable to the way Barack Obama was greeted by the world in 2008. And just as President Obama has been a disappointment for America, Pope Francis will prove a disaster for the Catholic Church.

My fellow Catholics should be suspicious when bastions of anti-Catholicism in the left-wing media are in love with him.

Much is being made of his ‘compassion’ and ‘humility,’ but kissing babies and hugging the sick is nothing new. Every pope in recent memory has done the same, yet only now are the media paying attention. Benedict XVI and John Paul II refused to kowtow to the liberal agenda, and so such displays of tenderness were under-covered.

But Francis is beating a retreat for the Catholic Church, and making sure its controversial doctrines are whispered, not yelled – no wonder the New York Times is in love.

Just like President Obama loved apologizing for America, Pope Francis likes to apologize for the Catholic Church, thinking that the Church is at its best when it is passive and not offending anyone’s sensibilities.

In his interviews with those in the left-wing media he seeks to impress, Francis has said that the Church needs to stop being ‘obsessed’ with abortion and gay marriage, and instead of seeking to convert people, “we need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us.”

This softly-softly approach of not making a fuss has been tried before, and failed. The Second Vatican Council of the 1960’s aimed to “open the windows” of the Church to the modern world by doing just this.

The result was the Catholic version of New Coke. Across the West where the effects were felt, seminaries and convents emptied, church attendance plummeted, and adherence to Church doctrine diminished.


John Paul II and Benedict XVI worked hard to turn this trend around, but now Pope Francis wants the bad old days to resume.

Proof of this is Francis’ aforementioned statement of the Church being obsessed with controversial issues and the need to rebalance by talking about it less.

That Francis didn’t see that this would be translated into headlines of “Pope tells Catholics to shut up about things that offend Sandra Fluke” by every left-wing media outlet shows a terrifying naivety.

Nor do his comments reflect reality.

For years, the majority of priests didn't dare cover controversial topics in their homilies in fear of getting angry letters from pick-and-choose Catholics outraged that their pastor dared to say something out of line with the Democratic Party.

Most parishioners therefore haven’t heard the Church’s argument on controversial topics. Consequently, usage of contraception is only slightly lower in Catholics than in the general population, and support of gay marriage is actually higher in Catholics than the general population. Perhaps talking about it even less isn’t the answer?

In trying to please the media and the modern world, Francis mistakes their glee for respect. Just like Obama thought he’d won over Putin by promising a reset, Francis thinks by talking vacuously about the poor, he will be respected. And it is vacuous -- the pontiff recently asked why it’s news that the stock market drops but not when an old person dies. When your leader is asking, “Why isn’t the newspaper a laundry list of obituaries?” you know you elected the wrong guy.

What effect is this having? For all we’re being told about how ‘disenfranchised’ Catholics are being brought back by Francis ‘reaching out,’ a recent Pew Research study showed that in America, the number of people who identify as Catholic has actually decreased. Lesson: rubbing the egos of Church-hating left-wingers doesn’t make more Catholics, it just makes the Church less respected.

Francis not only panders to enemies and professional grievance mongers, but also attacks his allies. Just as Obama snubs Britain and Israel, Pope Francis swipes at practicing Catholics.

So not only has he insulted, and severely damaged the work of, pro-life and pro-marriage groups with his comments, he has also gone on the attack, dismissing Catholics who attend the older rites in Latin as ‘ideologizing’ and being guilty of ‘exploitation.’ Apparently “Who am I to judge?” doesn’t apply here.

On world matters, Francis’ statements are embarrassing. About communism, a destructive ideology that slaughtered millions of Catholics, he said:

“Learning about it through a courageous and honest person was helpful. I realized…an aspect of the social, which I then found in the social doctrine of the Church."


Not such kind words for the free market, however. In his recent apostolic exhortation he slammed unfettered capitalism, calling it ‘a new tyranny.’

Apart from the fact that there is no major nation practicing ‘unfettered’ capitalism (like Obama, Francis loves attacking straw men) there is more real tyranny in socialist cesspools like Francis’ home of Argentina than in places where capitalism is predominant.

In the document he rejects the free market and calls for governments to overhaul financial systems so they attack inequality. In doing so he shows himself painfully misguided on economics, failing to see that free markets have consistently lifted the poor out of poverty, while socialism merely entrenches them in it, or kills them outright.

Like Obama, Francis is unable to see the problems that are really endangering his people. Like Obama he mistakes the faithful for the enemy, the enemy for his friend, condescension for respect, socialism for justice and capitalism for tyranny.

As a Catholic, I do hope Francis’ papacy is a successful one, but from his first months he seems hell-bent on a path to undo the great work of Benedict XVI and John Paul II, and to repeat critical mistakes of the past.


Adam Shaw is a News Editor for FoxNews.com and has written on Anglo-American issues as well as topics related to the Roman Catholic Church. He lives in New Jersey and can be reached here.

I think most congressional Democrats would vote against a late-term abortion ban, and I imagine there would be plenty of outrage here if such a ban was introduced in Congress.

The Democrats' party platform states they "oppose any and all efforts" to restrict abortions.

They don't support abortions they never have. The support a women making her own medical choices and not imposing other people morals on others. Its small government if you will.

You intentionally misstated their platform. They are opposed to restrictions on a women's right to make decisions.
 
They don't support abortions they never have. The support a women making her own medical choices and not imposing other people morals on others. Its small government if you will.

Oh, OK.

Well, I don't support felons owning handguns, but I won't impose my morals on them.
 
There are many biblical scholars who would argue that Jesus had a very apocalyptic worldview. His followers certainly did. Their vision of theocracy was literally a new world ruled directly by God.

In the meantime, they were like, get along with the government inasfar as day to day life goes.
Well, doomsday cults were very popular at the time and Jesus was not the way only prophet to come out of that area. Early Christians were also anarchists but that totally goes against their revisionist history.
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/12/04/pop-culture-and-social-media/slide/top-10-underreported-stories/

Pretty interesting list surprisingly.

I had no idea that violent crime was actually trending upward over the past two years.

Number 4 really pisses me off because it was completely avoidable, and unnecessary. So now we have all kinds of research studies (many of which were not even mentioned in that article) that were being conducted throughout the US that have been completely ruined. :/
 
Number 4 really pisses me off because it was completely avoidable, and unnecessary. So now we have all kinds of research studies (many of which were not even mentioned in that article) that were being conducted throughout the US that have been completely ruined. :/

2010 really set us back a decade or two when it comes to progress really.

And the sad fact is that studies like those mentioned in the article are always the ones the GOP cites when they say they want to cut back "government waste."
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
There are many biblical scholars who would argue that Jesus had a very apocalyptic worldview. His followers certainly did. Their vision of theocracy was literally a new world ruled directly by God.

In the meantime, they were like, get along with the government inasfar as day to day life goes.

So just wait it out and tolerate the government you're under without trying to change government itself? I don't think the Righties would like that line of thinking very much.
 

Chumly

Member
+1 to obamacare. Just enrolled my father in law. The website was surprisingly smooth. Took only around 20 minutes to complete everything. He had already completed some of the basic data earlier in the day. Didn't experience any problems. Will follow up with BCBS to make sure they got everything correctly though. He got a tax credit for 300+ dollars a month and applied it towards a bronze plan so hes only paying 125 dollars a month. Its a thousand times better coverage than his current catastrophic plan.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Republicans tussle over gay candidates


Virginia Rep. Randy Forbes, a senior House Republican eyeing a powerful committee chairmanship, is causing friction with some of his colleagues by pushing the House GOP campaign arm to deny support for some of the party’s gay congressional candidates.

Forbes has waged a lengthy crusade to convince his colleagues and the National Republican Congressional Committee brass they shouldn’t back some gay candidates. His efforts on Capitol Hill were described to POLITICO by more than a half-dozen sources with direct knowledge of the talks.

The issue is particularly acute because House Republicans have two promising openly gay candidates in 2014 vying for seats held by Democrats. Richard Tisei, who narrowly lost to Democratic Rep. John Tierney in 2012, is running again in northeastern Massachusetts. And in San Diego, Carl DeMaio, a former city councilman, is running in a Republican primary to face Democratic Rep. Scott Peters.

Neither DeMaio nor Tisei responded to messages on their cellphones seeking comment.
In recent years, Republicans have slowly tried to make inroads with the gay community. As gay marriage becomes more common, many GOP officials have softened their stance. Since the 2012 election, Republicans have similarly tried to make inroads with other neglected voting blocs, including women and Hispanics.

Many senior House Republicans haven’t shied away from giving money to Tisei or DeMaio. The NRCC supported Tisei in 2012, and many top Republicans contributed to his campaign. The political arm of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) gave DeMaio $10,000 in June. And Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) chipped in $5,000 the same month.

On Wednesday, Forbes told POLITICO he thinks “GOP leaders can do whatever they want to do,” in terms of giving money to gay candidates.

He said he is more concerned about members being asked to contribute to the campaigns. The NRCC is partially funded by collecting tens of millions of dollars from House Republicans, who pay dues to the organization.

“There would be a different situation if they tried to force other members to give money,” Forbes said.

Asked whether he would have a problem with the NRCC donating money to DeMaio, Forbes said, “That’s a little different situation.”

“I don’t think they’ve done that yet,” Forbes added.

When asked if he would withhold political contributions to the NRCC if they backed DeMaio, Forbes said, “I’m not going to be hypothetical on what we would or wouldn’t do at this particular point in time because you’ve got a lot of scenarios. I don’t think we’ve had primaries and nominations to nominate people. So I don’t want to prejudge.”

The NRCC does not get publicly involved in primaries.

In an emailed statement to POLITICO in response to this story, NRCC Chairman Greg Walden of Oregon said, “Our decisions on the Republican nominees we support will not be based on race, gender or sexual orientation but will be based on the strength of their candidacy and their ability to defeat Democrats.”

Many Republicans seem willing to back DeMaio. Rep. Darrell Issa, a senior California Republican who has endorsed him, said that “he will be supported by the NRCC when he wins the primary.”

“I will see to that,” said Issa, who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, a California Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said if DeMaio is the “Republican candidate, that’s who we’re going to back.”

“That’s who I’m going to back,” he told POLITICO. “We’re going to endorse the Republican candidate. That’s it.”

Asked about Speaker John Boehner’s policy toward gay candidates, an aide pointed to several contributions the Ohio Republican made to Tisei during the past election cycle. Boehner also visited Boston to raise money for Tisei during the summer of 2012.

Within the GOP, the politics of gay marriage have shifted. Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, for instance, has come out in favor of same-sex marriage. Several other Republicans have tried to distance themselves from the anti-gay policies of the party’s past.

Even more than marriage politics, this episode highlights the bare-knuckle politics waged in Washington when it comes to committee chairmanships. The stakes are high: Holding a gavel translates into power in the Capitol. And on the House Armed Services Committee, the chairman becomes flush with cash from the large military sector.

Although Forbes has been lobbying on this issue for some time, it is becoming public now, as his name is being mentioned for the committee chairmanship. Although he hasn’t announced his retirement, many GOP insiders expect current Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) to forgo another bid for election.

In an interview with POLITICO, McKeon’s chief of staff said his boss expects Texas Rep. Mac Thornberry to be the next chairman. Republican leadership sources, granted anonymity to discuss future party strategy, told POLITICO they consider Thornberry a shoo-in for the top spot on the panel, which oversees the nation’s military.

Asked about his bid for the committee gavel, Forbes said, “I think everybody who cares about the military — and we happen to believe that we’ve got ideas that would help strengthen the military — certainly you’re interested in the chairmanship.

“But,” he added, “I think there are a lot of wonderful people who would do great jobs as chairman.”

That empathy gap.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
+1 to obamacare. Just enrolled my father in law. The website was surprisingly smooth. Took only around 20 minutes to complete everything. He had already completed some of the basic data earlier in the day. Didn't experience any problems. Will follow up with BCBS to make sure they got everything correctly though. He got a tax credit for 300+ dollars a month and applied it towards a bronze plan so hes only paying 125 dollars a month. Its a thousand times better coverage than his current catastrophic plan.

Your father-in-law's not a teabagger by any chance is he?
 

Chumly

Member
Your father-in-law's not a teabagger by any chance is he?

Only democrat in the family soooooooooooooooo yea it didn't prove anything to him. He was extremely excited for it though. My extended families on all sides are all teabaggers though.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Only democrat in the family soooooooooooooooo yea it didn't prove anything to him. He was extremely excited for it though. My extended families on all sides are all teabaggers though.

Damn. That's not nearly as satisfying then.

What's the point of helping someone if you can't rub it in their face for the rest of their lives? :mad:
 

Karakand

Member
You need to get to that level if we are going to change American conceptions of economics.

The ABC was written for a population that had been overwhelming illiterate for the majority of its adult life--I believe the literacy rate for women in Imperial Russia prior to the Revolution was something like a paltry 15%--and was far more intellectually captive than however you imagine the average American to be.
 
+1 to obamacare. Just enrolled my father in law. The website was surprisingly smooth. Took only around 20 minutes to complete everything. He had already completed some of the basic data earlier in the day. Didn't experience any problems. Will follow up with BCBS to make sure they got everything correctly though. He got a tax credit for 300+ dollars a month and applied it towards a bronze plan so hes only paying 125 dollars a month. Its a thousand times better coverage than his current catastrophic plan.

What's the deductible, and is he a democrat?
 
Question.

Conservatives often rail against government handouts as breeding dependence but at the same time praise charity as a noble thing. What is the substantial difference between a government or the salvation army feeding a person how is one good but the other destructive of personally dignity? How does it differ for the person receiving help?

Of handouts suck shouldn't they hate charity too?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom