A
Aquinas11
Guest
Scott Adams had the perfect metaphor when he said America is like two groups of people in a movie theater who are seeing vastly different movies on the same movie screen. Fascinating time to be alive.
- Status
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
Can we be a bit more precise. Republicans aren’t so much pro life as they are pro states’ rights. If they get their way abortion would be left up to the states, and there would still be a tremendous number of abortions performed in this country.
Emeraldlady
New member
It’s one of the basic fundamentals (Matthew 25) that Jesus taught speaking about the judgement of nations. “I was sick and you took care of me”. It’s the measure of who will be judged sheep and who will be judged goats. When Jesus talks about how we are to treat the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the sick, the stranger, the prisoner… He will be sending the goats off to eternal damnation for this reason…
41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’
Last edited:
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
I open this thread up to hopefully read a good discussion on if people on CAF truly want to understand each other.
I wanted to contribute that I have watched some wonderful members of CAF been flagged into that non existent ban , and most through misunderstanding, misinterpreting, etc. One I can think of is PianistClare. Another early on, who shared a computer with others in her household and was banned because of a misunderstanding about the accounts.
But do I read anything about understanding, nope its all about Trump and politics! From where i started reading, I usually read long threads from the bottom up.
So it must be true to say I truly do not understand how this thread has devolved into American politics.
sigh.
I wanted to contribute that I have watched some wonderful members of CAF been flagged into that non existent ban , and most through misunderstanding, misinterpreting, etc. One I can think of is PianistClare. Another early on, who shared a computer with others in her household and was banned because of a misunderstanding about the accounts.
But do I read anything about understanding, nope its all about Trump and politics! From where i started reading, I usually read long threads from the bottom up.
So it must be true to say I truly do not understand how this thread has devolved into American politics.
sigh.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Yes, it is sad. I’m sorry I contributed.
As I’ve said before, I’ve basically lived on the east coast my whole life, most of it outside Washington, DC in one of the most affluent counties in America. I am not affluent, and barely had ends meet when we were younger.
When my kids went to college, I really enjoyed discussing the ideas they were bringing back. I’ve spent the past year and a half working remotely for a San Francisco startup, and that was another very interesting experience, working with young people in a very interesting place.
The experiences for people in between the coasts still baffles me. I read a lot, but I still don’t understand why they think the way they think.
J
Jen95
Guest
Different bedrock values.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
One could imagine that. Do you have any in mind?
Emeraldlady
New member
At the judgement of nations, nations will be condemned for not taking care of the sick, yes.
D
dochawk
Guest
That’s really what it came down to last time: the biggest thing that either Trump or Clinton had going form them was that each wasn’t the other (and really only had a chance because the other was, and likely would have lost to any “reasonable” candidate). The electorate was divided into five roughly equally sized groups: pro-trump, anti-trump, pro-hillary, anti-hillary, and grudgingly choosing between them . . .
But the politics itself should probably be left oft this thread, so I’ll leave my own opinions out, and instead quote the first article of Brest again: "which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another "
C
Convert3
Guest
I don’t think anyone is against helping those in need. I think how the money is used is important.
Farmers get the money to help them through difficult years in order to keep their business of producing food afloat if things like weather or disease affect their crop. Food production is critical to our survival and our country also feeds many parts of the world. Farming is capital intensive and not easy to startup, so it’s critical to keep them financially sound. The government is helping an industry to survive, not just a single business.
Using government money to help people be retrained by businesses that need specific skills is another good use of money that will get people off of public assistance.
Giving handouts for a short period to get someone back on their feet has to be done carefully or it may become an enabling problem if it extends for too long a period.
We just want our taxes used wisely.
F
F_Marturana
Guest
The same fellow who convinced Collins to vote for him because he considered Roe settled?
J
Jen95
Guest
Correct. I guess you think there are no other abortion-related issues that might come up before SCOTUS?Jen95:
The same fellow who convinced Collins to vote for him because he considered Roe settled?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Businesses are not autonomous entities, so they have no capacity to do the wrong or right thing.
The individuals running those businesses, however, are a different story.
So, is your contention that individuals, when left to themselves, always do the wrong thing?
Careful how you answer this because, if it is true that individuals who are in business always do the wrong thing, then ceteris paribus, when those individuals are in the business of running government and setting regulations, they too can be expected to “always do” the wrong thing regarding the setting of regulations.
Seems to me that the very worst option is when you have big business in collusion with big government (along with an enabling media) that the opportunities for doing the very WORST things become possible.
Which takes us to a realization that currently we have…
- Big business that overwhelmingly supports the Democrats.
- The media that overwhelmingly supports the Democrats.
- The Democrats that overwhelming support the vast expansion of government control over the economy, society, and individual freedom and rights.
Why should we trust government or media to not also “always…do the wrong thing?”
Perhaps deregulation (taking control out of the hands of big government) to distribute power as broadly as possible would be good thing.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
No, it isn’t. My contention is that, left to themselves, many individuals in positions of authority pick profit over doing the right thing. So a certain basic level of regulation is needed.
I said “always seem to do the wrong thing”. That is hyperbole, but there is a lot of evidence.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
That was my point though.HarryStotle:
No, it isn’t. My contention is that, left to themselves, many individuals in positions of authority pick profit over doing the right thing. So a certain basic level of regulation is needed.
You appear to support left leaning Democrats which seems to imply that you think there is a distinction between
- individuals in business who are in “positions of authority” and “pick profit over doing the right thing.”
and - individuals in government who are in “positions of authority” and won’t “pick profit over doing the right thing.”
Why wouldn’t we, rather, be better off trusting politicians who oppose growing government power, i.e., those who are not Democrats?
There is, likewise, lots of evidence that politicians pick all kinds of alternatives to “doing the right thing.”
You kind of skipped over that point the first time.
Last edited:
P
PaulinVA
Guest
I am not making any statements about what I think about politicians in relation to business regulation, so I don’t know why you are saying this. I was talking about business.
I don’t trust Republican/Trumpist politicians. They have lost all of my respect. I would never trust “those who are not Democrats” to do anything right.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
So you mistrust those in business to do the right thing BECAUSE “those in authority pick profit over doing the right thing,” yet you trust those politicians who positively want more government authority to regulate EVERYTHING – the economy, the society, speech, etc. – to do the right thing.
So individuals who have authority to pick profit over doing the right thing are more likely to do wrong and should NOT be trusted; but those who advocate for absolute political power, i.e., authority over everything, should be trusted to do the right thing? {Scratches head…}
And we wonder why those on CAF have a difficult time understanding each other?
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Never said that. You are assuming since I don’t trust Republican/Trumpists that I DO trust Democrats. I never said that.
Absolutely.And we wonder why those on CAF have a difficult time understanding each other?
Try commenting on what I actually write instead of crafting straw men to fit your purpose.
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
This is because people fail to realize that God uses flawed sinners to accomplish good. Look King David. He was a very flawed man, yet he still wrote most (if not all) of the Psalms and did a lot of good for God. But he also committed some serious sins.
For one reason of another, the vast majority of leaders are serious sinners or have skeletons in their closets. The only question is whether those sins become public knowledge or not.
The issue here is that there is reasonable debate if any of the above is Trump’s goal. Some of these might be unintended side effects, but there are not goals. In other words, this is unintended evil. (btw - I don’t think Trump is racist. He just doesn’t have tact)
However, expanding abortion, euthanasia, wanting to use tax dollars to fund abortions overseas, and abortions up to birth are not side effects. They are deliberate goals and deliberate evil.
Trump is a very flawed man, he is no messiah like leader. But he is arguably a flawed leader like Kings Saul, David, & Solomon.
God Bless
Emeraldlady
New member
Limited government can’t work for the common good if it’s not firmly rooted in objective moral principles. John Adams wrote…PaulinVA:
So you mistrust those in business to do the right thing BECAUSE “those in authority pick profit over doing the right thing,” yet you trust those politicians who positively want more government authority to regulate EVERYTHING – the economy, the society, speech, etc. – to do the right thing.
So individuals who have authority to pick profit over doing the right thing are more likely to do wrong and should NOT be trusted; but those who advocate for absolute political power, i.e., authority over everything, should be trusted to do the right thing? {Scratches head…}
And we wonder why those on CAF have a difficult time understanding each other?
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The problem with government that rejects universal understandings of equality, freedom and rights and claims the authority to dictate it’s own version of morality makes for inevitable dictatorship kinds of conditions. It’s safer for the common good that a more democratic way of formulating rules applies then.
- Status