Paul Ryan Discussion

[qui_est_ce]

Joe the fallacy of your theory that we need a third party is that it presumes that the same flawed human beings representing the third party would be more honest, more capable, more effective. And you base this on what? Has a race of angels suddenly come to earth and are now Libertarians or Constitution Party leaders?

We will always have flawed human beings involved in every endeavor of life. WE are all flawed human beings. Politicians seemingly more flawed than most…you know about the power of power to corrupt otherwise honest men. Whomever rises to the top is still going to be subject to temptations and corruption. We must discern who among the AVAILABLE real life political figures and support those who share our values rather than wait forever for the perfect candidate or party to emerge.

Isn’t there a verse about not putting your faith in princes?
Lisa

Psalm 3[BIBLEDRB]psalm 2[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[LisaA]

Thank you for honestly looking at the legislation and determining you were wrong regarding the life of the mother. Now, we can move on.

As far as abortion/murder, that wasn’t my point. My point was that you would not allow murder for religious freedom purposes, so your religious freedom protest is bogus. All freedom has limits. We are a pluralistic society, and we place limits. We have basic rights and protections, and we all vote according to our moral viewpoint. I don’t need to vote according to someone else’s moral viewpoint.

Also would like to point out once again that sanctity of life issues are NOT simply pushing one religion’s beliefs over another. This is so often used to dismiss those who wish to increase protection of the weak and helpless…I don’t want to force others to adopt my denomination’s moral code…as if it were simply a religious issue. As you said in a civilized society we place limits on behavior…your right to swing your arm ends where my face begins. When one’s action impacts another’s life, liberty or pursuit of happiness then it is called to question. While even those who promote abortion access are not truly pro-death, the hair splitting begins when a human being begins. Is an unborn child a human being or not? That is the question, not what religion is being promoted vis a vis the teachings of another.

Lisa

 

[meltzerboy]

Thank you for honestly looking at the legislation and determining you were wrong regarding the life of the mother. Now, we can move on.

As far as abortion/murder, that wasn’t my point. My point was that you would not allow murder for religious freedom purposes, so your religious freedom protest is bogus. All freedom has limits. We are a pluralistic society, and we place limits. We have basic rights and protections, and we all vote according to our moral viewpoint. I don’t need to vote according to someone else’s moral viewpoint.

I understand your point, Bob. But one of my points is that no legitimate religion (oh no, there’s that word again!) advocates or permits murder, and since I don’t regard abortion as murder, although I know you differ in this regard, my point stands. (Please, everyone, don’t turn this into a discussion of Islam or Old Testament punishment.) Of course, society places limits on violent cults. However, in another sense, you are right in that there are limits on all freedoms, including freedom of speech, assembly, the press, and religion, especially when those freedoms may incite violence; give aid and comfort to political enemies by divulging military secrets, for example; or have the effect of denying another individual’s rights. Whether or not the particular freedom does so is not always so clear and therefore must be decided by the courts.

I never said you have to vote according to someone else’s moral viewpoint! But please afford me the courtesy as well to vote according to my moral views. That’s my other point.

 

[meltzerboy]

Meltzerboy PUH-LEASE “Ryan Akin” legislation? I am truly stunned that you made such a false statement. This is EXACTLY what is wrong with the political process, the attempt to demonize a particular individual with out and out lies.

I will grant you corrected yourself ten posts later but why spread a falsehood to begin with?

NO ONE heard of Akin until he blundered into the annals of history with an equally stupid remark. But you and others, particularly in the media are now tying him to Paul Ryan as if they were Dodd and Frank. Further although there has been legislation where both mens’ names appeared, the one you referenced had TWO HUNDRED PLUS other co-sponsors.

I really despise these tactics and once again I thought you were above such partisan hyperbole. I truly despise Obama and think he has engaged in much evil. But I don’t spread lies about him.

Lisa

Lisa, can you find it in your heart to forgive me? My statement was not an intentional lie, but rather was based on what I had heard and thought to be true. I would never intentionally spread lies. I retracted the statement.

 

[LisaA]

Lisa, can you find it in your heart to forgive me? My statement was not an intentional lie, but rather was based on what I had heard and thought to be true. I would never intentionally spread lies. I retracted the statement.

Meltzerboy I am sure you didn’t intend to spread false information and my post was more total frustration with the false information being spread, the focus on “gotcha” politics where a stupid remark is seized upon to make vast generalizations. Not by you but the media, particularly with respect to the recent Akin debacle. No one had heard of this guy before his stupid remark but suddenly he’s leading the Republican party back to the 50s. It’s utterly ridiculous but we seem to be living in a sound bite world where people hear about half of the original statement and none of the retraction.

Believe me I see it on both sides but given the media’s Leftward slant, it’s much more to the detriment of the Romney Ryan ticket whereas the blunders, false statements and over wrought hyperbole on the Left is given a pass. After Biden’s “Chains” remark, he just characterized Republicans as “squealing pigs” and more recently said Republicans were the reason people couldn’t get their homes refinanced…huh?

I truly do not think I’ve seen the level of blatant lying as I’ve seen this year. Often the false statement is retracted…on page 82 buried in the obituaries or with a terse “I am sorry that my remarks were misinterpreted” comment at the end of a broadcast. I’d love to think the American people are tired of being lied to but I suspect most are not digging far enough to learn the truth about various candidates and their records. Hopefully people will awake before November. I think the country’s future depends on an engaged electorate.

Lisa

 

[ProVobis]

For example, have you tried looking for an American flag recently? I found out that at the local store,they are all made in China.

Makes one wonder why we pledge allegiance to something made by Communists.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Lisa, much of the American public is not really very bright. They elected a President without a credible curricula vitae, a guy who never ran as much as a lemonade stand. With past associations of the likes of Frank Marshall Davis, Bernadine Dohrn, William Ayers, and Reverend Wright, Obama would not qualify for a sensitive federal job because he couldn’t pass a top secret security clearance. Romney has credible business and government experience, yet the American public may very well re-elect the biggest Zero to ever occupy the White House. Hope and change, you know…

 

[JoeBowen7]

You said you would like neither Romney nor Obama to choose the next supreme court justices - up to three possibly.

Take for example John Roberts, who was appointed by the Republicans. Are you happy with his decision on Obamacare? The Republican appointee says that Obamacare is a tax which contradicts what everyone was saying, both Democrat and Republican. I hope that you are happy with the Obamacare legislation which was approved basically because the Republican appointee, John Roberts, has declared it to be a tax.
The question is should we continue to listen to the distortions, empty promises and the hot air from both Democrats and Republicans, or is it time to recognise that they represent special interests?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Paul Ryan and Catholic Social Teaching: A Commentary by Fr Barron

youtube.com/watch?v=Tq8KRIkGtLQ

 

[rlg94086]

I never said you have to vote according to someone else’s moral viewpoint! But please afford me the courtesy as well to vote according to my moral views. That’s my other point.

I also never said you can’t vote according to your moral views. In fact, I encourage it. However, you seemed to say that you vote based on others’ moral views based on a misunderstanding of religious freedom. You don’t need to vote for the least common denominator based on the concept that everything is relative and one’s religion may be okay with something even though your’s isn’t…unless, of course, that is your moral view.

 

[rlg94086]

Also would like to point out once again that sanctity of life issues are NOT simply pushing one religion’s beliefs over another. This is so often used to dismiss those who wish to increase protection of the weak and helpless…I don’t want to force others to adopt my denomination’s moral code…as if it were simply a religious issue. As you said in a civilized society we place limits on behavior…your right to swing your arm ends where my face begins. When one’s action impacts another’s life, liberty or pursuit of happiness then it is called to question. While even those who promote abortion access are not truly pro-death, the hair splitting begins when a human being begins. Is an unborn child a human being or not? That is the question, not what religion is being promoted vis a vis the teachings of another.

Lisa

Precisely. When someone says “I don’t believe abortion is murder,” it begs the question “what do you consider the intentional killing of an innocent human being?”

1. They think and unborn child is “part of the mother” and therefore not a distinct human being, which means they don’t understand basic science.

-OR-

1. They believe that some human beings have greater value than others. That’s a scary path to go down.

-OR-

1. They believe you aren’t “fully” human until you travel the few inches from the womb to outside the mother’s body and/or have your umbilical cord cut. Biologically, this is nonsense, but some people believe that.

-OR-

1. They don’t believe you are “fully” human until you are infused with a soul. I always find that argument interesting because it often comes from the same people who say that “you can’t impose your religious beliefs on others.”

Did I leave any rationalizations for killing of innocents out?

 

[LisaA]

Take for example John Roberts, who was appointed by the Republicans. Are you happy with his decision on Obamacare? The Republican appointee says that Obamacare is a tax which contradicts what everyone was saying, both Democrat and Republican. I hope that you are happy with the Obamacare legislation which was approved basically because the Republican appointee, John Roberts, has declared it to be a tax.
The question is should we continue to listen to the distortions, empty promises and the hot air from both Democrats and Republicans, or is it time to recognise that they represent special interests?

Joe please consider addressing my post regarding the fatal flaw in your argument to promote third parties. These are parties of men, not angels. No matter how new, old, name, affiliation; human nature will not be changed. So you believe this mythical third party will not be subject to temptation or pressure of special interests? Let’s quit chasing Leprechauns Joe.

Second, while Nixon may have “opened up” China, the Clinton Administration warmed it up considerably with his appontee Ron Brown leading a trip accompanied by an executive who’d made a huge donation to the Dem party. Apparently the opening of economic interests in China can certainly also be laid at Clinton’s feet. So please expand your denunciation of US/China relations to ALL sides of the political spectrum.

Third, John Roberts was an incredible disappointment, not simply because he was considered a solid vote against Obamacare but he also “wrote” legislation from the bench and if reports are true, succumbed to outside pressure. I was completely disgusted by the decision but let’s just say the Republicans’ batting average with respect to SCOTUS has been mixed at best.

OTOH as Ishii says, do you REALLY think Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antoine Scalia are of the same level of originalism and is their perspective on the Constitution equivalent? Surely you cannot with a straight face respond in the affirmative.

Your post sort of bounces around but does not respond to any of our questions. Could you try again? THank you
Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Precisely. When someone says “I don’t believe abortion is murder,” it begs the question “what do you consider the intentional killing of an innocent human being?”

1. They think and unborn child is “part of the mother” and therefore not a distinct human being, which means they don’t understand basic science.

-OR-

1. They believe that some human beings have greater value than others. That’s a scary path to go down.

-OR-

1. They believe you aren’t “fully” human until you travel the few inches from the womb to outside the mother’s body and/or have your umbilical cord cut. Biologically, this is nonsense, but some people believe that.

-OR-

1. They don’t believe you are “fully” human until you are infused with a soul. I always find that argument interesting because it often comes from the same people who say that “you can’t impose your religious beliefs on others.”

Did I leave any rationalizations for killing of innocents out?

BRAVO! You nailed it. The twisted logic of someone trying to rationalize abortion at will would do justice the the roller coasters at Six Flags. Ironically the same people who promote abortion access as a “right” simultaneously protect the “right to life” of various fish, insects, frogs and birds. I’ve never quite been able to wrap my head around that bit of “wisdom.”

Lisa

 

[estesbob]

BRAVO! You nailed it. The twisted logic of someone trying to rationalize abortion at will would do justice the the roller coasters at Six Flags. Ironically the same people who promote abortion access as a “right” simultaneously protect the “right to life” of various fish, insects, frogs and birds. I’ve never quite been able to wrap my head around that bit of “wisdom.”

Lisa

I Like the way Archbishop Chaput put it:

We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.

Read more: blog.beliefnet.com/pontifications/2008/08/while-cardinal-george-the-pres.html#ixzz24Ow9P7xA

 

[rlg94086]

BRAVO! You nailed it. The twisted logic of someone trying to rationalize abortion at will would do justice the the roller coasters at Six Flags. Ironically the same people who promote abortion access as a “right” simultaneously protect the “right to life” of various fish, insects, frogs and birds. I’ve never quite been able to wrap my head around that bit of “wisdom.”

Lisa

Indeed. If you destroy an eagle’s egg (not necessarily an eaglet) or nest, it is a federal offense…possibly even a felony ( fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html ). However, you can kill and dismember an unborn child.

 

[meltzerboy]

Precisely. When someone says “I don’t believe abortion is murder,” it begs the question “what do you consider the intentional killing of an innocent human being?”

1. They think and unborn child is “part of the mother” and therefore not a distinct human being, which means they don’t understand basic science.

-OR-

1. They believe that some human beings have greater value than others. That’s a scary path to go down.

-OR-

1. They believe you aren’t “fully” human until you travel the few inches from the womb to outside the mother’s body and/or have your umbilical cord cut. Biologically, this is nonsense, but some people believe that.

-OR-

1. They don’t believe you are “fully” human until you are infused with a soul. I always find that argument interesting because it often comes from the same people who say that “you can’t impose your religious beliefs on others.”

Did I leave any rationalizations for killing of innocents out?

I believe number 4. Why is that contradictory, since I’m not stating you have to believe that? My view is based on my religious beliefs, not necessarily yours. Once again, my point is there are different religious and moral beliefs about abortion. You evidently disagree and insist on dismissing others’ beliefs as irrational, unscientific, or immoral. OK, that’s your prerogative. I prefer to realize the sensitive nature of the issue and respect others’ views as well as my own.

 

[meltzerboy]

I also never said you can’t vote according to your moral views. In fact, I encourage it. However, you seemed to say that you vote based on others’ moral views based on a misunderstanding of religious freedom. You don’t need to vote for the least common denominator based on the concept that everything is relative and one’s religion may be okay with something even though your’s isn’t…unless, of course, that is your moral view.

I don’t believe EVERYTHING is relative. However, in the case of abortion, I understand there are different religious as well as secular moral values that apply, and I respect the right of others to exercise those values, including your right. That is my moral view.

 

[rlg94086]

I believe number 4. Why is that contradictory, since I’m not stating you have to believe that? My belief is based on my religious beliefs, not necessarily yours. Once again, my point is there are different religious and moral beliefs about abortion. You evidently disagree and insist on dismissing others’ beliefs as irrational, unscientific, or immoral. OK, that’s your prerogative. I prefer to realize the sensitive nature of the issue and respect others’ views as well as my own.

So, you are for unrestricted abortion? Or, do you believe that the humans who have been infused with a soul should not be killed? What about those who believe humans are infused with a soul at conception? They should be okay with those humans being killed because someone else doesn’t believe they are human?

Your false claim that you respect other’s religious views is exposed by your acceptance of the killing of innocent human beings…because others don’t agree with your concept of what human is.

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t believe EVERYTHING is relative. However, in the case of abortion, I understand there are different religious as well as secular moral values that apply, and I respect the right of others to exercise those values, including your right. That is my moral view.

Right. So, you are okay with others killing innocent human beings, as long as their religious beliefs say it’s okay. Nice.

 

[JoeBowen7]

Joe please consider addressing my post regarding the fatal flaw in your argument to promote third parties.

there is no fatal flaw, because both Democrat and Republican have not told us the truth. Why do you trust someone who has not told the truth? Don’t you become a little skeptical when someone tells you something which turns out to be false? I suspect that you are already aware of the untrue distortions that the Democrats have told us. Are you also aware of the many examples from the Republican side? Maybe you are not. If so, I can give you several. To start with let’s take this one example from the Republican President Herbert Hoover:
“The fundamental business of the country, that is, production and distribution of commodities, is on a sound and prosperous basis.”
President Hoover stated such on Oct. 25, 1929. Four days later, the stock market crashed, and the US went into the worst depression in history.