No, you are the one suggesting that those that disagree with your are irrational and ignorant (eg post 239), as well as suggesting that those that disagree with you probably don’t give money to charity (post 229). As I said before, I am happy to try to be more charitable if others try to do the same.
And the 9th amendment before that one protects rights not listed in the Constitution. In addition the 10th does not end with power reserved to only the states. It ends with the last few words reading “or to the people”. And some of the people actually exercise their free will and vote for candidates who also see a greater role for the federal government in joining with individuals and the Church and helping Christ out on things He actually talked about.
So, “the rich” (however that’s defined from day to day) should have no voice in public affairs? I’m not sure anyone, from Jefferson to the Pope has ever said that. But perhaps you can provide the quotes from reliable sources.
And since Obamacare provides neither “adequate” (even Obama admits that) nor “affordable” healthcare, (what’s the estimate now? A trillion in addition to the cost of the care itself for most people) I guess it’s okay to criticize it, right?
And what conservatives oppose unions per se? One reads some of them criticizing unions that use political power to loot the public till. I do see some of that. One does see criticism of unions that drive companies offshore. Sometimes one sees conservatives do that. Sometimes one sees criticism of unions that force member contributions to immoral causes and candidates. But I don’t think many, even conservatives, condemn unions as such and in all ways. I think my “strawman meter” just pegged out.
You are most correct, sir.
I think some here like to paint conservatives with a broad brush.
We are called to help the poor. That is non-negotiable. How one decides to help the poor is left up to prudential judgement.
l’m beginning to believe that the political threads here are actually Republican opinion clubs and if any other has the hide to enter in and disagree with your minds on the subject, they must expect to be insulted and accused of being ignorant or uncharitable.
Peace, CarlanNow I guess it’s the turn of those who misinterpreted his statement to make their apologies. Perhaps i can be forgiven for not holding my breath while I wait.
I think you missed the point. He apologized for his comments, period. I think it’s good of him to have done that.Now I guess it’s the turn of those who misinterpreted his statement to make their apologies. Perhaps i can be forgiven for not holding my breath while I wait.
ie snarky characterizations instead of addressing the issue.
Golly, fancy the mods suspending someone without your approval. How uncharitable can they get?
Sorry just couldn’t help myself had to get that one in tho’, Goodbye, CarlanCarlan, I’m coming to the same conclusion about this forum. Or at least the sub forum. I can sometimes be disheartened in regard to the Catholic Church and the Republican politics She seems to espouse today based on what I read here. I’d be in even worse shape if not for Catholics like yourself and Ringil though.l’m beginning to believe that the political threads here are actually Republican opinion clubs and if any other has the hide to enter in and disagree with your minds on the subject, they must expect to be insulted and accused of being ignorant or uncharitable.
So forgive me for my ignorance and for not having the charity to agree with much of your philosophy. I will say good day now and let you all enjoy patting each other without any further disturbance from me.
Peace to you as well.No, no, no. He clarified his remarks, saying the poor needed to be taken care of, but he thought they were but would fix any holes in the “safety net”. But his statement was reported as meaning he “didn’t care about the poor”.
I never made such a suggestion. I gave specific examples of the type of posts that characterize those who are for limited government involvement as uncaring. My point was that WE (conservatives) DO CARE. I apologize if you took that as accusing liberals of being less personally responsible in caring for the poor.
Nothing here but assumptions
And what is the above supposed to mean? Bbbarrick got suspended for being uncharitable. I was expressing my hope that he would remain charitable.Golly, fancy the mods suspending someone without your approval. How uncharitable can they get?
Twist, twist. Romney apologized because he mispoke. There is a breadth of opinions regarding what Romeny meant in his comments and what these comments revealed. Right wing pundits are saying this as well, you know? It’s not just the “media”, or the “liberals”.
It is telling that the only People agreeing with them are non-Catholics it doesn’t take much research to see that the Democrat party stands in direct opposition to yneccore moral teachings of the ChurchCarlan, I’m coming to the same conclusion about this forum. Or at least the sub forum. I can sometimes be disheartened in regard to the Catholic Church and the Republican politics She seems to espouse today based on what I read here. I’d be in even worse shape if not for Catholics like yourself and Ringil though.
Good point Ringil. Maybe if you and I and Carlan and Santorum and the right wing media are all tossed in together with attacks on the media, we can all be in on the applause at the next Republican debate.
Occams razor. Those who had something to gain by twisting the comments, did so, whether intra party, or extra party.Good point Ringil. Maybe if you and I and Carlan and Santorum and the right wing media are all tossed in together with attacks on the media, we can all be in on the applause at the next Republican debate.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2012/02/president-obama-versus-religious-liberty/2165911#ixzz1lLjbGp00
