Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why do the moderators permit the same ignorant schmucks jumping in to spout their political junk diatribes on every thread? We were talking about a man leading millions of believers and his efforts to improve their lot and give them a reason to have faith.
Unlike the vast majority of his predecessors, he shuns the trappings on his office and is trying to set an example to his fellow priests on their responsibilities to their congregations and those who might seek succor from the church.
What is so wrong in that? And, why do the same posters turn it into a political discussion?
Who's crying? This is a time to rejoice!
http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...slams-trickle-down-economics.html#post8234596
LMFAO. The side of sweet reason? "In your economic vision, people don't help each other enough" is not a statement of logic. It's one of morality. Please learn the difference.
Ethics and logic are not mutually exclusive, please read a book. In the Pope's economic vision, governments shouldn't be rigged to create a permanent underclass that serve their whole lives as serfs to prop up the profits of a few privileged slackers at the top.
I didn't even realize she was a she. I guess i learn something new everyday. One of the benefits of realizing you don't know everything there is yet.
Your gullibility is boundless!
Maybe so. But so is my ability to learn.
The Homeless Lobby / Poverty PAC | Depravity wraps itself in platitudinous twaddle.
I have to say, after complaining bitterly for decades about the Holy See trammeling the starving third world with edicts against all but the most unreliable forms of birth control, that I absolutely love this new Pope, Francis, and that his chosen name, after Assisi, must have been ordained by the heavens themselves. Im not a Catholic, or even a practicing Christian, but it was with tears in my eyes that I read a world religious leader both express true concern for the poor and the powerless, and lay blame at the feet of the deified social Darwinism behind the misery:
As many faithful as the Church has in her pews, can it be finally be hoped that the culture of greed (for goodness sake) will finally and at long last be jammed from the world consciousness?
Do you seriously believe that Jesus would condone making a profit off of a sick child that bankrupts a family?
and the lord said- read the fine print......
the 1:00 minute mark
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9GE9P56tK4o#t=60]Ride On - YouTube[/ame]
So hardworking Americans deserve to be bankrupted because their child is sick?
Why do the moderators permit the same ignorant schmucks jumping in to spout their political junk diatribes on every thread? We were talking about a man leading millions of believers and his efforts to improve their lot and give them a reason to have faith.
Unlike the vast majority of his predecessors, he shuns the trappings on his office and is trying to set an example to his fellow priests on their responsibilities to their congregations and those who might seek succor from the church.
What is so wrong in that? And, why do the same posters turn it into a political discussion?
So hardworking Americans deserve to be bankrupted because their child is sick?
Why is it always about "deserve" with lefties these days? Can't people get through one leg of one argument without bringing subjectivity and morality into the discussion as though they count for anything?
Why do the moderators permit the same ignorant schmucks jumping in to spout their political junk diatribes on every thread? We were talking about a man leading millions of believers and his efforts to improve their lot and give them a reason to have faith.
Unlike the vast majority of his predecessors, he shuns the trappings on his office and is trying to set an example to his fellow priests on their responsibilities to their congregations and those who might seek succor from the church.
What is so wrong in that? And, why do the same posters turn it into a political discussion?
In all fairness, it was a political discussion to begin with. If the pope simply said people need to do more to help the poor, it would not be so.
What the pope said was that a particular economic system is immoral. Since, in most of the world, vying economic philosophies fall pretty reliably along various party lines, any conversations revolving around the pope's statement can't really help but be political in nature.
Essentially, if the pope didn't want to talk politics, he shouldn't have taken a shot at macroeconomics.
And wtf at everybody taking a crack at this subject, lately? Guys with economic PHD's haven't even come to much of a consensus regarding what actually works. Why is it that people who, for instance, studied the bible all their lives, suddenly feel qualified to analyze accurately a subject that the people in the top of that subject's field still don't have a real firm grasp on?
Why do the moderators permit the same ignorant schmucks jumping in to spout their political junk diatribes on every thread? We were talking about a man leading millions of believers and his efforts to improve their lot and give them a reason to have faith.
Unlike the vast majority of his predecessors, he shuns the trappings on his office and is trying to set an example to his fellow priests on their responsibilities to their congregations and those who might seek succor from the church.
What is so wrong in that? And, why do the same posters turn it into a political discussion?
In all fairness, it was a political discussion to begin with. If the pope simply said people need to do more to help the poor, it would not be so.
What the pope said was that a particular economic system is immoral. Since, in most of the world, vying economic philosophies fall pretty reliably along various party lines, any conversations revolving around the pope's statement can't really help but be political in nature.
Essentially, if the pope didn't want to talk politics, he shouldn't have taken a shot at macroeconomics.
And wtf at everybody taking a crack at this subject, lately? Guys with economic PHD's haven't even come to much of a consensus regarding what actually works. Why is it that people who, for instance, studied the bible all their lives, suddenly feel qualified to analyze accurately a subject that the people in the top of that subject's field still don't have a real firm grasp on?
Aha, I thought so....he hit the nail on the head and that is why so many so called Christians are uncomfortable with his position....
I don't want to fight government - I want to make it work properly. To me, one way to achieve that is to stop electing people to the job who want it NOT to.
Why would anyone want to "fight" We the People? Isn't it easier for us to just work out a compromise instead? The utter stupidity of those who perceive We the People to be the "enemy" that needs to be "fought" never ceases to amaze me.
What is truly amazing is you think the government = the people and that you somehow represent the people by supporting the government.
The government is a derivative of the people. And the people have, not only a right, but an obligation to reign in control over it.
So hardworking Americans deserve to be bankrupted because their child is sick?
Why is it always about "deserve" with lefties these days? Can't people get through one leg of one argument without bringing subjectivity and morality into the discussion as though they count for anything?
Why can't you accept that "deserve" is synonymous with Christianity? It should resonate more with righties, since more righties claim to be Christian than lefties....Jesus taught empathy for the unfortunate, and to see a family bankrupted due to an illness should not be anyone's desire, whether Christian or not, because, we don't know when we will be in the same boat.
Why do the moderators permit the same ignorant schmucks jumping in to spout their political junk diatribes on every thread? We were talking about a man leading millions of believers and his efforts to improve their lot and give them a reason to have faith.
Unlike the vast majority of his predecessors, he shuns the trappings on his office and is trying to set an example to his fellow priests on their responsibilities to their congregations and those who might seek succor from the church.
What is so wrong in that? And, why do the same posters turn it into a political discussion?
In all fairness, it was a political discussion to begin with. If the pope simply said people need to do more to help the poor, it would not be so.
What the pope said was that a particular economic system is immoral. Since, in most of the world, vying economic philosophies fall pretty reliably along various party lines, any conversations revolving around the pope's statement can't really help but be political in nature.
Essentially, if the pope didn't want to talk politics, he shouldn't have taken a shot at macroeconomics.
And wtf at everybody taking a crack at this subject, lately? Guys with economic PHD's haven't even come to much of a consensus regarding what actually works. Why is it that people who, for instance, studied the bible all their lives, suddenly feel qualified to analyze accurately a subject that the people in the top of that subject's field still don't have a real firm grasp on?
Aha, I thought so....he hit the nail on the head and that is why so many so called Christians are uncomfortable with his position....
Why would anyone want to "fight" We the People? Isn't it easier for us to just work out a compromise instead? The utter stupidity of those who perceive We the People to be the "enemy" that needs to be "fought" never ceases to amaze me.
What is truly amazing is you think the government = the people and that you somehow represent the people by supporting the government.
The government is a derivative of the people. And the people have, not only a right, but an obligation to reign in control over it.
What are the first words of the Preamble to the Constitution?
If you don't understand that concept then there is no point in wasting time with someone who believes that his God should be in charge instead!
The church does not release financial data, but a lengthy report by The Economist last year said annual spending by the Vatican and church-owned entities in the U.S. alone was about $170 billion in 2010. While there are no hard data about the U.S. Catholic Church's annual revenue, Slate puts those spending numbers into some perspective -- noting that in fiscal 2012 Apple (AAPL -1.39%) had $157 billion in revenue and that only 16 companies have more than $170 billion in revenue.
In all fairness, it was a political discussion to begin with. If the pope simply said people need to do more to help the poor, it would not be so.
What the pope said was that a particular economic system is immoral. Since, in most of the world, vying economic philosophies fall pretty reliably along various party lines, any conversations revolving around the pope's statement can't really help but be political in nature.
Essentially, if the pope didn't want to talk politics, he shouldn't have taken a shot at macroeconomics.
And wtf at everybody taking a crack at this subject, lately? Guys with economic PHD's haven't even come to much of a consensus regarding what actually works. Why is it that people who, for instance, studied the bible all their lives, suddenly feel qualified to analyze accurately a subject that the people in the top of that subject's field still don't have a real firm grasp on?
Aha, I thought so....he hit the nail on the head and that is why so many so called Christians are uncomfortable with his position....
except he did not. he revealed the view based on his own interpretation and experience of the economic system of SOME of the Third world.
Has absolutely NOTHING to do with economics in the First and even in those countries which used to be Second.
he'd better stick to the matters of souls and the economy inside the Vatican curia.
Nothing the pope does will change the fact that the catholic church is a big business:
The church does not release financial data, but a lengthy report by The Economist last year said annual spending by the Vatican and church-owned entities in the U.S. alone was about $170 billion in 2010. While there are no hard data about the U.S. Catholic Church's annual revenue, Slate puts those spending numbers into some perspective -- noting that in fiscal 2012 Apple (AAPL -1.39%) had $157 billion in revenue and that only 16 companies have more than $170 billion in revenue.
US Catholic Church a $170 billion business- MSN Money
If you are not a Christian, then you have every right to discount what he said and continue to believe that your view on economics is the right one.....In all fairness, it was a political discussion to begin with. If the pope simply said people need to do more to help the poor, it would not be so.
What the pope said was that a particular economic system is immoral. Since, in most of the world, vying economic philosophies fall pretty reliably along various party lines, any conversations revolving around the pope's statement can't really help but be political in nature.
Essentially, if the pope didn't want to talk politics, he shouldn't have taken a shot at macroeconomics.
And wtf at everybody taking a crack at this subject, lately? Guys with economic PHD's haven't even come to much of a consensus regarding what actually works. Why is it that people who, for instance, studied the bible all their lives, suddenly feel qualified to analyze accurately a subject that the people in the top of that subject's field still don't have a real firm grasp on?
Aha, I thought so....he hit the nail on the head and that is why so many so called Christians are uncomfortable with his position....
If you weren't gonna address a single point that I made, why did you bother to quote me? Seems a long way to go when all you really did there was assumed I'm Christian and uncomfortable and implied that the pope's view here (your view) is obviously correct.
I didn't really accuse you of being Christian, just mentioned the fact that so many so called Christians are uncomfortable with the Pope's position. Since you are not, then there is no reason for you to align with the pope, the mighty dollar is most important. Nothing wrong with my logic, but I couldn't say the same for those that believe in trickle down economics works when the evidence clearly shows that it doesn't work.Is it your logic circuit that's broken or is it just that debate's a foreign concept?
What is truly amazing is you think the government = the people and that you somehow represent the people by supporting the government.
The government is a derivative of the people. And the people have, not only a right, but an obligation to reign in control over it.
What are the first words of the Preamble to the Constitution?
If you don't understand that concept then there is no point in wasting time with someone who believes that his God should be in charge instead!
So lemme see if I've got your flow char worked out, here. . . .
Since the people who wrote the Constitution were the colonial government, and they used the phrase, "We the people", that means that "we the people" and "government" are synonymous?
So if someone in our government became a dictator and decided to go fully totalitarian, that would still be self-governance, right? Still just we the people governing ourselves?
I take it then that the desire for smaller government is inherently anti-American as well, despite the fact that the entire concept of the Constitution was to enumerate and restrict the powers of the government?
Seems like quite a logical stretch to base this sorta shit on the wording of the preamble. The verbage of relevant legislation doesn't decide reality
What are the first words of the Preamble to the Constitution?
If you don't understand that concept then there is no point in wasting time with someone who believes that his God should be in charge instead!
So lemme see if I've got your flow char worked out, here. . . .
Since the people who wrote the Constitution were the colonial government, and they used the phrase, "We the people", that means that "we the people" and "government" are synonymous?
So if someone in our government became a dictator and decided to go fully totalitarian, that would still be self-governance, right? Still just we the people governing ourselves?
I take it then that the desire for smaller government is inherently anti-American as well, despite the fact that the entire concept of the Constitution was to enumerate and restrict the powers of the government?
Seems like quite a logical stretch to base this sorta shit on the wording of the preamble. The verbage of relevant legislation doesn't decide reality
So according to you all of the Founding Fathers and Lincoln were 100% wrong when they used the term "We the People" when they referred to a government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people!
