The Pope takes back his Church

[Vox]

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.

But the matter of souls largely depends on what the people do, the people that he leads....and when they start worshiping the mighty dollar, they lose track of what's really important. I'm sure he was addressing Catholics, but the message really applies to other believers, too. He must have stepped on a lot of toes, as we're hearing a lot of "ouchies"!

that is just your opinion and the view of a Protestant ( no offense here, I like your Christian views).
He was addressing what his concept of the "capitalism" is and that is the reality of the Third world.
Which is not the reality of the First and even the used-to-be Second.

Since he does not see the difference and does not distinguish it - he should stay off the matter as he looks a bit ridiculous and ignorant. And the Pope should not. No ouches here - I could not care less what Pope's PRIVATE view on capitalism is. He is not speaking EX CATHEDRA

The matter of the soul salvation in Catholicism is a bit different than it is in Protestant churches ( and they differ inside themselves as well).

So his request is similar to the request to Calvinist to accept the free will.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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!

No, not wrong, just lumping themselves in with everyone else.

Conversely, is it your contention that simply due to politicians past using the term "we the people", the reality is now that government and "the people" are one in the same?

The polling numbers on certain recent massive legislation, something about health and a website, would suggest otherwise.

If the government and the people were one in the same, it would be impossible for the will of the government and the will of the people to be two different things, no?

And yet, here we are, Obamacare passed, signed, and instated.

Feel free to remain as part of the problem. We the People will move forward together while you drag your heels and throw silly temper tantrums.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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!

No, not wrong, just lumping themselves in with everyone else.

Conversely, is it your contention that simply due to politicians past using the term "we the people", the reality is now that government and "the people" are one in the same?

The polling numbers on certain recent massive legislation, something about health and a website, would suggest otherwise.

If the government and the people were one in the same, it would be impossible for the will of the government and the will of the people to be two different things, no?

And yet, here we are, Obamacare passed, signed, and instated.

Feel free to remain as part of the problem. We the People will move forward together while you drag your heels and throw silly temper tantrums.

Lol. And you feel free to bail on the argument now that you're out of logical comebacks and resort in stead to hiding your head in the sand by condescending me without actually addressing my points.

No offense, but based on the flow of this argument, particular this post of yours, you're far more likely than I to throw a temper tantrum.

On top of that, moving to an economic system based on dogma isn't really moving forward. That's the way the world's always arranged their economies. They used to call it divine right and say that God decided the people in power should be the people in power, but these days the more common method is to go Godless and replace all instances of God with, "society", or "the people" (i.e. it's best for society that we decide who should be in what class based on X values). America was the exception at one point, but we're doing our God damndest to get back to that old school thinking where mainstream morality should decide who's at the top of society, not individual capacity.

 

[Zona]

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. I’m 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?

I loved how fox business told the POPE what right and wrong on how to help the poor. Seriously.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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!

No, not wrong, just lumping themselves in with everyone else.

Conversely, is it your contention that simply due to politicians past using the term "we the people", the reality is now that government and "the people" are one in the same?

The polling numbers on certain recent massive legislation, something about health and a website, would suggest otherwise.

If the government and the people were one in the same, it would be impossible for the will of the government and the will of the people to be two different things, no?

And yet, here we are, Obamacare passed, signed, and instated.

Feel free to remain as part of the problem. We the People will move forward together while you drag your heels and throw silly temper tantrums.

ANd seriously, when your opinion is shared by roughly the same sized portion of our populace as the portion that is diametrically opposed to your political/economic philosophy (i.e. if you removed the low information swing voters, half the country feels your way, half doesn't) how come "we the people" is suddenly just the people who agree with you? Is the half of the population who disagrees with you not included in "we the people"? When they said all men were created equal, did they view conservative and libertarian values as subhuman? Jackass.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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. I’m 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?

I loved how fox business told the POPE what right and wrong on how to help the poor. Seriously.

This is an odd statement coming from someone with your avatar. I can't remember the last time a rabid democrat credited any faction of the Christian church with having a monopoly on right and wrong. Suddenly there's a socialist pope and all of a sudden you're like, "Psh! You tryna tell God's right hand man what's right and wrong!?"

What is it with lefties and the ability to instantly worship allies of opportunity?

 

[Derideo_Te]

No, not wrong, just lumping themselves in with everyone else.

Conversely, is it your contention that simply due to politicians past using the term "we the people", the reality is now that government and "the people" are one in the same?

The polling numbers on certain recent massive legislation, something about health and a website, would suggest otherwise.

If the government and the people were one in the same, it would be impossible for the will of the government and the will of the people to be two different things, no?

And yet, here we are, Obamacare passed, signed, and instated.

Feel free to remain as part of the problem. We the People will move forward together while you drag your heels and throw silly temper tantrums.

ANd seriously, when your opinion is shared by roughly the same sized portion of our populace as the portion that is diametrically opposed to your political/economic philosophy (i.e. if you removed the low information swing voters, half the country feels your way, half doesn't) how come "we the people" is suddenly just the people who agree with you? Is the half of the population who disagrees with you not included in "we the people"? When they said all men were created equal, did they view conservative and libertarian values as subhuman? Jackass.

That you cannot refrain from the use of vulgar language demonstrates the feebleness of your position. The polls that you are basing your weak position on are just a snapshot. Furthermore they are being deliberately skewed by the propaganda that is being spewed by the extreme right for partisan political purposes.

My position is based upon a much longer term trend. One that starts with the Magna Carta and demonstrates a long term movement towards rights, freedom and equality for all mankind. The British Civil War was what resulted in the modern form of a Parliamentary Democracy and it was the French who originally codified what the US subsequently adopted as the Bill of Rights. Slavery was mostly outlawed in the rest of the civilized world before the American Civil War began.

The trend continued with voting rights for women, social security, scrapping of the Jim Crow laws and the implementation of Medicare. The current trend towards a more civilized attitude for all people is now growing in strength with the demographic changes that are happening at the present time. The younger generation does not embrace the intolerance of the past and the Latino and middle class Blacks are asserting their political power and forming alliances with the progressive Whites.

You can rant and rail as much as you like but you cannot stop the trend towards a better future for everyone, rich and poor alike. Your regressive throwback position cannot withstand the force of We the People. Your only option is to adapt to the changes or get out of the way because you are powerless to stop them.

 

[Barb]

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.

the soviet union fell you know....

Not every economic arrangement left of Marie Antoinette is the Soviet Union you know...

 

[Barb]

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.

The people ARE the government, and yes,an educated and informed populace DOES need to control it - which is not the same thing as drowning it in a bathtub or making sure it doesn't work effectively so that you can turn around and point, saying it doesn't work effectively.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Feel free to remain as part of the problem. We the People will move forward together while you drag your heels and throw silly temper tantrums.

ANd seriously, when your opinion is shared by roughly the same sized portion of our populace as the portion that is diametrically opposed to your political/economic philosophy (i.e. if you removed the low information swing voters, half the country feels your way, half doesn't) how come "we the people" is suddenly just the people who agree with you? Is the half of the population who disagrees with you not included in "we the people"? When they said all men were created equal, did they view conservative and libertarian values as subhuman? Jackass.

That you cannot refrain from the use of vulgar language demonstrates the feebleness of your position. The polls that you are basing your weak position on are just a snapshot. Furthermore they are being deliberately skewed by the propaganda that is being spewed by the extreme right for partisan political purposes.

My position is based upon a much longer term trend. One that starts with the Magna Carta and demonstrates a long term movement towards rights, freedom and equality for all mankind. The British Civil War was what resulted in the modern form of a Parliamentary Democracy and it was the French who originally codified what the US subsequently adopted as the Bill of Rights. Slavery was mostly outlawed in the rest of the civilized world before the American Civil War began.

The trend continued with voting rights for women, social security, scrapping of the Jim Crow laws and the implementation of Medicare. The current trend towards a more civilized attitude for all people is now growing in strength with the demographic changes that are happening at the present time. The younger generation does not embrace the intolerance of the past and the Latino and middle class Blacks are asserting their political power and forming alliances with the progressive Whites.

You can rant and rail as much as you like but you cannot stop the trend towards a better future for everyone, rich and poor alike. Your regressive throwback position cannot withstand the force of We the People. Your only option is to adapt to the changes or get out of the way because you are powerless to stop them.

Actually, the vulgar language demonstrates only that I engage in the use of vulgar language. It was actually in response to the needless implication that I'm the type of whiner to throw temper tantrums over people not agreeing with my political views. You insult me unprovoked and then pretend to take the high road cuz I used naughty words? LMFAO, are we 6?

Your willingness to make assumptions about my intellect based on my word usage is actually more telling than "jackass", but I won't get into that. Seems petty.

Now, I will say that we have seen a long trend toward equality throughout our nation's history, which is all to the good. Womens' sufferage, the abolition of slavery, all wonderful things and inarguably a move toward equality.

I will also say that we've seen a steady move toward more and more solcialist values in recent times. What I argue is that this is -not- simply the logical conclusion of the move toward equality. Every adult being able to vote? Yes, equality. Every adult being free, and no person being able to own another person? Yes, equality.

Some people owing other people money simply because they've earned and amassed more money than those others? Not equality. Giving someone else claim to my property simply because they're less productive does not make us equal, it subjugates me to that other person to whatever degree you decide is "fair".

This new assumption that modern liberalism and the Democrat party in particular gets to dictate the meaning of fairness is bullshit to begin with.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

The people ARE the government, and yes,an educated and informed populace DOES need to control it - which is not the same thing as drowning it in a bathtub or making sure it doesn't work effectively so that you can turn around and point, saying it doesn't work effectively.

Sorry, but the people are not the government. The government ostensibly represents the people, but if you're saying we should all assume that because someone was voted into power they will undoubtedly carry out the will of the people, you're too gullible for words.

 

[Derideo_Te]

ANd seriously, when your opinion is shared by roughly the same sized portion of our populace as the portion that is diametrically opposed to your political/economic philosophy (i.e. if you removed the low information swing voters, half the country feels your way, half doesn't) how come "we the people" is suddenly just the people who agree with you? Is the half of the population who disagrees with you not included in "we the people"? When they said all men were created equal, did they view conservative and libertarian values as subhuman? Jackass.

That you cannot refrain from the use of vulgar language demonstrates the feebleness of your position. The polls that you are basing your weak position on are just a snapshot. Furthermore they are being deliberately skewed by the propaganda that is being spewed by the extreme right for partisan political purposes.

My position is based upon a much longer term trend. One that starts with the Magna Carta and demonstrates a long term movement towards rights, freedom and equality for all mankind. The British Civil War was what resulted in the modern form of a Parliamentary Democracy and it was the French who originally codified what the US subsequently adopted as the Bill of Rights. Slavery was mostly outlawed in the rest of the civilized world before the American Civil War began.

The trend continued with voting rights for women, social security, scrapping of the Jim Crow laws and the implementation of Medicare. The current trend towards a more civilized attitude for all people is now growing in strength with the demographic changes that are happening at the present time. The younger generation does not embrace the intolerance of the past and the Latino and middle class Blacks are asserting their political power and forming alliances with the progressive Whites.

You can rant and rail as much as you like but you cannot stop the trend towards a better future for everyone, rich and poor alike. Your regressive throwback position cannot withstand the force of We the People. Your only option is to adapt to the changes or get out of the way because you are powerless to stop them.

Actually, the vulgar language demonstrates only that I engage in the use of vulgar language. It was actually in response to the needless implication that I'm the type of whiner to throw temper tantrums over people not agreeing with my political views. You insult me unprovoked and then pretend to take the high road cuz I used naughty words? LMFAO, are we 6?

Your willingness to make assumptions about my intellect based on my word usage is actually more telling than "jackass", but I won't get into that. Seems petty.

Now, I will say that we have seen a long trend toward equality throughout our nation's history, which is all to the good. Womens' sufferage, the abolition of slavery, all wonderful things and inarguably a move toward equality.

I will also say that we've seen a steady move toward more and more solcialist values in recent times. What I argue is that this is -not- simply the logical conclusion of the move toward equality. Every adult being able to vote? Yes, equality. Every adult being free, and no person being able to own another person? Yes, equality.

Some people owing other people money simply because they've earned and amassed more money than those others? Not equality. Giving someone else claim to my property simply because they're less productive does not make us equal, it subjugates me to that other person to whatever degree you decide is "fair".

This new assumption that modern liberalism and the Democrat party in particular gets to dictate the meaning of fairness is bullshit to begin with.

So now we get to the "it's my money whine" and everyone else is a "lazy unproductive socialist".

Taxes are the price you pay to live in a civilized society.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

The level of taxation is in direct proportion to the degree that society is willing to put up with poverty and the accompanying crime and violence. During the Clinton Administration when unemployment was at it's lowest so was poverty and crime. Since taxes were lowered unemployment, poverty and crime have all increased. The big rightwing lie that was perpetrated to lower taxes what that this would be an "incentive" for "job creators" to "create more jobs". It has been more than a decade and that canard has been exposed as utter BS.

So the situation that we face today is one of increasing poverty and crime. Since "your money" is not being used to "create jobs" it is going to have to be used to deal with the problems that occurred because you failed to keep your side of the "social contract".

Please don't insult my intelligence with deflections about the ACA and "economic uncertainty" and all the rest of that rightwing nonsense. Address the issue of rising poverty rates and how they can be effectively resolved because that is what this thread is all about.

 

[uhkilleez]

That you cannot refrain from the use of vulgar language demonstrates the feebleness of your position. The polls that you are basing your weak position on are just a snapshot. Furthermore they are being deliberately skewed by the propaganda that is being spewed by the extreme right for partisan political purposes.

My position is based upon a much longer term trend. One that starts with the Magna Carta and demonstrates a long term movement towards rights, freedom and equality for all mankind. The British Civil War was what resulted in the modern form of a Parliamentary Democracy and it was the French who originally codified what the US subsequently adopted as the Bill of Rights. Slavery was mostly outlawed in the rest of the civilized world before the American Civil War began.

The trend continued with voting rights for women, social security, scrapping of the Jim Crow laws and the implementation of Medicare. The current trend towards a more civilized attitude for all people is now growing in strength with the demographic changes that are happening at the present time. The younger generation does not embrace the intolerance of the past and the Latino and middle class Blacks are asserting their political power and forming alliances with the progressive Whites.

You can rant and rail as much as you like but you cannot stop the trend towards a better future for everyone, rich and poor alike. Your regressive throwback position cannot withstand the force of We the People. Your only option is to adapt to the changes or get out of the way because you are powerless to stop them.

Actually, the vulgar language demonstrates only that I engage in the use of vulgar language. It was actually in response to the needless implication that I'm the type of whiner to throw temper tantrums over people not agreeing with my political views. You insult me unprovoked and then pretend to take the high road cuz I used naughty words? LMFAO, are we 6?

Your willingness to make assumptions about my intellect based on my word usage is actually more telling than "jackass", but I won't get into that. Seems petty.

Now, I will say that we have seen a long trend toward equality throughout our nation's history, which is all to the good. Womens' sufferage, the abolition of slavery, all wonderful things and inarguably a move toward equality.

I will also say that we've seen a steady move toward more and more solcialist values in recent times. What I argue is that this is -not- simply the logical conclusion of the move toward equality. Every adult being able to vote? Yes, equality. Every adult being free, and no person being able to own another person? Yes, equality.

Some people owing other people money simply because they've earned and amassed more money than those others? Not equality. Giving someone else claim to my property simply because they're less productive does not make us equal, it subjugates me to that other person to whatever degree you decide is "fair".

This new assumption that modern liberalism and the Democrat party in particular gets to dictate the meaning of fairness is bullshit to begin with.

So now we get to the "it's my money whine" and everyone else is a "lazy unproductive socialist".

Taxes are the price you pay to live in a civilized society.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

The level of taxation is in direct proportion to the degree that society is willing to put up with poverty and the accompanying crime and violence. During the Clinton Administration when unemployment was at it's lowest so was poverty and crime. Since taxes were lowered unemployment, poverty and crime have all increased. The big rightwing lie that was perpetrated to lower taxes what that this would be an "incentive" for "job creators" to "create more jobs". It has been more than a decade and that canard has been exposed as utter BS.

So the situation that we face today is one of increasing poverty and crime. Since "your money" is not being used to "create jobs" it is going to have to used to deal with the problems that occurred because you failed to keep your side of the "social contract".

Please don't insult my intelligence with deflections about the ACA and "economic uncertainty" and all the rest of that rightwing nonsense. Address the issue of rising poverty rates and how they can be effectively resolved because that is what this thread is all about.

Clinton lowered taxes, too. The ultimate question is whose taxes are being lowered. Crime is also not increasing in this country, it has been going down. It has been a few months since I saw the FBI statistics, so I am making my best educated guess as to when the timeline began, but if my memory serves me, since 1993 crime has gone down by 50%. Crime is highest in areas with the strictest gun laws, and highest rate of taxation on the middle class.

In terms of poverty and unemployment, one must consider a multitude of criteria. For example, the government's rate of unemployment does not take into account those whom have quit looking for a job. It never has, and this was true even during the Clinton administration. Almost no level of taxes will be meaningful to the most wealthy in this country. The large corporate conglomerates of today, borderline monopolies, have no problem paying huge taxes. To a certain degree, they encourage these taxes under the premise their lobbying will earn them substantial loopholes and whatever else is left will be subsidized. In quite a few circumstances, raises in the minimum wages are subsidized by the tax payers, in that we are essentially paying for our own raises by the end of year. One may ask why these complications may be beneficial to such a corporation? It cuts out the little businesses who cannot pay to keep up with the loopholes and do not receive the subsidies. Our current tax code stifles competition, which in itself hinders the economy as well as job opportunities for our youth, whom are the most susceptible to falling into a life of crime.

This life is not a nirvana, there are no easy solutions to our difficult problem, but the problem itself is a simple one. Our solution should be equally transparent and simple should we hope to learn from the mistakes we will without doubt make, and have without doubt made, to move on to a more opportunistic and prosperous tomorrow. Neither side of our yin-yang system has a clear cut answer, and it won't be someone who rises from such a mess who transpires a meaningful solution. We need to think outside the party to solve our problems.

 

[Barb]

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.

The people ARE the government, and yes,an educated and informed populace DOES need to control it - which is not the same thing as drowning it in a bathtub or making sure it doesn't work effectively so that you can turn around and point, saying it doesn't work effectively.

Sorry, but the people are not the government. The government ostensibly represents the people, but if you're saying we should all assume that because someone was voted into power they will undoubtedly carry out the will of the people, you're too gullible for words.

You should keep your day job - mind-reading is not for you.

 

[uhkilleez]

The people ARE the government, and yes,an educated and informed populace DOES need to control it - which is not the same thing as drowning it in a bathtub or making sure it doesn't work effectively so that you can turn around and point, saying it doesn't work effectively.

Sorry, but the people are not the government. The government ostensibly represents the people, but if you're saying we should all assume that because someone was voted into power they will undoubtedly carry out the will of the people, you're too gullible for words.

You should keep your day job - mind-reading is not for you.

I do not think the man was taking credit for reading the mind of anyone, but merely for stating a perfectly conceivable fact of this society. Those who represent us, do not truly represent us. This is more a problem for the current events board, however since it is being discussed here I feel I should add my two cents.

In the first hand, I have not a clue where mind reading ever came into the issue of politics, although I think politicians would love the ability to read our minds, should they truly represent us I doubt they would need such an ability. A politician who truly represents the people would be a working man. A politicians who represents the corporate culture are the type we have today, with political campaign contributions equating into the tens, or even dozens of millions. It is essentially our own fault, it is what we require of our "representatives", but in a society in which the campaign for a job costs outrageously more than the job pays there is nothing better to be expected.

We all have a beef with taxes and laws, in our own way. In a truly representative government, neither would impose upon us needs which outweigh our ability to give in. The average American isn't represented in American politics, it is the needs of a few dramatized into a portrait of the needs of us all. To put it bluntly, the majority of America is blissfully ignorant. So long as things are going good for them personally, they tend not to question anything which comes from government. The impoverished do not benefit from tax cuts for the wealthy, neither does the middle class. Nobody benefits from outlawing homosexual marriage. Nobody benefits from the fights in abortion, in race, but these simplistic issues receive the majority of focus from the media and our government alike, meanwhile the real issues within this country get turned a blind eye, only to bury us further in debt and responsibilities.

True American representation in Government will only be reincarnated in the ashes of a gruesome death of the Republican and Democratic parties alike.

 

[Barb]

Sorry, but the people are not the government. The government ostensibly represents the people, but if you're saying we should all assume that because someone was voted into power they will undoubtedly carry out the will of the people, you're too gullible for words.

You should keep your day job - mind-reading is not for you.

I do not think the man was taking credit for reading the mind of anyone, but merely for stating a perfectly conceivable fact of this society. Those who represent us, do not truly represent us. This is more a problem for the current events board, however since it is being discussed here I feel I should add my two cents.

In the first hand, I have not a clue where mind reading ever came into the issue of politics, although I think politicians would love the ability to read our minds, should they truly represent us I doubt they would need such an ability. A politician who truly represents the people would be a working man. A politicians who represents the corporate culture are the type we have today, with political campaign contributions equating into the tens, or even dozens of millions. It is essentially our own fault, it is what we require of our "representatives", but in a society in which the campaign for a job costs outrageously more than the job pays there is nothing better to be expected.

We all have a beef with taxes and laws, in our own way. In a truly representative government, neither would impose upon us needs which outweigh our ability to give in. The average American isn't represented in American politics, it is the needs of a few dramatized into a portrait of the needs of us all. To put it bluntly, the majority of America is blissfully ignorant. So long as things are going good for them personally, they tend not to question anything which comes from government. The impoverished do not benefit from tax cuts for the wealthy, neither does the middle class. Nobody benefits from outlawing homosexual marriage. Nobody benefits from the fights in abortion, in race, but these simplistic issues receive the majority of focus from the media and our government alike, meanwhile the real issues within this country get turned a blind eye, only to bury us further in debt and responsibilities.

True American representation in Government will only be reincarnated in the ashes of a gruesome death of the Republican and Democratic parties alike.

See the bold, and for further consideration:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

strawman
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending./QUOTE]

On this we agree

I'm not so sure about the last.

 

[uhkilleez]

You should keep your day job - mind-reading is not for you.

I do not think the man was taking credit for reading the mind of anyone, but merely for stating a perfectly conceivable fact of this society. Those who represent us, do not truly represent us. This is more a problem for the current events board, however since it is being discussed here I feel I should add my two cents.

In the first hand, I have not a clue where mind reading ever came into the issue of politics, although I think politicians would love the ability to read our minds, should they truly represent us I doubt they would need such an ability. A politician who truly represents the people would be a working man. A politicians who represents the corporate culture are the type we have today, with political campaign contributions equating into the tens, or even dozens of millions. It is essentially our own fault, it is what we require of our "representatives", but in a society in which the campaign for a job costs outrageously more than the job pays there is nothing better to be expected.

We all have a beef with taxes and laws, in our own way. In a truly representative government, neither would impose upon us needs which outweigh our ability to give in. The average American isn't represented in American politics, it is the needs of a few dramatized into a portrait of the needs of us all. To put it bluntly, the majority of America is blissfully ignorant. So long as things are going good for them personally, they tend not to question anything which comes from government. The impoverished do not benefit from tax cuts for the wealthy, neither does the middle class. Nobody benefits from outlawing homosexual marriage. Nobody benefits from the fights in abortion, in race, but these simplistic issues receive the majority of focus from the media and our government alike, meanwhile the real issues within this country get turned a blind eye, only to bury us further in debt and responsibilities.

True American representation in Government will only be reincarnated in the ashes of a gruesome death of the Republican and Democratic parties alike.

See the bold, and for further consideration:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

strawman
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending./QUOTE]

On this we agree

I'm not so sure about the last.

I understood what you were saying, but Not2BSubjugated brings up a good point. Our leaders do not represent us very well. I don't care about subsidized health, education, or military. I think all three areas would be much more efficient without the "assistance" of government. The people need to be the ones to negotiate fair prices and consume intelligently, if the people can't do it themselves then where is the benefit in letting their "representatives" do it for them? Are their representatives doctors or politicians? Let's be serious for a second. Do you honestly believe that Obama is reforming healthcare because he thinks it will be better for America?

 

[Barb]

I do not think the man was taking credit for reading the mind of anyone, but merely for stating a perfectly conceivable fact of this society. Those who represent us, do not truly represent us. This is more a problem for the current events board, however since it is being discussed here I feel I should add my two cents.

In the first hand, I have not a clue where mind reading ever came into the issue of politics, although I think politicians would love the ability to read our minds, should they truly represent us I doubt they would need such an ability. A politician who truly represents the people would be a working man. A politicians who represents the corporate culture are the type we have today, with political campaign contributions equating into the tens, or even dozens of millions. It is essentially our own fault, it is what we require of our "representatives", but in a society in which the campaign for a job costs outrageously more than the job pays there is nothing better to be expected.

We all have a beef with taxes and laws, in our own way. In a truly representative government, neither would impose upon us needs which outweigh our ability to give in. The average American isn't represented in American politics, it is the needs of a few dramatized into a portrait of the needs of us all. To put it bluntly, the majority of America is blissfully ignorant. So long as things are going good for them personally, they tend not to question anything which comes from government. The impoverished do not benefit from tax cuts for the wealthy, neither does the middle class. Nobody benefits from outlawing homosexual marriage. Nobody benefits from the fights in abortion, in race, but these simplistic issues receive the majority of focus from the media and our government alike, meanwhile the real issues within this country get turned a blind eye, only to bury us further in debt and responsibilities.

True American representation in Government will only be reincarnated in the ashes of a gruesome death of the Republican and Democratic parties alike.

See the bold, and for further consideration:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

strawman
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending./QUOTE]

On this we agree

I'm not so sure about the last.

I understood what you were saying, but Not2BSubjugated brings up a good point. Our leaders do not represent us very well. I don't care about subsidized health, education, or military. I think all three areas would be much more efficient without the "assistance" of government. The people need to be the ones to negotiate fair prices and consume intelligently, if the people can't do it themselves then where is the benefit in letting their "representatives" do it for them? Are their representatives doctors or politicians? Let's be serious for a second. Do you honestly believe that Obama is reforming healthcare because he thinks it will be better for America?

Yes, I do, although I would have preferred the original without all the concessions. Better yet would be national.

 

[uhkilleez]

See the bold, and for further consideration:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman



I understood what you were saying, but Not2BSubjugated brings up a good point. Our leaders do not represent us very well. I don't care about subsidized health, education, or military. I think all three areas would be much more efficient without the "assistance" of government. The people need to be the ones to negotiate fair prices and consume intelligently, if the people can't do it themselves then where is the benefit in letting their "representatives" do it for them? Are their representatives doctors or politicians? Let's be serious for a second. Do you honestly believe that Obama is reforming healthcare because he thinks it will be better for America?

Yes, I do, although I would have preferred the original without all the concessions. Better yet would be national.

Oh wow. I'll talk to you again about this in a few years and see what you think.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I do not think the man was taking credit for reading the mind of anyone, but merely for stating a perfectly conceivable fact of this society. Those who represent us, do not truly represent us. This is more a problem for the current events board, however since it is being discussed here I feel I should add my two cents.

In the first hand, I have not a clue where mind reading ever came into the issue of politics, although I think politicians would love the ability to read our minds, should they truly represent us I doubt they would need such an ability. A politician who truly represents the people would be a working man. A politicians who represents the corporate culture are the type we have today, with political campaign contributions equating into the tens, or even dozens of millions. It is essentially our own fault, it is what we require of our "representatives", but in a society in which the campaign for a job costs outrageously more than the job pays there is nothing better to be expected.

We all have a beef with taxes and laws, in our own way. In a truly representative government, neither would impose upon us needs which outweigh our ability to give in. The average American isn't represented in American politics, it is the needs of a few dramatized into a portrait of the needs of us all. To put it bluntly, the majority of America is blissfully ignorant. So long as things are going good for them personally, they tend not to question anything which comes from government. The impoverished do not benefit from tax cuts for the wealthy, neither does the middle class. Nobody benefits from outlawing homosexual marriage. Nobody benefits from the fights in abortion, in race, but these simplistic issues receive the majority of focus from the media and our government alike, meanwhile the real issues within this country get turned a blind eye, only to bury us further in debt and responsibilities.

True American representation in Government will only be reincarnated in the ashes of a gruesome death of the Republican and Democratic parties alike.

See the bold, and for further consideration:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

strawman
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending./QUOTE]

On this we agree

I'm not so sure about the last.

I understood what you were saying, but Not2BSubjugated brings up a good point. Our leaders do not represent us very well. I don't care about subsidized health, education, or military. I think all three areas would be much more efficient without the "assistance" of government. The people need to be the ones to negotiate fair prices and consume intelligently, if the people can't do it themselves then where is the benefit in letting their "representatives" do it for them? Are their representatives doctors or politicians? Let's be serious for a second. Do you honestly believe that Obama is reforming healthcare because he thinks it will be better for America?

I do. I also believe the Pope is speaking out to make our world better. Better? Fair and not under the control of the power elite, the plutocrats and the bullies. "Man is born free" yet remains, "everywhere in chains".