What Are Your Thoughts On This Meme?

[Guest]

Donald Trump doubles down on waterboarding

 

 

 

At a rally in Columbus, Ohio, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump told the audience in response to whether he would approve waterboarding, "You bet your ass I would." (Reuters)

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said Monday he not only would bring back waterboarding, the controversial interrogation technique discontinued by the Obama administration, but also would "approve more than that," even if such tactics prove ineffective.

 

"Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I would — in a heartbeat," Trump said to loud cheers during a rally at a convention center here Monday night that attracted thousands. "And I would approve more than that. Don't kid yourself, folks. It works, okay? It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn't work."

 

Trump said such techniques are needed to confront terrorists who "chop off our young people's heads" and "build these iron cages, and they'll put 20 people in them and they drop them in the ocean for 15 minutes and pull them up 15 minutes later."
"It works," Trump said over and over again. "Believe me, it works. And you know what? If it doesn't work, they deserve it anyway, for what they're doing. It works."


 

[Ash Wednesday]

Nah, I'm calling a spade a spade here. It's biased, leftist, liberal garbage created by someone with that agenda in the context of it. No Democrats in that meme? The ones that profess Christianity but support abortion?

Many politicians from both parties have positions that are problematic with Christianity -- but drawing parallels with Islamic State is disgusting.

[Ice_nine]

8 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

The idea of government 'of the people by the people for the people' was always a pipe dream, and IMO not a very compelling one. We, those not called to rule, do not need power. We need Truth.

Irregardless (lololol) it's a huge distraction. Look at how rabid and amped up people become over political issues, and at the end of the day there is virtually nothing that us plebes can do about anything we're arguing about.

And I think we need a little bit of power and dominion over our own lives. Should we, if it ever comes down to it, just allow ourselves to be oppressed by an autocrat or something? I guess I don't get your point. Of course we need truth, and I understand "power" is overrated and that giving up power is often the Christian thing to do, butI don't think the two are mutually exclusive just because one is more important than the other.

[dominicansoul]

This meme would have worked more if you put the entire Democrat party instead of the Republican candidates.   Democrats are the ones who fully support butchering babies in the womb, selling their body parts, and get big $$$$$ out of it.  In fact, I view that party more of a danger to America than ISIS.  Everybody knows what ISIS stands for.  But Democrats convince people they are for the poor and helpless women, all the while murdering countless babies and destroying the Constitution.  Their evil is subtle and accepted by a majority of very stupid people who believe stupid memes like this one and who's attention span lasts enough to vote for D's in the voting booth.

8 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

The idea of government 'of the people by the people for the people' was always a pipe dream, and IMO not a very compelling one. We, those not called to rule, do not need power. We need Truth.

It compelled our Patriots to beat the poo out of the Crown and start the best country this world has ever seen, though. lol.

 

BTW,

Who cares what Donald Trump flaps his gums about.  He's talking to stir up support.  Ever been to a pep rally?  Besides, it's not like he's forcing Nuns to pay for Abortions like the Democrats are...

 

[Ash Wednesday]

The meme isn't just merely stating that neither group represents its respective religion -- it's the usage of Islamic State I find so objectionable, because we're talking about a misrepresentation of a religion that is gross and diabolical on its own level that goes beyond hypocritical politicians.

[Nihil Obstat]

2 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

Irregardless (lololol) it's a huge distraction. Look at how rabid and amped up people become over political issues, and at the end of the day there is virtually nothing that us plebes can do about anything we're arguing about.

And I think we need a little bit of power and dominion over our own lives. Should we, if it ever comes down to it, just allow ourselves to be oppressed by an autocrat or something? I guess I don't get your point. Of course we need truth, and I understand "power" is overrated and that giving up power is often the Christian thing to do, butI don't think the two are mutually exclusive just because one is more important than the other.

I think we are making substantially similar points. It certainly is a distraction. There is good to be grasped in the current election cycle, yes. There are candidates there who could do some good. And there are many who will continue to make things worse. But at the core, American culture is broken and godless, and much of it is not worth salvaging. The only real solution is conversion. For as long as western culture, American culture in particular, is blasphemous, gluttonous, decadent, for as long as Americans choose and continue to choose to live according only to sensual pleasures, this decline will continue, and will accelerate. Certain politicians will contribute to that acceleration. Some might fight it, but they will be only a stopgap. At best they might be a useful tool to in allowing God to effect conversion.

I do not think we can abandon the political sphere. It is a subset of the social realm - small, but with a vastly disproportionate influence. But nor can we focus on politics to the exclusion of our other social obligations. Politics will not sanctify us. The Kingship of Christ will.

1 hour ago, dominicansoul said:

It compelled our Patriots to beat the poo out of the Crown and start the best country this world has ever seen, though. lol.

Debatable. The United States is one of the most hedonistic and decadent cultures ever to have existed. The only group to blame for that, collectively, is Americans themselves. As Catholics we must oppose this culture far more often than we can support it.

 

_____

 

The thing is, democracy, and American republicanism, is simply one political system among many. It has its strengths and it has its weaknesses. It is a red herring to defend democracy or the American system as such. Is it the best system we currently have? Maybe, maybe not. That is an area for prudential judgments above all. But we should not unreservedly commit ourselves to this system, rather we commit ourselves to the common good, the true common good which includes submission to the will of Christ and recognition of the temporal authority of His Church, and we should instead support those systems which could best bring that about.

4. Although man, when excited by a certain arrogance and contumacy, has often striven to cast aside the reins of authority, he has never yet been able to arrive at the state of obeying no one. In every association and community of men, necessity itself compels that some should hold pre-eminence, lest society, deprived of a prince or head by which it is ruled should come to dissolution and be prevented from attaining the end for which it was created and instituted. But, if it was not possible that political power should be removed from the midst of states, it is certain that men have used every art to take away its influence and to lessen its majesty, as was especially the case in the sixteenth century, when a fatal novelty of opinions infatuated many. Since that epoch, not only has the multitude striven after a liberty greater than is just, but it has seen fit to fashion the origin and construction of the civil society of men in accordance with its own will.

5. Indeed, very many men of more recent times, walking in the footsteps of those who in a former age assumed to themselves the name of philosophers,(2) say that all power comes from the people; so that those who exercise it in the State do so not as their own, but as delegated to them by the people, and that, by this rule, it can be revoked by the will of the very people by whom it was delegated. But from these, Catholics dissent, who affirm that the right to rule is from God, as from a natural and necessary principle.

6. It is of importance, however, to remark in this place that those who may be placed over the State may in certain cases be chosen by the will and decision of the multitude, without opposition to or impugning of the Catholic doctrine. And by this choice, in truth, the ruler is designated, but the rights of ruling are not thereby conferred. Nor is the authority delegated to him, but the person by whom it is to be exercised is determined upon.

7. There is no question here respecting forms of government, for there is no reason why the Church should not approve of the chief power being held by one man or by more, provided only it be just, and that it tend to the common advantage. Wherefore, so long as justice be respected, the people are not hindered from choosing for themselves that form of government which suits best either their own disposition, or the institutions and customs of their ancestors.(3)

8. But, as regards political power, the Church rightly teaches that it comes from God, for it finds this clearly testified in the sacred Scriptures and in the monuments of antiquity; besides, no other doctrine can be conceived which is more agreeable to reason, or more in accord with the safety of both princes and peoples.

[Cam42]

Hi Nihil Obstat.  I missed you.

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Likewise.

[Ice_nine]

3 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I think we are making substantially similar points. It certainly is a distraction. There is good to be grasped in the current election cycle, yes. There are candidates there who could do some good. And there are many who will continue to make things worse. But at the core, American culture is broken and godless, and much of it is not worth salvaging. The only real solution is conversion. For as long as western culture, American culture in particular, is blasphemous, gluttonous, decadent, for as long as Americans choose and continue to choose to live according only to sensual pleasures, this decline will continue, and will accelerate. Certain politicians will contribute to that acceleration. Some might fight it, but they will be only a stopgap. At best they might be a useful tool to in allowing God to effect conversion.

I just read though that abortion rates were the highest under Reagan and the lowest under . . . Obama. And the decline in abortions have stalled under the last Bush administration. It's true I need to research it more, and I'm positive there are other factors involved besides who is, but it makes me wonder if voting for republicans just to get that small sliver of "good to be grasped" is even worth it. For the majority of Americans life goes on pretty much the same whether jack asses or elephants hold the keys. And yet it constitutes SO MUCH of our debates, thoughts, emotions . . . totally disproportionate to the level of attention national politics actually deserves. I think we mostly agree here, except you think we should do the little that we can whereas I think the little that we can do is virtually meaningless and may even, paradoxically, run counter to the goals of a just society.

I guess I'm slightly more cynical than you.

 

 

[dominicansoul]

Was the abortion pill available while Reagan was president?

RU-486 isn't counted among these "credible" statistics, you know...

8 minutes ago, Ice_nine said:

I just read though that abortion rates were the highest under Reagan and the lowest under . . . Obama. And the decline in abortions have stalled under the last Bush administration. It's true I need to research it more, and I'm positive there are other factors involved besides who is, but it makes me wonder if voting for republicans just to get that small sliver of "good to be grasped" is even worth it.

Texas has done well under Republicans where abortion is concerned. Our Republican leaders have all but closed up Planned Parenthood here in our state.

...wouldn't be like that AT ALL had we had democrats in charge...

It's worth a "small sliver" of some babies' lives...so I feel like its worth it...

But let's continue to put Republicans on the same stage as ISIS...

[Peace]

9 minutes ago, Ice_nine said:

I just read though that abortion rates were the highest under Reagan and the lowest under . . . Obama. And the decline in abortions have stalled under the last Bush administration. It's true I need to research it more, and I'm positive there are other factors involved besides who is, but it makes me wonder if voting for republicans just to get that small sliver of "good to be grasped" is even worth it. For the majority of Americans life goes on pretty much the same whether jack asses or elephants hold the keys. And yet it constitutes SO MUCH of our debates, thoughts, emotions . . . totally disproportionate to the level of attention national politics actually deserves. I think we mostly agree here, except you think we should do the little that we can whereas I think the little that we can do is virtually meaningless and may even, paradoxically, run counter to the goals of a just society.

I guess I'm slightly more cynical than you.

A hypothetical:

Candidate A: Opposes the legalization of abortion. But the policies he wishes to enact would result in an overall increase in abortions (whether legal or illegal abortions).

Candidate B: Favors the legalization of abortion. But the policies he wishes to enact would result in an overall decrease in abortions (whether legal or illegal abortions).

Should you vote for Candidate A or Candidate B?

[Ice_nine]

9 minutes ago, dominicansoul said:

Was the abortion pill available while Reagan was president?

RU-486 isn't counted among these "credible" statistics, you know...

Texas has done well under Republicans where abortion is concerned. Our Republican leaders have all but closed up Planned Parenthood here in our state.

...wouldn't be like that AT ALL had we had democrats in charge...

It's worth a "small sliver" of some babies' lives...so I feel like its worth it...

I don't know, like I said I'd have to research it more, but from a quick glance it doesn't seem like it really matters on a national level, and in fact abortion rates can be worse under a republican president. Which would mean that "small sliver" you were reaching for has actually come back to bite you. Maybe on a state level things are different.

But there's also something else to consider. Are unborn children more precious than born children in other countries who get blown up and die from wars perpetuated by the US? Shouldn't all innocent blood weigh in our decision making? Is it just a numbers game?

[Cam42]

3 minutes ago, Peace said:

A hypothetical:

Candidate A: Opposes the legalization of abortion. But the policies he wishes to enact would result in an overall increase in abortions (whether legal or illegal abortions).

Candidate B: Favors the legalization of abortion. But the policies he wishes to enact would result in an overall decrease in abortions (whether legal or illegal abortions).

Should you vote for Candidate A or Candidate B?

There is a fly in the ointment; hence the hypothetical.  The answer is nonsense.  Literally, because there is no circumstance in which the outcome you list is the case.  It's called a Genetic fallacy.

[dominicansoul]

4 minutes ago, Ice_nine said:

I don't know, like I said I'd have to research it more, but from a quick glance it doesn't seem like it really matters on a national level, and in fact abortion rates can be worse under a republican president. Which would mean that "small sliver" you were reaching for has actually come back to bite you. Maybe on a state level things are different.

But there's also something else to consider. Are unborn children more precious than born children in other countries who get blown up and die from wars perpetuated by the US? Shouldn't all innocent blood weigh in our decision making? Is it just a numbers game?

Mother Theresa said "peace begins in the womb."  She basically meant, a nation that wages war on the unborn will always be at war with others...

[Ice_nine]

3 minutes ago, Peace said:

A hypothetical:

Candidate A: Opposes the legalization of abortion. But the policies he wishes to enact would result in an overall increase in abortions (whether legal or illegal abortions).

Candidate B: Favors the legalization of abortion. But the policies he wishes to enact would result in an overall decrease in abortions (whether legal or illegal abortions).

Should you vote for Candidate A or Candidate B?

Good question. That's basically what I'm asking. I disagree with @Cam42 that this is an impossibility until he or anyone else can produce the research that shows a correlation between the abortion rate and pro-life/pro-choice politicians in charge. It would seem counter-intuitive that this would be the case but I don't think it's impossible.

Catholics also seem to think that comprehensive sex-education would lead to more abortions because it the "contraceptive mentality" is the rationale that leads people to commit abortion. Again quick research shows that comprehensive sex-ed probably reduces number of abortions (I'm open to this not being the case with data). So my question becomes should we tolerate a moral evil (enocouraging contraception) if it would reduce the number of children being killed?