hatred for bush..

[Snarf]

Baby, you do me wrong. Night and day I slave over the monitor to find some hole in your inpenetrable logic. When I finally make some discovery, dare I say an error, you neglect to discipline me as is so obviously necessary with demonstrations of how my outlandish claims are outlandish claims.

No, but seriously.

You throw out insults like "Again you lack thought and logic" and condescending attitudes "Learn to think". From my experience, there are two types of people that resort to such moves. Firstly are those that have extreme Euthyphro complexes (except they tend to be atheists) in that they see themselves as "above the common run of men". They have extremely distorted self-concepts (A One Man Scripture and Catechism Machine) and are defined by the outlook "what I am doing is right because I am doing it and I am right." Secondly you have those who are just oblivious to reality and lack the intuition to discern opinions from facts. I guess you could also throw in a third category as represented by the Iraqi Information Minister, but I didn't know him personally.

I guess what I'm going at is the fact that such claims are just libel until substantiated, something you never actually bother to do.

To speak metaphorically, I beat the dead horse because it smells bad. Yet, the more I beat the dead horse, the worse it smells!

Here's a lovely gem:

[i]Methods must be used to get information out of people. These methods are not torture.[/i]

What just happened there? The explicit claim is that when torture is useful, it's not really torture. However, we know from the infallible Ironmonk that Saddam definitely DID torture people. Who's to say that Saddam never used it to get information out of people? You make the clear assumption that anything teleological is not unpleasant. While I personally believe that sleep deprivation as a method of garnering information is not on par with using plastic shredders as a method of garnering a sadistic chuckle, there isn't a lexicographer, logician, or ethicist in the world who is going to side with you in your belief that one is torture and the other is not. Republican demagogue, maybe.

When you're not copy-and-pasting the same platforms (no argumetns, just platforms), you're posting links to other threads repeating the same platforms. For all the righteous indignation you clearly possess, you sure don't know how to use it. In most cases, for instance, instead of refusing to dignify an attack on your logic with an answer, you DO dignify it but leave its logic perfectly unscathed. This is the polemic equivalent of shouting "Oh, yeah!?" after getting punched in the face. The broken record technique is popularly employed in public school lessons as a tactic against drug offers and sexual advances. To my knowledge, it does NOT appear in any classic texts on rhetoric, dialectic, logic, or really anything else useful.

[Jaime]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='964143' date='Apr 28 2006, 11:15 AM']

Bush is not pro-choice. Bush has done more for the pro-life movement than any other president.

To be critcal of the president yes... but with truth, not lies, partial truths and stupid assumptions.

Yes it did fit the criteria. Lives have been saved because of it, a greater good came out of it. The Pope is not going to know all the validating points for it. It was a just war and after the fact it is clear for anyone who has the ability to think and apply Catholic teachings.
[/quote]


Bush is on record for abortions being allowed in cases of rape and incest. That is his problem with the new law in SD.

To quote then Cardinal Ratzinger

[quote]Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger does not believe that a unilateral military attack by the United States against Iraq would be morally justifiable, under the current circumstances.

According to the prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -- who acknowledged that political questions are not within his competence -- "the United Nations is the [institution] that should make the final decision."

"It is necessary that the community of nations makes the decision, not a particular power," the cardinal said, after receiving the 2002 Trieste Liberal Award. His statements were published Saturday in the Italian newspaper Avvenire.

"The fact that the United Nations is seeking the way to avoid war, seems to me to demonstrate with enough evidence that the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save," the cardinal said.

He said that "the U.N. can be criticized" from several points of view, but "it is the instrument created after the war for the coordination -- including moral -- of politics."

The "concept of a 'preventive war' does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church," Cardinal Ratzinger noted.

"One cannot simply say that the catechism does not legitimize the war," he continued. "But it is true that the catechism has developed a doctrine that, on one hand, does not exclude the fact that there are values and peoples that must be defended in some circumstances; on the other hand, it offers a very precise doctrine on the limits of these possibilities."[/quote]

The Holy Father has been clear in the past about first strike doctrine. One just needs to read to understand his position on the matter

[Snarf]

No reading! No understanding!

[b]THINK[/b]

[Iacobus]

I don't hate Bush the man. I hate the manner in which Bush in going about during his term in office. A lot of the laws he supports and the actions he has taken upset me on a number of levels. Part of it is that he never says anything bad about the US and doesn't want to be around anyone who says anything bad or that doesn't agree with him. I can keep saying that the boat won't sink, but if it has a whole bunch of holes in it it will sink, regardless of what I say about it. Being postive isn't a problem, being willfully ingnorant is. That is my primary concern.

And before you call me a bleeding heart liberal, know that I am become much more Republican over the past few months. The gay rights crowd is driving me nuts as in the pro-choice groups. Argh. I wish they would just be quiet once in a while.

[goldenchild17]

ugh, I hate democracy.

[jasJis]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='964595' date='Apr 28 2006, 06:57 PM']
ugh, I hate democracy.
[/quote]Yeah. It smells of elderberries having to take partial responsibility. Utopia would be to live under a benign dictatorship or a benign king where we don't have to worry about our responsiblity for government, we just obey and do what we're told. Ah. Utopia. Wherefore art thou our lost Utopia of no responsibility?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='964595' date='Apr 28 2006, 08:57 PM']
ugh, I hate democracy.
[/quote]
Well you might find North Korea, China , or Saudi Arabia more to your liking then

[indescribable]

if we only played loud music and deprived people of sleep, used humiliation as a tactic, then why do we have pictures of them doing otherwise? of them shocking prisoners, and as a news article came out last week (all over the media dear, so please don't claim its a lie told by leftist pigs) that new prisoners were found ON THE VERGE OF DEATH. but it doesn't sound as if we're getting good info out of these people anyway. so pretty much we're CONDONING torture becuz its the will of the government. i thought these people were still our neighbors - love Gentiles and Jews alike? that makes more sense to me than the need for bad information.

it's silly to say that 1000 people don't matter next to 15000000. doesn't everyone matter in the eyes of God? who are WE to decide who gets to live or die? - that's my point. If Bush said that abortions were illegal save for the case of incest, most on here would still be upset cuz that's a small number of cases per year. Why can't I be concerned about 1000?

I guess they don't matter too much.

and in case you attack me again, that isn't an argument to vote strictly democratic. i'm saying it needs to be an issue in whatever party one's in.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='964993' date='Apr 29 2006, 07:48 AM']
Well you might find North Korea, China , or Saudi Arabia more to your liking then
[/quote]

Nope, but restoring the Catholic monarchies of the Middle Ages would be nice.

Edited April 29, 2006 by goldenchild17

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='jswranch' post='963962' date='Apr 28 2006, 09:09 AM']
You are not a Secret Service agent. Crawford is fine. Other presidents spent time in Camp David: that was secure. Technology allows him to do his job from Texas.
[/quote]
uh, that's kind of what I said...right? I didn't put a "don't" between "I" and "think" in the sentence you quoted...did I? So, we're in agreement?

[praying4patience]

[quote]he's not evil, he's just dumb[/quote]
what did you base this on?

[Colleen]

[quote name='Iacobus' post='964558' date='Apr 28 2006, 08:19 PM']And before you call me a bleeding heart liberal, know that I am become much more Republican over the past few months. The gay rights crowd is driving me nuts as in the pro-choice groups. Argh. I wish they would just be quiet once in a while.[/quote]
Are you really Jacob? Just kidding!

[jasJis]

There may be reason to dislike or disagree, but no justification to hate. Unless, of course, you are an uber-Catholic and have acquired superior moral authority. In those circumstances, feel free to hate away. God wants you to do that.

[indescribable]

jasJis you make perfect sense.

ive never hated bush, altho i hate what he and others ( both dem and repub) are doing to our country... or rather, what we're allowing them to do.

[Sailahína]

I don't think Bush is evil or dumb,[b] I think he is a great president [/b] (I'm not afraid to say it) and doing a good job leading this country in such hard times. I don't think any president has handled as much chaos as Bush has. Imagine putting yourself in his shoes...
And Bush is pro-life, he doesn't have the power to make it stop just like that. I honestly think abortion will never end but that is another topic...
Bush is not perfect and you may disagree with some of the things he does but if you followed the Catholic teachings you would vote for him and not Kerry. Who knows what our country would like like if he was our president
And I'm am not anti-war, sure I don't like war but if we didn't have war things wouldn't be the way they are today, for example if we didn't have a civil war, blacks might not have ever been free...do you understand me? lol, I have a hard time explaining things.

Edited April 30, 2006 by Sailahína