Holy Hillary...

[ironmonk]

Torture... waterboarding, yes, that can be a mild to extreme form of torture depending on the extent of the water being poured. If it's extent is simply spashing of water for a few seconds every few minutes, then it's not torture.

Playing Eminem, Dr. Dre, etc... for hours on end is not torture and is hillarious.

Sleep deprivation is annoying, not torture.

Shoving a garden hose up someone rectum and yanking it out to disembowel them, that's torture... that is one of the many things that Saddam's men did to prisoners.

Car battery voltage to the testicles, that's torture... another thing Saddam's men did.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1417115' date='Nov 10 2007, 03:41 PM']Wrong.
It is NOT my opinion it IS Catholic Teaching.
Maybe actually [b]READ IT [/b]before commenting on it. Learn the faith.
As for what you write that I "think", then you know absolutely NOTHING about me. Your statement about what I think is completely moronic.[/quote]
Actually, I did read it. That portion doesn't support the hateful view you spew.

Speaking of reading it, how do you reconcile the part that says you shouldnt vote based on party lines?

(Side note - I find it laughable how you used to "respect" me when I was Catholic, but now that I list none as my religion, I'm considered ignorant and moronic.)

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1417216' date='Nov 10 2007, 07:45 PM']Bush is not Catholic, as far as prolife goes, he's done more than any other president for the cause. It is understandable from a Magisteriumless belief system why someone would error in thinking that rape was a reason for abortion.... nuff said.[/quote]
Interesting. You hold Hillary to Catholic standards yet don't do the same for Bush.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1417164' date='Nov 10 2007, 07:01 PM']If this is a pointless thread, why have you wasted so much of your time by posting in it twelve times so far??


And who do you think you're kidding, hot stuff? - If this was a thread about the prayer life of George W. Bush, everyone knows you'd be enthusiastically tearing apart the president's alleged hypocrisy![/quote]


Because I find it offensive that one can suggest who and who is not praying.

And I'm the one bringing GW as an example. His prayer life has not yielded good fruit. But I would never suggest that the man doesn't pray

[Jaime]

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1417197' date='Nov 10 2007, 07:38 PM']I'm all for tortue, if our country's well-being is at stake. Waterboard them, baby!!
These are terrrorists we are talkingabout here. It's an act of self-defense. After 911 do whatever you need to do to save my life!!!

\[/quote]

Then you disagree with the Church

[quote]2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.[/quote]

[Jaime]

and as far as just war

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

2003

Q: Eminence, a topical question that in a certain sense is inherent to the Catechism: Does the Anglo-American war against Iraq fit the canons of a "just war"?

Cardinal Ratzinger: The Pope expressed his thought with great clarity, not only as his individual thought but as the thought of a man who is knowledgeable in the highest functions of the Catholic Church. Of course, he did not impose this position as doctrine of the Church but as the appeal of a conscience enlightened by faith.

The Holy Father's judgment is also convincing from the rational point of view: There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war."[/quote]

[KnightofChrist]

John Paul II never stated the war was "unjust" nor has Benedict. They have been critical of negative actions, namely the start of the war, but saying anything beyond that is really putting words in their mouth. Again as of yet the Church has not commend the war as unjust, nor has any Pope.

But enough hijacking the thread this is about Hillary Clinton's using faith to score votes, when she is far from God.

Edited November 11, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[ironmonk]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1417254' date='Nov 10 2007, 11:35 PM']Actually, I did read it. That portion doesn't support the hateful view you spew.

Speaking of reading it, how do you reconcile the part that says you shouldnt vote based on party lines?

(Side note - I find it laughable how you used to "respect" me when I was Catholic, but now that I list none as my religion, I'm considered ignorant and moronic.)[/quote]

"hateful view"... "not to create dependancy on welfare" is hateful? by what definition? What is sad is that you don't know what hate is or how to help someone. The way you help the poor is to train them, help them get to a point where they can support themselves. The more people that suffer from poverty who are trained and educated to a point where they can support themselves then they open up money for others who are in poverty. To say what you wrote about my view of poverty reeks of ignorance for you drew your own conclusions without any evidence. There have been at least half a dozen times on this board where I have posted my thoughts that totally contradict your conclusion of error. A note to you, you're 17 and seem to be angery at the world, it's called testosterone, maybe when you grow into maturity you'll understand better, but right now you are going off half cocked with an empty gun. If you're not Catholic, why are you here posting? Simply to feed your anger, to learn, to divide, or to bring people down with you?


Side note: you have no logical basis for your statements. you are far off base on what is being posted. you made an moronic statement, that is not the same as calling you moronic. ignorant is a lack of information, if someone lacks information on a subject then they are therefore ignorant of that subject. whatever basis of logic you are trying to use is unsound.

Other note: To assume that a disagreement on a debate board means someone does not respect another is having a very myopic view of reality. Many topics are unrelated to others, if someone tries to debate with ignorant or moronic statements, I'm going to call them on it. I don't base my opinions on whims, I base them on the Catholic faith teachings. I am very careful not to misrepresent the teachings of the faith. If I say something is a Catholic teaching, it's because of Catholic documents (Scripture, Catechism, ECF writings, Encyclicals, Vatican/Bishops statements). Not my own whims. See, the Catholic Church is right on all counts of faith and morals... I don't want to be wrong, so if I learn that I have an opinion contradictory to Catholic teachings, I change it to be in line with the faith. When I say or write "the Catholic teaching is this...", it's because it is, if someone thinks I'm wrong, [u][b]I welcome correction: with Catholic documents[/b][/u]. I do not respect attacks without reason.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[ironmonk]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1417394' date='Nov 11 2007, 02:29 AM']and as far as just war[/quote]

More red herrings a la Jamie.

The war was not preventative. Saddam had WMD's. Bush had the responsiblity for the common good (as the Catholic Church teaches that civil leaders are responsible for the common good). Bush is going to have more info on what is going on with evil world leaders than a Pope or Bishops in most cases, and this was one of them.

And I'd say go back and reread it. The war on terror is supported. End of story. If you want to continue to be bitter because you are wrong and continue to post red herrings, you just prove your too blinded by your own opinions. "War as last resort" means that sometimes WAR IS ACCEPTABLE. It does not get any clearer than that... war is not evil... war is sometimes needed. The war is over and the Iraqi people are free, more free than they have ever been. Less people are dying. The Kurds do not have to fear being killed by Saddam because they're Kurds.



[quote]All nations have a right and duty to defend human life and the common good against terrorism, aggression, and similar threats. In the aftermath of September 11, we called for continuing outreach to those who had been harmed, clear resolve in responding to terror, moral restraint in the means used, respect for ethical limits on the use of force, greater focus on the roots of terror, and a serious effort to share fairly the burdens of this response. While military force as a last resort can sometimes be justified to defend against aggression and similar threats to the common good, we have raised serious moral concerns and questions about preemptive or preventive use of force.[/quote]

Edited November 11, 2007 by ironmonk

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1417713' date='Nov 11 2007, 02:03 PM']"hateful view"... "not to create dependancy on welfare" is hateful? by what definition? What is sad is that you don't know what hate is or how to help someone. The way you help the poor is to train them, help them get to a point where they can support themselves. The more people that suffer from poverty who are trained and educated to a point where they can support themselves then they open up money for others who are in poverty. To say what you wrote about my view of poverty reeks of ignorance for you drew your own conclusions without any evidence. There have been at least half a dozen times on this board where I have posted my thoughts that totally contradict your conclusion of error. A note to you, you're 17 and seem to be angery at the world, it's called testosterone, maybe when you grow into maturity you'll understand better, but right now you are going off half cocked with an empty gun. If you're not Catholic, why are you here posting? Simply to feed your anger, to learn, to divide, or to bring people down with you?
Side note: you have no logical basis for your statements. you are far off base on what is being posted. you made an moronic statement, that is not the same as calling you moronic. ignorant is a lack of information, if someone lacks information on a subject then they are therefore ignorant of that subject. whatever basis of logic you are trying to use is unsound.

Other note: To assume that a disagreement on a debate board means someone does not respect another is having a very myopic view of reality. Many topics are unrelated to others, if someone tries to debate with ignorant or moronic statements, I'm going to call them on it. I don't base my opinions on whims, I base them on the Catholic faith teachings. I am very careful not to misrepresent the teachings of the faith. If I say something is a Catholic teaching, it's because of Catholic documents (Scripture, Catechism, ECF writings, Encyclicals, Vatican/Bishops statements). Not my own whims. See, the Catholic Church is right on all counts of faith and morals... I don't want to be wrong, so if I learn that I have an opinion contradictory to Catholic teachings, I change it to be in line with the faith. When I say or write "the Catholic teaching is this...", it's because it is, if someone thinks I'm wrong, [u][b]I welcome correction: with Catholic documents[/b][/u]. I do not respect attacks without reason.
God Bless,
ironmonk[/quote]
If I don't know you, you don't know me. I find it insulting that you write off half of what I say as due to my age.

I had other things to say, but I've decided it's not worth the energy.

Have a lovely day

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1417721' date='Nov 11 2007, 02:10 PM']Saddam had WMD's.[/quote]
A few questions, just out of curiosity.

What was he doing with them at the time that made it imperative for the common good that he no longer had them?
Where are those WMDs now?

Simply wondering, I don't have a deep background with this topic so I would appreciate if you would englighten me.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1417924' date='Nov 11 2007, 08:38 PM']If I don't know you, you don't know me. I find it insulting that you write off half of what I say as due to my age.

I had other things to say, but I've decided it's not worth the energy.

Have a lovely day [/quote]

It's not really your age, it's the fact that you disagree with him. If you were older he would find some other random excuse to write off your arguments. Try not to take it personally. (I know - easier said than done.)

I'd like to read the things that you have to say.

[Socrates]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1417713' date='Nov 11 2007, 04:03 PM']"hateful view"... "not to create dependancy on welfare" is hateful?[/quote]
Didn't you know, anything which disagrees with a liberal, or which is contrary to political correctness, is ipso facto "hateful." Get with the program, Monk!

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1417995' date='Nov 11 2007, 09:42 PM']Didn't you know, anything which disagrees with a liberal, or which is contrary to political correctness, is ipso facto "hateful." Get with the program, Monk![/quote]
You're silly, I'm not a liberal

Edited November 12, 2007 by fidei defensor

[dairygirl4u2c]

just some points tho could give a lot more than this given the convoluted nature of this thread...
-"creates dependency on welfare" needs defined.
this is because as fidei said, he thinks iron is saying that any welfare ever is creating dependency. if this is not the case, it needs explained.
-also, just by setting up the examples as "creates dependenc on welfare" is simply begging for scandal. most democratic voters are not voting in order to create dependency on welfare, and many if not most democratic politicians do not wish to do that. (they often do but not always and not all of them)
-i think it'd be better if you debated specific examples as i'm trying to do with socrates instead of vague abstractions that people always mistake from the their debating opponents.