Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Offended And Democat Presidential Race Integrity


ironmonk

Recommended Posts

What "offends" someone that has nothing to do with morals? Why would someone feel offended by an opinion of someone else?

Typically when material is deemed "offensive" by some when the topic has nothing to do with morals (i.e. sex, lies, porn, abortion, etc) it's because something inside them might be telling them that they are wrong and they have no logical way of rebutting the material.

It's very frustrating to some people to be wrong. We can see this very well with anti-Catholics. They get in a huff and totally deny the truths that are given to them. They get angery and frustrated.

Instead of learning the truth, many things could be blinding them to the truth, such as pride or a mentality such as "my whole family is anti-Catholic and has been for years".

So in a matter of non-moralistic issues (i.e. public policy, immigration, economy) to be offended and get mad over someone elses thoughts on the matter is sign that the "offended" person might feel as though they know that they're wrong and do not want to admit it for whatever reason. Conflicts of conscience can cause this also. We see this happen when someone knowingly helps put to death innocent babies because of issues that are trivial by voting for abortionist politicians.

There are some people who actually seek the truth, instead of making their own view to be a "truth". If I'm wrong, I want to be corrected, I want to be right.... I love Christ, therefore I love the Truth. God is real, therefore truth is concrete, truth cannot contradict truth.

I approach things from a scientific train of thought... if I'm wrong or right, when I find out either I embrace it. If my view is correct, then great. If I am wrong, then great, because now I know the correct view - the true view, and I can and will change my view to the true view.

If a topic is not covered by the Church and it's up to us to find out what the truth is, such as public policies, then I look at the facts and study history and determine what is the truth. Such as with what works in government and what does not. I look at the numbers... numbers cannot lie. I listen to all "three" sides... those that are pro, con, and those that are niether. This is the only way to find out the truth. If we only listen to one side especially when one side has to bring down the other to make itself look good, then we will be in the dark about the truth. If a side has the truth, then they don't need to attack the other side to make themselves look good.

Anytime we see the playground tatic of pointing out the weaknesses (or lying about them) of the other person, then that should be a sure sign that the person pointing the finger has something to hide. A prime example of this is kerry. The very things that kerry attacks Bush on; kerry is guilty of.

It would be nice to actually see a democrat with integrity run for a change. I have yet to see a democrat that has integrity run for President. I was only seven the last time Carter ran, so I don't know if he had integrity, even though his policies failed... he still could have had integrity.

If I was a democrat I would be livid about the lack of integrity that all the presidential candidates show. If they are the "best" of the party, what does that say about what the party has become since the 1970's?

In a "Jacobs Ladder" sceenario the Republican party is much further up the ladder in many aspects. If the democrats that had integrity would come to the Rep. party, then the needed changes could be made.

-ironmonk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anytime we see the playground tatic of pointing out the weaknesses (or lying about them) of the other person, then that should be a sure sign that the person pointing the finger has something to hide. A prime example of this is kerry. The very things that kerry attacks Bush on; kerry is guilty of.

this makes no sense. if someone says "the guy in charge isnt doing what he says he's doing; i can do it better" doesn't automatically make him guilty of anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IcePrincessKRS

I thought it made quite a bit of sense. There are things about Bush that Kerry is blatantly lying about (His military record for one).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haha, does anyone read Doonesbury? They have an open contest right now and will give $10 000 to anyone who can prove they served with GW. Doonesbury is funny, however I don't always agree with it. I love how he portrays the political figures with symbols: i.e. Clinton as a waffle, GW as an asterix * and then an asterix with a cowboy hat, then an asterix with a roman centurion's helmet. So witty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EcceNovaFacioOmni

I despise Doonesbury. It should be a political cartoon (a liberal one I don't agree with), not with the comics like in my newspaper. He even promoted legalizing marijuana once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God Conquers

I don't agree with him, I just think he's hilarious alot of the time. He's done alot to popularize American politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...