In the real (non-liberal) world, hypocrisy means asserting one position and then practicing another.
What are the two contradictory positions I have asserted? Don’t create some position that you feel I have. Positions I have asserted. Where is the hypocrisy, specifically?
I don’t miss it, I am pointing it out.
He values his short term personal luxuries over the plight of those less fortunate. He prefers hedonistic pleasures now rather than stability for future generations. He’d rather see a child die, than a billionaire re-pay the society that gives so much to him.
This is why he lies, not just to us, not just to his family, not just to his friends and acquaintances, and not even only to himself, when he claims to follow in the footsteps of christ, but to Jesus himself. Now, to be fair, it is very doubtful that he actually believes in Jesus or god or any of that stuff, so he feels no shame about it, no problem with using his religion when it suits him, but discarding it like a used condom when it doesn’t.
But make no mistake, it is hypocrisy of the most divine order that he has chosen to partake upon.
Sure. But perhaps it’s the case that you don’t correctly understand the rules the religion imposes.
Please read carefully: I don’t care if you follow those rules or not. I gave that example as a way of illustrating something else, which escaped you, so I will assume you’re not smart enough to understand it.
But surely you can grasp this: I don’t say how you should live your life. Follow any rules you can get away with.
Empty your head of the idea that I follow any religion that commands me to apply it’s dictates to public policy. I do not. Got it?
Nope. I stand for strong separation of church and state for purposes of public policy formation.
Nope. All the same argument. I say that public policy should be guided by the text of our written law, and that written law crafted by our elected officials. Not religion, not your fervent whining that some moral imperative that your tribe alone can perceive allows you to overrule the law, nothing else.
I’m glad of that. What’s weird is that you don’t seem to want the Lord to be sovereign of you. “This part of my life is off limits to Christ and church,” you effectively say.
We who claim to be Christians are all like that, to some extent. But that’s because we are flawed, sinful human beings. Where we do that, where we don’t let the Lord into some area of our life, it is a falling short of who we’re supposed to be, not something to defend.
Since I posted that one does not need religion to support CHIP and elected officials do not really have an issue with CHIP (they are using it now as a sorry attempt at holding the program and the children hostage so to get more concessions) your arguments are still dumb and monstrous because they are not the ones made by most republicans.
Good question. A case could be made for any of the four.
Ryan is the only one of the four who is actually a major influence in the on-going tragedies.
Clothahump is the only one of the four who lacks a 3-digit IQ.
Coulter is the one who, deep inside, knows what a joke she is. She found a way to turn Americans’ stupidity into a fortune.
And Bricker? While Ryan will be collecting big favors from billionaires, Clothahump is like the loveable dog who never recovered from a brain concussion, and Coulter is laughing her way to the bank, Bricker is the one most worthy of Christian pity. Like a bitter misanthrope he’s stuck re-watching the Milton Friedman videos he watched back in the 1980’s. He might fight his way back to sanity with psychotherapy, but as is he’s lost any capacity for critical thinking. Modern Republicanism has addled his brain. He posts non sequiturs and rejects all attempts at correction; often he seems paranoic.
Bricker remembers a few valid “conservative” notions from his salad days but some mental defect (paranoia?) keeps him from noting that nothing is left of the GOP but an empty cloak. Too stubborn to think anew for himself, all that’s left to him is to follow the loudest right-wing blowhards and imitate their hatreds. Sad.
Unsupported “all you liberals are like X” bullshit aside, what you’re saying is: you can’t do what is right because other people aren’t doing what is right.
Do you aggressively proselytize? Why not? Is your failure to push everyone you meet an example of not letting the Lord into some area of your life?
Or are you confident that the Lord’s presence in your life does not mandate proselytizing?
I’m confident that the Lord’s presence in my life does not mandate forming public policy for a secular country based on His law. You cannot force grace upon the unwilling.
More specifically, I can’t do what is right because other people have insisted that I not, and I have acceded to their request.
Can we PLEASE stop talking about religion and how it applies to public policy in this thread. The OP has nothing to do with religion and as Bricker has correctly pointed out, religion has no place in public policy. All it is doing is derailing the discussion. (I can understand how it happened. Folks were trying to appeal to republican compassion, but please just drop it)
Bricker has made his beliefs pretty clear so there’s really no point in discussing it with him further. He believes (and correct me if I’m wrong) that one of the richest countries on earth shouldn’t be funding programs that help the poor, but instead should let the very rich and the corporations pay less in taxes and this will somehow grow the economy. And then the poor, despite not getting money from the government, will somehow be better off.
He’s wrong, but facts aren’t going to sway him. The facts clearly stated by GIGObuster in post #109.
But like I said before, the people calling for cutting programs for the poor in order to cut taxes for the rich don’t care about what it does to the economy or the poor. They say they do so they look less like assholes, but really it boils down to they want more money.
I was raised quite religious. I know what is expected of me. I wasn’t catholic, so I don’t know what is expected of you. But I do know what Jesus asked of us, and though I no longer believe in his divinity, I choose to try to make him proud anyway. You do believe in his divinity, but refuse to follow his path.
I have heard it said that catholics were not christian, and I’ve always said that that is foolish, but if you are the one making that claim, if you are the one that is making the claim that being a catholic is to not try to follow the path laid out for us by Jesus, then I suppose I may change my opinion on that.
Of course you don’t. You have no power. You aren’t my boss, my congresscritter, my mayor or my president. You are just some guy, you know. You could try to tell me how to live my life, and you may have good ideas worth listening to, or you may have bronze age ideals that are no longer relevant in this world. In either case, you are correct, you cannot control me.
However, your friends can. Your friend who are the CEO’s of companies like hobby lobby, who tell their employees how to live their lives. Your friends who are in elected office, who pass laws telling people how to live their lives. This is the party that you support. It is your party, the party of the republicans, that uses religion as a moral compass in telling others how to live.
If you didn’t support this part, you would be able to say what you said. Instead, since you do support the party that does tell me how I should live my life based off of an oral tradition mythology that was transcribed and translated several times badly, you out and out lie when you say “I don’t say how you should live your life.”, because you do.
But you do support a party that follows a religion that commands them to apply their dictates to public policy. Yes you do. Got it?
Then vote for the party of secularists, not the party that wants to force a theocracy upon the country.
I agree, and that is who we are criticizing. The elected officials who write the laws, that craft our laws, and who failed to renew the CHIP provision. You and your religious hypocrisy only got involved because you stuck your nose in to threadshit.
Did you just say that my tribe is the only one that can perceive a moral imperative to favoring health care for poor children over tax cuts for the wealthy?
You may be right. If so, that makes me quite proud of my tribe. Are you really all that proud of your tribe?
It appears we disagree on what “His path,” is.
I decline to adopt your ideas of that path.
Well. Yes.
It’s true that many, most even, on the GOP side of the aisle do just that. I can’t deny it.
But I support them for other reasons. No politician will be an exact match for my desired outcomes and beliefs. Most Republicans are pro-death penalty, and I disfavor the death penalty. But I have to pick someone to support. On balance, Republicans match more of my ideas than Democrats do.
But in a debate with me, with can’t ascribe each and every GOP position to me merely because of the frequency with which I align with the GOP.
No, see, that’s factually wrong.
A vote for a member of a party is not a endorsement of each and every position taken by that politician. It’s merely the best available choice from the offerings. Surely you’ve heard voting described as “choosing the lesser of two evils?”
You seem to think that even though that’s a common response to the slate of possible ballot choices, it’s fair to impute to me each and every position held by my “lesser evil,” choice.
I would, except that they’re usually worse. They want to perpetuate poverty by handing out free stuff instead of helping create a level field where success will raise everyone’s standards of living.
Gosh, did I upset your widdle Republican-bashing party with an objection to being called evil?
That’s not quite a threadshit. Check your SDMB liberal privilege.
Last time you praised post 109, I asked you this:
You never answered.
Well?
I’m sorry you are unable to distinguish between sound secular policy that also has a strong religious justification, and policies whose justification is religious rather than secular. I’m for the former, against the latter. Not the ‘wisp of a memory’ but a theological imposition, like school prayer or denial of equal rights to gays.
The existence of pro-life atheists is interesting, but unless you are arguing for restrictions on abortion on their grounds rather than those of your Church - which you’re not, those you cite are pro-birth control - it’s more of a curiosity than anything else. The existence of a group that takes a particular position doesn’t mean the position is defensible. And I don’t see you attempting to defend it. And just because you can find a handful of nonreligious people who agree with a position that’s 99.9% about religion, doesn’t make it secular.
Yeah, I know, you can’t do anything to promote your church’s stances on social issues unless you can do it all.
Other Catholics - I’ve known plenty - don’t seem to have this problem. This seems to be a Bricker Special.
It seems to be your ‘get out of rational argument, free’ card in this thread.
I’m pro-birth control. When have I argued that social policy should be anything other than pro-birth control.
I object to the times that other people ask me to pay for their birth control, but that’s not an antipathy to birth control, but to paying for things people should buy themselves. I am in fact arguing for restricting abortion on secular grounds.
Sure, my church’s stances are intended to be delivered as a package, not a la carte.
I can’t possibly address what these other Catholics were thinking. Perhaps you misunderstood them, or perhaps they and I disagree. It’s very possible, you know, for two faithful Catholics to disagree on a wide variety of positions. In general, I’d say a practicing Catholic is bound by the Commandments of God and the precepts of the Church, and that’s it.
K9befriender, I love every post you have made in this thread. 
I don’t know much about Catholics, but I know Christians who spew hatred and Christians who want to help people as Jesus said they should.
there is a lot of variety in people that call themselves Christians.
Looking back, it is clear that you are only rejecting it with no good reason whatsoever.
Nope. I’m no economist, I was just replying to what was posted. Looked pretty solid to me. Do you dispute it? Do you have some other studies that show what was posted from the IMF is wrong?