Silly Mrs. Clinton

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
martha said:


:hug:

I can't wait till you turn in your first paper in college.
Click to expand...

I just realized his age. :ohmy:

What is it with the recent influx of teenagers who post bombastic threads here constantly?
 
2861U2 said:


Yes, and I'm more than happy to donate to some charities, but I dont want the government forcing people or companies to give to the "common good". Charity, as nice and generous as it is, is a voluntary act. It shouldnt be forced to happen. I dont want people taking my money (or anyone else's) and spending it elsewhere for me, as much as I can help it (i.e. dont raise taxes like she would)
Click to expand...

Yet you want government to take on other Biblical roles, you have to be consistent.
 
Now that's a step in the right direction. This is something that I can respond to.

First off, I have a finger to wag myself:

Generalizations :shame:

I say that, because you've made quite a logical progression here that's not supported by the evidence or my past writing history here in FYM.

The first generalization that you've made? That because I called out the fact that certain Christians abuse religion for political purposes that I "hate" religion. As for whether you do any of this yourself? It's insignificant. However, the larger pseudo-Christian political machine--Focus on the Family, Catholic League, most megachurches--fit this bill. The Bible is abused to push a Republican agenda, and those same people who think that one cannot possibly be a "liberal" and "Christian" are often the same people who flat-out ignore the liberal parts of the Bible. As far as I'm concerned, those fundamentalist Christians who condemn abortion on one hand and cheer the death penalty on the other are hypocrites. Jesus did not value one form of life over the other, and His association/parables with the unsavory characters of His day--lepers, Samaritans, and, yes, tax collectors--lend credence to that idea.

But I digress.

Secondly, you don't want "Hillary or government taking your money forcefully." Name a realistic situation where this has happened with any president. And, okay, you don't want government money going to charities. So what do you think about Bush's money to "faith-based charities"? Do you disagree with this, or are you willing to overlook the obvious hypocrisy, because you believe in their causes?

Third, again, what you believe yourself is insignificant in comparison to the larger religious-political complex. I have nothing to back up "my hate"? We have, for instance, examples of direct threats from Catholic bishops and the Vatican to excommunicate any politicians that casts votes in favor of laws that go against Catholic teachings.

Additionally, name a self described "family organization" that isn't a mouthpiece for Republican Party ideology. The Christian Coalition, I believe, had its tax-exempt status removed, because it was determined to be nothing but politics. More than one of these organizations have brushed off the fact that there's a clear Biblical disconnect between being "pro-life" and being "pro-death penalty." Or when it comes to issues of "charity," they'll state that government has no business in that.

Frankly, you can't have it both ways. If conservative Christians see government as a tool to spread morality, then you can't ignore the calls for social justice that are also inherent in the gospels. As I see it, "religion" in government is only used to oppress and pass judgment. After all, the underlying reason to say that the U.S. is a "Christian country" is to keep "the undesirables" out. Gays? You're not welcome. Non-Christians? You're not welcome. Liberals, since they've become synonymous with "communism," which is, in itself, synonymous with "disloyalty," "treason," and, hence, all around being "un-American"? You're not welcome. This is the unsavory reality of "political Christianity," which, as far as I'm concerned, has nothing to do at all with true Christianity.

What I wish to clarify is the fact that not all churches and religious organizations fit this description, but far too many churches with conservative beliefs have let their politics corrupt their ministries. I find that to be utterly disgusting.

Thank you for taking the time to elaborate.
 
anitram said:
I just realized his age. :ohmy:

What is it with the recent influx of teenagers who post bombastic threads here constantly?
Click to expand...

I was aware of his age, and, as I see it, it doesn't matter. I grant everyone here equal "respect," which means I will equally rip someone's writings to pieces, if I feel it is warranted.

As for the nature of "bombastic teenagers," in general (not referring to anyone specifically), they tend to have the drive and the idealism, but don't have the substance or the critical thinking. That's why they're eager to post something that is strongly liberal or strongly conservative, with little nuance.

I say this, because that description reminds me of when I was an idealistic, politically-driven teenager. Between 9/11 and the Democrats' pathetic 2004 election campaign, it, for better or for worse, forced me to do a lot of thinking. Now I consider no conviction worth believing unless it can be substantiated with evidence or consistently applied theological/philosophical tenets.
 
melon said:
Now that's a step in the right direction. This is something that I can respond to.

First off, I have a finger to wag myself:

Generalizations :shame:

I say that, because you've made quite a logical progression here that's not supported by the evidence or my past writing history here in FYM.

The first generalization that you've made? That because I called out the fact that certain Christians abuse religion for political purposes that I "hate" religion. As for whether you do any of this yourself? It's insignificant. However, the larger pseudo-Christian political machine--Focus on the Family, Catholic League, most megachurches--fit this bill. The Bible is abused to push a Republican agenda, and those same people who think that one cannot possibly be a "liberal" and "Christian" are often the same people who flat-out ignore the liberal parts of the Bible. As far as I'm concerned, those fundamentalist Christians who condemn abortion on one hand and cheer the death penalty on the other are hypocrites. Jesus did not value one form of life over the other, and His association/parables with the unsavory characters of His day--lepers, Samaritans, and, yes, tax collectors--lend credence to that idea.

But I digress.

Secondly, you don't want "Hillary or government taking your money forcefully." Name a realistic situation where this has happened with any president. And, okay, you don't want government money going to charities. So what do you think about Bush's money to "faith-based charities"? Do you disagree with this, or are you willing to overlook the obvious hypocrisy, because you believe in their causes?

Third, again, what you believe yourself is insignificant in comparison to the larger religious-political complex. I have nothing to back up "my hate"? We have, for instance, examples of direct threats from Catholic bishops and the Vatican to excommunicate any politicians that casts votes in favor of laws that go against Catholic teachings.

Additionally, name a self described "family organization" that isn't a mouthpiece for Republican Party ideology. The Christian Coalition, I believe, had its tax-exempt status removed, because it was determined to be nothing but politics. More than one of these organizations have brushed off the fact that there's a clear Biblical disconnect between being "pro-life" and being "pro-death penalty." Or when it comes to issues of "charity," they'll state that government has no business in that.

Frankly, you can't have it both ways. If conservative Christians see government as a tool to spread morality, then you can't ignore the calls for social justice that are also inherent in the gospels. As I see it, "religion" in government is only used to oppress and pass judgment. After all, the underlying reason to say that the U.S. is a "Christian country" is to keep "the undesirables" out. Gays? You're not welcome. Non-Christians? You're not welcome. Liberals, since they've become synonymous with "communism," which is, in itself, synonymous with "disloyalty," "treason," and, hence, all around being "un-American"? You're not welcome. This is the unsavory reality of "political Christianity," which, as far as I'm concerned, has nothing to do at all with true Christianity.

What I wish to clarify is the fact that not all churches and religious organizations fit this description, but far too many churches with conservative beliefs have let their politics corrupt their ministries. I find that to be utterly disgusting.

Thank you for taking the time to elaborate.
Click to expand...

I can not even begin to tell you how much I agree with this statement. I've made an argument for every one of these points in debates with friends/family over the past year or so. You wrote it out much more coherently than I could.:bow:
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Didn't Jesus say, "sale all your jewelery and give it to the poor"?
Click to expand...

Yes. You've brought up this verse before. However, I think you have to look deeper into what he said. Jesus was responding to a rich man who asked how he could come to know God. Jesus' response hinted that worldly possessions get in the way of spiritual growth and a relationship with God. I dont think this verse is a command for everyone to go sell everything they have.

Having possessions and acquiring wealth is not a sin. It's your attitude about it which can be dangerous. Things like money can be a god to many people. I dont know of many Bible verses that condemn people for having money- it's all about the attitude towards it. Does our heart and loyalty lie with God or with the world? The goal is to not let your money influence your life.

The rich man walked away angry and unwilling, leading Jesus to say "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." I dont think it is the worldly possessions themselves that we need to get rid of, but our attachment to them.

Keep in mind that just because someone is rich doesnt mean they serve money.

ETA: so you using this Bible verse in the debate was odd, as it really didnt apply to the topic at all.
 
Last edited:
Right, so you're saying that instead of selectively using the bible for political purposes, you can selectively make generalizations out of specific situations in the bible for political purposes. So much better!
 
2861U2 said:

Having possessions and acquiring wealth is not a sin. It's your attitude about it which can be dangerous. Things like money can be a god to many people. I dont know of many Bible verses that condemn people for having money- it's all about the attitude towards it.
Click to expand...

:lmao: omg what bible are you reading?
 
To be fair, any religion that was taken by its adherents to require that they live in poverty wouldn't last long.

But I think BVS was referring to a religious imperative to care for the poor by making justice for them a priority, not simply by donating to charity when the whim hits.
 
Just to make it clear, i'm not Christian, but I did go to a Catholic school for 12 years. And from what I understand, Jesus teaches us to give up all our possessions. But I don't think that we should force people to give up their possessions to the poor. So for someone to be Christian and rich at the same time is okay IMHO. From my understanding of the Bible, I think Jesus wanted us to give away our possessions with our own will.
 
2861U2 said:


Yes. You've brought up this verse before. However, I think you have to look deeper into what he said. Jesus was responding to a rich man who asked how he could come to know God. Jesus' response hinted that worldly possessions get in the way of spiritual growth and a relationship with God. I dont think this verse is a command for everyone to go sell everything they have.

Having possessions and acquiring wealth is not a sin. It's your attitude about it which can be dangerous. Things like money can be a god to many people. I dont know of many Bible verses that condemn people for having money- it's all about the attitude towards it. Does our heart and loyalty lie with God or with the world? The goal is to not let your money influence your life.

The rich man walked away angry and unwilling, leading Jesus to say "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." I dont think it is the worldly possessions themselves that we need to get rid of, but our attachment to them.

Keep in mind that just because someone is rich doesnt mean they serve money.

ETA: so you using this Bible verse in the debate was odd, as it really didnt apply to the topic at all.
Click to expand...

Why is my using a Bible verse odd? Please explain.

My whole point is you are very selective in how you use the Bible to regulate your government. You use it when it suits you, then you ignore it when it doesn't. Which is actually pretty typical of the religious right.
 
yolland said:
To be fair, any religion that was taken by its adherents to require that they live in poverty wouldn't last long.

But I think BVS was referring to a religious imperative to care for the poor by making justice for them a priority, not simply by donating to charity when the whim hits.
Click to expand...

I think BVS's point was that 2816 often bases his views about government entirely on the Bible, but seems to ignore this one.

Melon's correct entirely. Religion in government has never done anything but discriminate.
 
I'm just curious, as I study Economics, how should a state that collects less and less taxes work?

Of course it always can spend its money more effectively and efficiently, but come on, at some point you just aren't able to cover your costs anymore.
 
unico said:
2861U2 - i'm curious, which of the democratic candidates do you consider to be moderate if you say clinton is left?
Click to expand...

The only one I'm halfway fond of is Senator Biden. He seems to be the only one who doesnt think we should pull our troops out immediately, plus he's the only one who didnt attend the YearlyKos hatefest. I dont see how any of the other 7 can expect to be called a moderate if they associate themselves with such a hateful place. They all, especially Edwards, pander to the far-left, because the far-left will choose the candidate. They, and places like MoveOn, instruct the candidates what to do, and if they dont do it, they will attack them on the internet. Most of the Democratic candidates are scared of the far-left, so they pander to them so as not to get hurt.

So to answer your question- anyone who doesnt associate themselves with the Kos.
 
2861U2 said:


The only one I'm halfway fond of is Senator Biden. He seems to be the only one who doesnt think we should pull our troops out immediately, plus he's the only one who didnt attend the YearlyKos hatefest. I dont see how any of the other 7 can expect to be called a moderate if they associate themselves with such a hateful place. They all, especially Edwards, pander to the far-left, because the far-left will choose the candidate. They, and places like MoveOn, instruct the candidates what to do, and if they dont do it, they will attack them on the internet. Most of the Democratic candidates are scared of the far-left, so they pander to them so as not to get hurt.

So to answer your question- anyone who doesnt associate themselves with the Kos.
Click to expand...

What world do you live in? This post is not only incorrect but just downright laughable.
 
2861U2 said:

So to answer your question- anyone who doesnt associate themselves with the Kos.
Click to expand...


YearlyKos is sponsored by the ONE campaign which is co-founded by Bono. Yeah...REAL hateful place there. Keyword: non-partisan. I don't know how you equate that with far-left.
 
Last edited:
unico said:



YearlyKos is sponsored by the ONE campaign which is co-founded by Bono. Yeah...REAL hateful place there. Keyword: non-partisan. I don't know how you equate that with far-left.
Click to expand...

Changing the status quo and taking the power away from white conservative males is a hateful value, didn't you know?
 
The DailyKos is a hateful website that not only personally attacks but humiliates anyone who disagrees with them. Have you seen the stuff on there? The Democratic candidates supporting it and legitimizing it by appearing at their convention is shameful. Just because they are associated with the ONE Campaign doesnt make it ok.

It is obvious that the candidates are intimidated by the left-wing blogosphere. They are more and more rejecting the moderate wing and embracing the far-left. You wont see them attempting to be moderate until the general campaign. Right now it's all about getting the far-left support.

Why would they go to Kos and not to Fox News?
 
2861, I challenge you to back this up.

First give one example of how YearlyKos is hateful.

Second, define the "far-left" and give one example of how these canidates are pandering to them. Just one, hell I'll give you all day to come up with something too. For you'll need it.
 
2861U2 said:
Just because they are associated with the ONE Campaign doesnt make it ok.
Click to expand...

I pointed out the ONE campaign because like Kos, ONE is non-partisan. ONE doesn't endorse any candidate, nor do they contribute to any party. They are specifically issue oriented, so are many of the other sponsors. Because ONE sponsors them, that clearly means they are giving them money because they support this non-partisan group.

It just so happens that there are people who are democrats who support the issues Kos. This by no means makes it far-left. I'm sure there are other progressive issues in which people who support Kos do not support.

It is a political spectrum. I feel like you see your conservative right side, and the "diversity" in opinion there, but I'm getting the feeling you might be seeing the other side as all one point of view, simply by narrowing your perspective to this issue. It is a spectrum, and there are various degrees on both sides.
 
I have never heard of Yearly Kos but if Bill O'Reilly is condemning it, it must be awesome!!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cobl04
Kiss the Future documentary
Replies
11
Views
3K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
prbiker15
U2:UV Boxscore Discussion
Replies
20
Views
1K
DeVaul
DeVaul
O
Better late than never “they” say…
Replies
1
Views
289
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
911
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
Scorpionac
Songs that would fit better on SOI vs. SOE?
Replies
1
Views
412
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom