B-Man Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 I caught the snippet where he talked about breaking out of polarization and paralysis. About time someone stood up and told Congress that. Sadly, I doubt they'll listen. Odds are each party will somehow claim "ownership" of the Pope's statements, and things will become more polarized. FTA: This admonition — “if this institution can unite in its goals, why can’t our politicians?!” — is a tempting one to be sure. But, ultimately, it rests upon a false equivalence. The reason we have a Congress at all is that Americans disagree with one another — often strongly — and they want somewhere to debate those disagreements so that law is not made without their input. We should not expect those debates to be calm. By its very nature, politics is division, and the alternative to it is not unity, but war. Sure, sometimes legislative bodies can reach an agreement or a compromise. Often, though, they cannot. And that’s fine. As my colleague Jonah Goldberg has noted time and time again, you never see a politician say, “I think we should unite around my opponents’ plan.” Why not? Well, because that would mean succumbing to a single rule to which he was opposed, and nobody is going willingly to do that. As a matter of fact, it’s often actively virtuous for a people to throw up their hands and say, “we’re not going to agree here; let’s talk about something else.” Traditionally, we call this “pluralism.” If we believe in foundational concepts such as the “consent of the governed,” we should consider it to be absolutely acceptable that Texans live differently than Vermonters and that Manhattanites live under different rules than do upstate New Yorkers. We should accept, too, that a lot of the time “unity” is not really a praiseworthy aim in the first place. Rather, diversity is. Is it possible that both France and Australia can get it right for their people, even if their laws are nothing alike? Of course! Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 FTA: This admonition — “if this institution can unite in its goals, why can’t our politicians?!” — is a tempting one to be sure. But, ultimately, it rests upon a false equivalence. The reason we have a Congress at all is that Americans disagree with one another — often strongly — and they want somewhere to debate those disagreements so that law is not made without their input. We should not expect those debates to be calm. By its very nature, politics is division, and the alternative to it is not unity, but war. Sure, sometimes legislative bodies can reach an agreement or a compromise. Often, though, they cannot. And that’s fine. As my colleague Jonah Goldberg has noted time and time again, you never see a politician say, “I think we should unite around my opponents’ plan.” Why not? Well, because that would mean succumbing to a single rule to which he was opposed, and nobody is going willingly to do that. As a matter of fact, it’s often actively virtuous for a people to throw up their hands and say, “we’re not going to agree here; let’s talk about something else.” Traditionally, we call this “pluralism.” If we believe in foundational concepts such as the “consent of the governed,” we should consider it to be absolutely acceptable that Texans live differently than Vermonters and that Manhattanites live under different rules than do upstate New Yorkers. We should accept, too, that a lot of the time “unity” is not really a praiseworthy aim in the first place. Rather, diversity is. Is it possible that both France and Australia can get it right for their people, even if their laws are nothing alike? Of course! Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner he's talking about goals. are the goals of australian's and the French all that different?. don't they all want to be happy and secure? don't we all share in common a desire for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? these are common goals for humanity. I believe this is what he was alluding to. it's the editorialist that creates a false equivalence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 FTA: This admonition — “if this institution can unite in its goals, why can’t our politicians?!” — is a tempting one to be sure. But, ultimately, it rests upon a false equivalence. The reason we have a Congress at all is that Americans disagree with one another — often strongly — and they want somewhere to debate those disagreements so that law is not made without their input. We should not expect those debates to be calm. By its very nature, politics is division, and the alternative to it is not unity, but war. Sure, sometimes legislative bodies can reach an agreement or a compromise. Often, though, they cannot. And that’s fine. As my colleague Jonah Goldberg has noted time and time again, you never see a politician say, “I think we should unite around my opponents’ plan.” Why not? Well, because that would mean succumbing to a single rule to which he was opposed, and nobody is going willingly to do that. As a matter of fact, it’s often actively virtuous for a people to throw up their hands and say, “we’re not going to agree here; let’s talk about something else.” Traditionally, we call this “pluralism.” If we believe in foundational concepts such as the “consent of the governed,” we should consider it to be absolutely acceptable that Texans live differently than Vermonters and that Manhattanites live under different rules than do upstate New Yorkers. We should accept, too, that a lot of the time “unity” is not really a praiseworthy aim in the first place. Rather, diversity is. Is it possible that both France and Australia can get it right for their people, even if their laws are nothing alike? Of course! Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner bull ****. By it's nature, politics is compromise. It's not a winner-take-all competition - not supposed to be, at least. And while debate highlights differences, that does not make debate divisive in itself - quite the contrary, debate is about communication, which is inclusive and fosters compromise. Case in point: what we see now, and have since about 2006 ('08 at the latest, with Pelosi's grossly irresponsible stupidity with respect to the bailout) is not politics. It's extreme partisanship. It hinders politics, in stifling both debate and compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 ANALYSIS: TRUE. Pope Francis is wrong on free enterprise. If your goal is to lift people from poverty, capitalism does what nothing else does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 (edited) ANALYSIS: TRUE. Pope Francis is wrong on free enterprise. If your goal is to lift people from poverty, capitalism does what nothing else does. you don't like what he said so you misrepresent what he actually said: 'It goes without saying that part of this great effort is the creation and distribution of wealth. The right use of natural resources, the proper application of technology and the harnessing of the spirit of enterprise are essential elements of an economy which seeks to be modern, inclusive and sustainable. "Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving the world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the area in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good" (Laudato Si’, 129). This common good also includes the earth, a central theme of the encyclical which I recently wrote in order to "enter into dialogue with all people about our common home" (ibid., 3). "We need a conversation which includes everyone, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affect us all" (ibid., 14). this common good thing just keeps coming up.... Edited September 24, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 (edited) you don't like what he said so you misrepresent what he actually said: 'It goes without saying that part of this great effort is the creation and distribution of wealth. The right use of natural resources, the proper application of technology and the harnessing of the spirit of enterprise are essential elements of an economy which seeks to be modern, inclusive and sustainable. "Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving the world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the area in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good" (Laudato Si’, 129). This common good also includes the earth, a central theme of the encyclical which I recently wrote in order to "enter into dialogue with all people about our common home" (ibid., 3). "We need a conversation which includes everyone, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affect us all" (ibid., 14). this common good thing just keeps coming up.... LOL................you keep making the same mistake bd, I agreed with everything Pope Francis said today. I will (continue to) post articles that few here will see, to help (hopefully) with the conversation. Much has been said about how the Pontiff's words have been misinterpreted to promote a certain view point..........your posts are no different. ADDED: Pope Francis has accomplished something that is truly miraculous in this country: He has managed to bump Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton from the spotlight for a brief time. For that, I am truly grateful. . 2nd ADDED........... Pope Francis referenced four Americans in his talk before Congress today: Abraham Lincoln Martin Luther King Dorothy Day and.....................Thomas Merton, with connections to Saint Bonaventure University; http://web.sbu.edu/friedsam/archives/mertonweb/mertonweb.htm . Edited September 24, 2015 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 (edited) LOL................you keep making the same mistake bd, I agreed with everything Pope Francis said today. I will (continue to) post articles that few here will see, to help (hopefully) with the conversation. Much has been said about how the Pontiff's words have been misinterpreted to promote a certain view point..........your posts are no different. ADDED: Pope Francis has accomplished something that is truly miraculous in this country: He has managed to bump Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton from the spotlight for a brief time. For that, I am truly grateful. . so you posted the cartoon knowing it was a deliberate misrepresentation of what the pope said? i'm surprised but glad to hear your agreement with the pope on the death penalty. i'm shocked but very pleased to discover your admiration for dorothy day whom the pope cited as an great american today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Day Edited September 24, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 so you posted the cartoon knowing it was a deliberate misrepresentation of what the pope said? i'm surprised but glad to hear your agreement with the pope on the death penalty. i'm shocked but very pleased to discover your admiration for dorothy day whom the pope cited as an great american today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Day I was a few seconds late with my second ADDITION bd..........you missed it. You really should work for the media the way you twist a response to fit your view................................. I have to start dinner (wife home soon) but here are my quick responses. The political cartoon is NOT a deliberate misrepresentation, that is (again) your interpretation. I could post scores of articles about the benefits of capitalism and the Pope's valid concerns about the excesses of the system. Agreeing with one does not discount the other. The Death penalty is on its way out....................read Justice Alito's recent remarks. (The best for last) Really, just because you agree with the Pope's kind words for an American who fought for social justice, that does NOT mean that you now agree and admire everything about them.... From your responses, may I assume that you make pretzels as a hobby ? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 I was a few seconds late with my second ADDITION bd..........you missed it. You really should work for the media the way you twist a response to fit your view................................. I have to start dinner (wife home soon) but here are my quick responses. The political cartoon is NOT a deliberate misrepresentation, that is (again) your interpretation. I could post scores of articles about the benefits of capitalism and the Pope's valid concerns about the excesses of the system. Agreeing with one does not discount the other. The Death penalty is on its way out....................read Justice Alito's recent remarks. (The best for last) Really, just because you agree with the Pope's kind words for an American who fought for social justice, that does NOT mean that you now agree and admire everything about them.... From your responses, may I assume that you make pretzels as a hobby ? . he said that business could be noble. don't see how that implies a need for penitence for it's successes. anyone with any objectivity at all can see it as a misrepresentation. but apparently not you. my point wasn't what alto's opinion of the death penalty is but yours. i now assume you agree with him. cool. so while you cook dinner, i'm watching francis in st pat's praising american women religious and continuing to say profound and brave things.. rock on frank! it's must see. please check it out ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 he said that business could be noble. don't see how that implies a need for penitence for it's successes. anyone with any objectivity at all can see it as a misrepresentation. but apparently not you. my point wasn't what alto's opinion of the death penalty is but yours. i now assume you agree with him. cool. so while you cook dinner, i'm watching francis in st pat's praising american women religious and continuing to say profound and brave things.. rock on frank! it's must see. please check it out ! I did not realize that you were judging the cartoon, just against His Holiness's words today, and not against the many speeches he has given regarding capitalism's 'sins'. Although those imposed limitations certainly does not change the point of the cartoon to everyone (but apparently not you) Homemade vegetable pizza in the oven. I certainly hope that I can catch up on Pope Francis's New York words, I think EWTN will replay them later. One more Thomas Merton/Bona reference.......... Merton's Heart 'Merton's Heart' is an open hillside space which is visible from the Saint Bonaventure campus. Merton was known for his walks through the hills of the surrounding area and this site took its name from its association with those walks. The hillside was originally cleared in the 1920's for oil drilling, but had been abandoned for that purpose by the time Merton arrived at St. Bonaventure. There's no evidence that the site was one especially favored by Merton, who would often cross the railroad bridge over the Allegany River to walk up to Martini Rocks and a hilltop cottage owned by his friend Robert Lax's brother-in-law. Nonetheless, the site remains a visible reminder of Merton's presence on campus and a continuing place of contemplation and prayer for the St. Bonaventure community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 President Obama, another "teaching moment" Do I need to explain how a political cartoon works ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 Interesting https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-main-message-of-pope-francis-and-jesus/2015/09/24/997e1e54-62ea-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b Commentators have taken Francis’s speeches and sayings and attacked him or claimed him as a Marxist, a unionist and a radical environmentalist. I don’t think the pope is proposing an alternative system of politics or economics. He is simply reminding each of us that we have a moral obligation to be kind and generous to the poor and disadvantaged — especially if we have been fortunate. If you have a problem with this message, you have a problem not with Pope Francis, but with Jesus Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 President Obama, another "teaching moment" Do I need to explain how a political cartoon works ? no. the point of this one is actually supported by the facts. Interesting https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-main-message-of-pope-francis-and-jesus/2015/09/24/997e1e54-62ea-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b the piece is spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 Interesting https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-main-message-of-pope-francis-and-jesus/2015/09/24/997e1e54-62ea-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b So we're not being kind and generous to the poor and disadvantaged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 So we're not being kind and generous to the poor and disadvantaged? Obviously not. If the trillions of dollars we've spent fighting poverty and homelessness had worked, we wouldn't have poverty or homelessness today. We just need to increase how much cash we're going to keep throwing at the problem. Duh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 So we're not being kind and generous to the poor and disadvantaged? Maybe it's a plea for people to take more personal responsibility for the poor, instead of simply paying taxes and expecting someone else to deal with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 Lol another fake. We live in a world of total bullshite. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-francis-in-us-5-year-old-sophie-cruz-francis-encounter-planned-for-year/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 Maybe it's a plea for people to take more personal responsibility for the poor, instead of simply paying taxes and expecting someone else to deal with it? So if I volunteer of give to charity they'll lower my taxes? Done!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 Obviously not. If the trillions of dollars we've spent fighting poverty and homelessness had worked, we wouldn't have poverty or homelessness today. We just need to increase how much cash we're going to keep throwing at the problem. Duh! This is where the left misses so very badly. Gifting money be it through services or direct aid does not, will not, and cannot lift people up. Only human compassion can do that. A hands on approach with a real human interest and direct involvement in the lives of others. This doesn't happen through government; but rather through private individuals making a portion of their lives about service and making a true impact in the communities of the disadvantaged. IE. giving a man a fish, as opposed to teaching him to fish. The unfortunate outcome of the left's push for "compassion = government" and "involvement = taxes" is that they've succeeded in convincing people both that paying taxes is a acceptable substitute for getting involved, and harming them enough financially that they can no longer afford to give and get involved on their own terms. Further, the class war, whose flames are fanned by leftist politicians for political gain does nothing but further isolate the "haves" from the "have nots" by othering each group. This incites an adversarial relationship as opposed to a human partnership, leading to an "I gave at the office" mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 This is where the left misses so very badly. Gifting money be it through services or direct aid does not, will not, and cannot lift people up. Public education, health care, public works jobs, birth control, public housing and job traing all have lifted people up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts