What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for the invitation, Bob. I've already educated myself on the subject. Hitler grew up in the Catholic Church. The church insignia had within it a swastika. He was an altar boy. He was a "soldier of Christ." In 1934 he declared himself a Catholic in a speech and in 1936 he said that Providence had made him a Catholic. He was never condemned or excommunicated from the Catholic Church, in fact the view of the Vatican was that his treatment of the Jews was justified since they supposedly killed Jesus.

But you can keep on denying he was Catholic if you like.
I grew up in Catholic church also, went to Catholic schools,I was an Altar boy too, haven't been to church since I was 14, I guess I must be a Catholic also
 
Adolf Hitler was a dbag who was Catholic in name only. Mao Tse-tung was an ***hole who happened to be atheist. That should settle it, right? No? Ok, I tried.
I'd phrase it as, "Neither Hitler nor Mao did what they did due to their religious beliefs." Unless, of course, someone forgot to tell me that murdering political dissidents is one of the core beliefs of atheists, in which case I'll have to stop calling myself one.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

I'd phrase it as, "Neither Hitler nor Mao did what they did due to their religious beliefs." Unless, of course, someone forgot to tell me that murdering political dissidents is one of the core beliefs of atheists, in which case I'll have to stop calling myself one.

Which was my whole point to begin with. Just because you're an atheist doesn't mean you're an amoral psychopath.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Jesus was 1) last 2) well documented 3) God and thereby could set the priorities.


This is in reference to the old testament. What should any Christian take out the bible? Sodom and Gomorra? Moses leading military campaigns? Noah? The answer is the Gospels. Why? Because...

Jesus was 1) last of the biblical stories 2) well documented 3) God and thereby could set the priorities.

I actually agree very strongly with the value of Jesus's ideas - what better philosophy than "love your neighbor" could there be? My point is that this message was also being simultaneously espoused by other, non-Christian groups at the time of Jesus. Just as the study of biology provides a non-theistic explanation for the evolution of life, studying the history of philosophy and religion reveals that these ideas evolved naturally as well. It's largely an accident of history that the Roman emperors adopted Christianity - they very well might have gone with Betamax rather than VHS.

See that's it. If it was John the Baptist (or anyone) that conducted the sermons, got the followings, was anointed, was carried forward by the bible, and had influence over modern society...then John would have been the guy. It could have been anyone. You may say Jesus was a clever guy to coopt what was an amazing set of ideas. And I'd agree with you. He didn't create this stuff out of thin air between all the work that had been done prior and inspiration (I believe from God)...but he created a worldwide phenomenon out of it nonetheless. I think some get so hung up on God being a dude that sits in a cloud. God is love...just leave it at that.

You don't get to cherry pick the good from the bad and then use a "no true scotsman" fallacy to explain why you're ignoring the bad. Just because you might disagree with the practices of other Christians doesn't make then any less Christian. Frankly, the only characteristic that matters in that regard is whether the person believes Jesus was the son of God. If the answer is yes, they are Christian whether they go to church or not.

And frankly, people who go to church weekly still commit plenty of horrific sins. So don't pretend like they're any better than those of us who go only on the major holy days.

And UNO...you may think I'm cherry picking. Again, two things:

1) Christians by their nature should believe Jesus is #1. The ones who don't are, by definition, misguided. So when people treat others poorly or are judgemental or in some other behave badly...its because they are behaving as human and not following the Jesus path. Christianity has been abused by self serving individuals more than any other institution in history. But that doesn't mean the message/institution itself is bad. The message is great.

2) the primary long term outcomes from Christianity that are in our society have been extremely positive (driving the end of slavery, end of child labor, womens suffrage, healthcare, charity, in some places even education, etc)...so while people have used Christianity for their own purposes...the today's benefits from the institution are overwhelmingly positive and so great they are simply beyond measurement.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Is this the wrong time to mention that I've started my own religion (Roverology)? ;)
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Jesus was 1) last 2) well documented 3) God and thereby could set the priorities.
2 - You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. There is as more well documented evidence for Harry Potter to exist than there is for your Jesus.
3 - Like keeping the status quo?

This is in reference to the old testament. What should any Christian take out the bible? Sodom and Gomorra? Moses leading military campaigns? Noah? The answer is the Gospels. Why? Because...

Jesus was 1) last of the biblical stories 2) well documented 3) God and thereby could set the priorities.
How to properly convince people to ignore the gigantic retcon you're trying to achieve when introducing your latest Gary Stu character? How does an omnipotent perfect super being actually change their mind or not get their point across if it was important? How amazing humans must be to continue to **** all that up against such a deity.

See that's it. If it was John the Baptist (or anyone) that conducted the sermons, got the followings, was anointed, was carried forward by the bible, and had influence over modern society...then John would have been the guy. It could have been anyone. You may say Jesus was a clever guy to coopt what was an amazing set of ideas. And I'd agree with you. He didn't create this stuff out of thin air between all the work that had been done prior and inspiration (I believe from God)...but he created a worldwide phenomenon out of it nonetheless. I think some get so hung up on God being a dude that sits in a cloud. God is love...just leave it at that.
Antibiotics are amazing, harnessing electricity is amazing, communicating instantly across the globe because humans put satellites in outer space is amazing. Nothing jesus ever said is amazing, unique, or can't be found in other older religions or movements.

You should be crediting Constantine for jump starting a worldwide phenomenon. As though having others also jumping off the same bridge as you will make it more legit.

And UNO...you may think I'm cherry picking. Again, two things:
It's redundant for you to meet the kettle mister pot.
1) Christians by their nature should believe Jesus is #1. The ones who don't are, by definition, misguided. So when people treat others poorly or are judgemental or in some other behave badly...its because they are behaving as human and not following the Jesus path. Christianity has been abused by self serving individuals more than any other institution in history. But that doesn't mean the message/institution itself is bad. The message is great.
According the Nicean creed sure. When was that established?
2) the primary long term outcomes from Christianity that are in our society have been extremely positive (driving the end of slavery, end of child labor, womens suffrage, healthcare, charity, in some places even education, etc)...so while people have used Christianity for their own purposes...the today's benefits from the institution are overwhelmingly positive and so great they are simply beyond measurement.
Every last one of those things was upheld and kept in place for so long BECAUSE xtians were able to use direct quotes from the bible to support them, you cherry picking nutball.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Jesus was 1) last 2) well documented 3) God and thereby could set the priorities.



This is in reference to the old testament. What should any Christian take out the bible? Sodom and Gomorra? Moses leading military campaigns? Noah? The answer is the Gospels. Why? Because...

Jesus was 1) last of the biblical stories 2) well documented 3) God and thereby could set the priorities.



See that's it. If it was John the Baptist (or anyone) that conducted the sermons, got the followings, was anointed, was carried forward by the bible, and had influence over modern society...then John would have been the guy. It could have been anyone. You may say Jesus was a clever guy to coopt what was an amazing set of ideas. And I'd agree with you. He didn't create this stuff out of thin air between all the work that had been done prior and inspiration (I believe from God)...but he created a worldwide phenomenon out of it nonetheless. I think some get so hung up on God being a dude that sits in a cloud. God is love...just leave it at that.



And UNO...you may think I'm cherry picking. Again, two things:

1) Christians by their nature should believe Jesus is #1. The ones who don't are, by definition, misguided. So when people treat others poorly or are judgemental or in some other behave badly...its because they are behaving as human and not following the Jesus path. Christianity has been abused by self serving individuals more than any other institution in history. But that doesn't mean the message/institution itself is bad. The message is great.

2) the primary long term outcomes from Christianity that are in our society have been extremely positive (driving the end of slavery, end of child labor, womens suffrage, healthcare, charity, in some places even education, etc)...so while people have used Christianity for their own purposes...the today's benefits from the institution are overwhelmingly positive and so great they are simply beyond measurement.

The Cognitive Dissonance is strong with this one.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

It's really sad when you have to resort to acts such as these. http://freebeacon.com/house-passes-enforce-the-law-act/
It is sad that the legislative branch is so ****ing inept that to get anything done the executive has to use powers that have been used by past presidents.

Executive orders up through Jan 20th.
Bush Sr - 166
Clinton - 364
Bush - 291
Obama - 168

So I'm sure you were super ****ed when Bush was making a whole lot more executive orders, right? You're not just a biased shill?
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

It is sad that the legislative branch is so ****ing inept that to get anything done the executive has to use powers that have been used by past presidents.

Executive orders up through Jan 20th.
Bush Sr - 166
Clinton - 364
Bush - 291
Obama - 168

So I'm sure you were super ****ed when Bush was making a whole lot more executive orders, right? You're not just a biased shill?

So how about some examples of why the other presidents issued the executive orders. Somehow I doubt most were as combative with Congress as Obama's are currently, but I'll admit I could be wrong. Were they in direct opposition to the Constitution? Doesn't matter if Congress is gridlocked. When those are the rules, you need to follow them or re-write them, not just ignore them.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

So how about some examples of why the other presidents issued the executive orders. Somehow I doubt most were as combative with Congress as Obama's are currently, but I'll admit I could be wrong. Were they in direct opposition to the Constitution? Doesn't matter if Congress is gridlocked. When those are the rules, you need to follow them or re-write them, not just ignore them.

If you're looking for any kind of intelligent conversation, you quoted the wrong poster.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

So how about some examples of why the other presidents issued the executive orders. Somehow I doubt most were as combative with Congress as Obama's are currently, but I'll admit I could be wrong. Were they in direct opposition to the Constitution? Doesn't matter if Congress is gridlocked. When those are the rules, you need to follow them or re-write them, not just ignore them.
That could be worth the time, if Obama's orders were actually in enough opposition to the constitution to warrant the republican rabble rabble. But they aren't, if they were even close the GOP would be trying to impeach him over it. Faildudes link directly referenced how numerous the executive orders have been, they aren't in comparison to the past 3 presidents at all, not even in triple digits for the second term. And I don't think you realize the excessive amount of work it would take to answer what you just asked.

This is just another distraction before the next "scandal" can be created. Or they'll go back to Benghazi or the IRS.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

That could be worth the time, if Obama's orders were actually in enough opposition to the constitution to warrant the republican rabble rabble. But they aren't, if they were even close the GOP would be trying to impeach him over it. Faildudes link directly referenced how numerous the executive orders have been, they aren't in comparison to the past 3 presidents at all, not even in triple digits for the second term. And I don't think you realize the excessive amount of work it would take to answer what you just asked.

This is just another distraction before the next "scandal" can be created. Or they'll go back to Benghazi or the IRS.

You don't think changing signed legislation without Congress is doing that? Again it has nothing to do with the numbers, it has to do with the function. I don't ever remember a president being directly combative and saying that if Congress won't do something, they will with executive orders when it's pretty grey if the authority to actually do so for these types of things actually exists legally. If the President can do this, what function does Congress serve at all?
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

You don't think changing signed legislation without Congress is doing that? Again it has nothing to do with the numbers, it has to do with the function. I don't ever remember a president being directly combative and saying that if Congress won't do something, they will with executive orders when it's pretty grey if the authority to actually do so for these types of things actually exists legally. If the President can do this, what function does Congress serve at all?

To be fair? These days? None at all.

Like was pointed out, if Obama was doing something unconstitutional, the army of constitutional lawyers that the GOP most certainly has reviewing these things would find it and they would impeach or do whatever they could.

They're waiting to pounce or I should say they're waiting for one of their pounces to be validated.

Just sayin...
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

You don't think changing signed legislation without Congress is doing that? Again it has nothing to do with the numbers, it has to do with the function. I don't ever remember a president being directly combative and saying that if Congress won't do something, they will with executive orders when it's pretty grey if the authority to actually do so for these types of things actually exists legally. If the President can do this, what function does Congress serve at all?

You don't recall George W Bush's use of signing statements, where he tried to use that to negate the very laws he'd signed into existence???

Foxton is 100% correct however. IF Obama actually did anything illegal, don't you think the Impeachment Brigade would be out in full force? You'd have to be an idiot to think otherwise. What Republicans have learned from their debacle with Clinton is 1) you have to be pursuing an actual crime, and 2) don't go after a rival for something you're doing yourself.

That's why Congressional righties are pulling their punches over NSA spying as it predates Obama and instead follow more nonsensical inquiries such as Benghazi or the IRS which are driving them nuts because they can't uncover any criminal activity.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

The latest attempt on taking out the second amendment: Cashing in on abusive cops. http://www.infowars.com/senator-attempts-to-disarm-sheriffs-at-oklahoma-state-capitol/

I see your source believes the US government was behind the Oklahoma City bombing, 9-11 and the fake moon landing. One small fraud for mankind . . .

You know, Flag, a diet of intellectual pablum like that and your brain will shrivel up so far your local cop will be able to make love to you with his nightstick and you won't even know it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top