What's new
By:
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 X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

FlagDUDE08 said:
Is it any wonder why I referred to him as a troll the other day?
Click to expand...
Usually he's better than this. Maybe he's having a bad day or something. Given the number of decent discussions I've had with him over the years, I'll give him a pass.
 
Bob Gray said:
Can you read today? My point was in my post. You are harking back to past discussions, not what I posted on, which linked to a specific story about people that were murdered by illegals that had been released by ICE. Don't be a Scooby or somebody like that around here. You're usually better than that.
Click to expand...

Wait, we're supposed to just ignore everything you've ever said in the past, as though that doesn't provide information that might be helpful in interpreting your current posts?

That's not how conversations work.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Bob Gray said:
Can you read today? My point was in my post. You are harking back to past discussions, not what I posted on, which linked to a specific story about people that were murdered by illegals that had been released by ICE. Don't be a Scooby or somebody like that around here. You're usually better than that.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll try and take you at your word. Do you really think Obama wants illegal immigrants to get away with murder? Is that your honest assessment of his policy? The only point that I get from your post is OBAMA BAD! or, to be a little more charitable to you, OBAMA IMMIGRATION POLICY BAD! The former, yeah, I think we all know how you feel, Bob. The latter only makes sense as compared with something, and the point is nobody seems to have actually ever implemented a policy that's any better.

I know we frequently talk at cross-purposes, and I know when we do you have that charming habit of accusing me of "ducking" or "changing the subject" (which is really sweet of you). But figuring out where the disconnect is is actually more interesting than figuring out where we differ on substance, since OBAMA BAD! just isn't pregnant with possibilities for further discussion. So, where's the disconnect? Unless it's what I've tried to say above, I'm stumped what it is you're trying to say.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

ScoobyDoo said:
Summary.

Obama, BAD!!! Scooby, WORSE!!!!
Click to expand...

Don't take it too hard. I'm sure by this time next year we'll be hearing about how Hillary is even worse than Obama!!1! (hereafter, EWTO!!1!). Which, given that Obama was supposed to be Hitler wrapped in Stalin wrapped in Mao, will be quite an achievement.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Kepler said:
OK, I'll try and take you at your word. Do you really think Obama wants illegal immigrants to get away with murder? Is that your honest assessment of his policy? The only point that I get from your post is OBAMA BAD! or, to be a little more charitable to you, OBAMA IMMIGRATION POLICY BAD! The former, yeah, I think we all know how you feel, Bob. The latter only makes sense as compared with something, and the point is nobody seems to have actually ever implemented a policy that's any better.

I know we frequently talk at cross-purposes, and I know when we do you have that charming habit of accusing me of "ducking" or "changing the subject" (which is really sweet of you). But figuring out where the disconnect is is actually more interesting than figuring out where we differ on substance, since OBAMA BAD! just isn't pregnant with possibilities for further discussion. So, where's the disconnect? Unless it's what I've tried to say above, I'm stumped what it is you're trying to say.
Click to expand...
Obama letting out illegals who have been bad in the past who he shouldn't and who then kill is bad. There, I think I've expressed it in your preferred manner of wording.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Bob Gray said:
Obama letting out illegals out who have been bad in the past who he shouldn't and who then kill is bad. There, I think I've expressed it in your preferred manner of wording.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think we can all agree that's bad. We have reached consensus.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

I am still waiting for Obama to declare martial law, force a 3rd term and become dictator. I swear Flaggy said that multiple times...
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

I love the irony of Bob complaining of others using the art of dodge, parry, thrust. Daffy would be so proud.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

joecct said:
George Weigl on the three pillars of democracy from a Catholic POV: http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/06/now-the-kasper-theory-of-democracy
Click to expand...

That's an well-written and well-thought out article; thanks for posting it. In general, First Things is a favorite "worthy opponent" on many of these types of issues.

I'll quote the author's own eloquent words:

That is why John Paul also insisted that, of the three interlocking parts of the free and virtuous society—a democratic polity, a free economy, and a vibrant public moral culture—the cultural sector is the key to the rest. For it takes a certain kind of people, formed in the arts of self-governance by a robust moral culture and living certain virtues, to operate the machinery of democracy and the free economy in ways that promote decency, justice, and solidarity, not degradation, injustice, or new forms of authoritarian bullying.
Click to expand...

I could not agree more. Free people must be serious, educated, and sincere in their pursuit of moral good, if they are to be the best possible actors in both the political and economic spheres. The gay rights movement, like emancipation movements prior to it, exemplifies this type of excellence. These movements, when countering majority prejudice, redeem democracy by first speaking and then voting truth to power, while the superiority of their moral message gradually persuades the larger polity to change their thinking. Powerful institutions, in the case of the gay rights movement, the Church, may stand in violent opposition to such changes, but to the degree that the minority has the ability to appeal to the angels of the citizens' better nature, decency does sometimes overwhelm that prejudice.

The Church has a problem: it is morally wrong on gay rights. This is a wrong that has haunted the Church from the days of the Patristic Fathers, and it is a gross violation of Christ's principles of love. Why the Church got this way is a question for historians and philosophers, but institutionally it has a lot of growing up to do. Hopefully it will take its evolution on the question of democracy itself to heart. There was a time when the Church condemned democratic movements and upheld divine right monarchy. For at least a century it was an impediment to the development of the very community of love that it wishes to see. Eventually, it pulled a 180. With time, it will do the same on women and then finally, once it has purged its own demons, on gays. It won't happen in this century, but it will happen.

In the meantime, at least it's on the right side on poverty, and frankly that's a much more significant problem facing the world than whether Adam and Steve have to get married in a courthouse rather than a church.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Kepler said:
That's an well-written and well-thought out article; thanks for posting it. In general, First Things is a favorite "worthy opponent" on many of these types of issues.

I'll quote the author's own eloquent words:



I could not agree more. Free people must be serious, educated, and sincere in their pursuit of moral good, if they are to be the best possible actors in both the political and economic spheres. The gay rights movement, like emancipation movements prior to it, exemplifies this type of excellence. These movements, when countering majority prejudice, redeem democracy by first speaking and then voting truth to power, while the superiority of their moral message gradually persuades the larger polity to change their thinking. Powerful institutions, in the case of the gay rights movement, the Church, may stand in violent opposition to such changes, but to the degree that the minority has the ability to appeal to the angels of the citizens' better nature, decency does sometimes overwhelm that prejudice.

The Church has a problem: it is morally wrong on gay rights. This is a wrong that has haunted the Church from the days of the Patristic Fathers, and it is a gross violation of Christ's principles of love. Why the Church got this way is a question for historians and philosophers, but institutionally it has a lot of growing up to do. Hopefully it will take its evolution on the question of democracy itself to heart. There was a time when the Church condemned democratic movements and upheld divine right monarchy. For at least a century it was an impediment to the development of the very community of love that it wishes to see. Eventually, it pulled a 180. With time, it will do the same on women and then finally, once it has purged its own demons, on gays. It won't happen in this century, but it will happen.

In the meantime, at least it's on the right side on poverty, and frankly that's a much more significant problem facing the world than whether Adam and Steve have to get married in a courthouse rather than a church.
Click to expand...
Key question is how one defines a vibrant public moral culture. Folks have widely varying definitions of that. Just noting that.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

johnnypohlfan said:
And when it doesn't happen, you'll simply claim that it didn't because nutjobs like you rallied on this claim so much that he just couldn't have gotten away with it, right? Win-win for the tinfoil hat crowd!
Click to expand...

Nah, it'll restore a tiny bit of faith in the country actually following the Constitution. It has just about been completely destroyed within the last 15 years.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Bob Gray said:
Key question is how one defines a vibrant public moral culture. Folks have widely varying definitions of that. Just noting that.
Click to expand...

Of course, and a vibrant culture will includes lots of disagreements. It's not just that not everybody's moving at the same speed -- not everybody's even taking the same road. Utopian movements tend to forget the latter. Sometimes discrepant moralities can survive together (I eat meat, vegans don't), sometimes they can't (ISIS wants to chop my head off for, oh, about a thousand reasons). Part of the advance of culture is the "defanging" of absolutist moral claims so diverse people can live next door to each other. But obviously there are some absolutist claims (prohibitions of murder and torture) where it's right for one view to impose itself on everybody.

We've been at culture for only about 10,000 years. If it were easy we'd have gotten it right by now. Give it time.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Kepler said:
Of course, and a vibrant culture will includes lots of disagreements. It's not just that not everybody's moving at the same speed -- not everybody's even taking the same road. Utopian movements tend to forget the latter. Sometimes discrepant moralities can survive together (I eat meat, vegans don't), sometimes they can't (ISIS wants to chop my head off for, oh, about a thousand reasons). Part of the advance of culture is the "defanging" of absolutist moral claims so diverse people can live next door to each other. But obviously there are some absolutist claims (prohibitions of murder and torture) where it's right for one view to impose itself on everybody.

We've been at culture for only about 10,000 years. If it were easy we'd have gotten it right by now. Give it time.
Click to expand...
You are an optimist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top