|
|
| Why the Left Doesn't Care about Bad Economic News Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' (1161420) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 11 |
||
|
|
| (1183198) | |
Why the Left Doesn't Care about Bad Economic News Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' |
|
|
Posted by DAnD124 on Tue May 13 13:53:10 2014, in response to Dennis Prager's "important thinking" of the week, posted by DAnD124 on Tue Mar 4 16:29:01 2014. http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2014/05/13/nis-prager-n1837137Most conservatives, and just about all independents, have a huge misperception of the left. They think that the gulf between conservatism and leftism is primarily about means, not goals. This perception is wrong. It is their goals that are irreconcilable. And until conservatives, independents and the Republican Party understand this, it will not be possible to defeat the left. Take economic indicators. Most conservatives talk and act as if bad economic news disturbs the left as much as it disturbs them. It doesn't. Almost everywhere the left is in control -- in California, for example -- the economic news is awful. But this has no effect on the ruling Democrats, the Los Angeles Times editorial page, New York Times economics columnist Paul Krugman or others on the left. There is one overriding philosophical reason and one political reason for this. But before I identify them, permit me to note some of the economic facts of life in California. Unless otherwise noted, the following data have been culled by Chapman University Professor Joel Kotkin, and published in the Wall Street Journal, the Orange County Register and elsewhere. (For the record, Kotkin is a self-described "Truman Democrat" who voted for the Democrat governor Jerry Brown of California.) --In the last 20 years, about 4 million more people have left California than came in from other states. Most of those leaving are young families. --In the last 15 years, one-third of California's industrial employment base has disappeared. That's 600,000 jobs that have disappeared. --California has the 48th-worst business tax climate. (The Tax Foundation) --California's electricity prices are 50 percent higher than the national average. --Middle-class workers, those who earn more than $48,000, pay a top income tax rate of 9.3 percent. That's higher than what millionaires pay in 47 other states. --California's unemployment rate is fourth highest in the nation. --From 2010-13, California produced fewer than 8,000 jobs, while the country added 510,000. California faces enormous underfunded public employee pension obligations. (Bloomberg) --An estimated 25 billion barrels of oil are sitting untapped in the Monterey and Bakersfield shale deposits. California is therefore sending billions of dollars to Texas, Canada and elsewhere to buy natural gas and oil that it could have produced itself. --Twitter, Adobe, eBay and Oracle, among other major California tech companies, have moved many operations to Salt Lake City. --Hollywood is doing more and more of its filming in Louisiana, Canada and elsewhere to avoid California taxes. --Toyota just announced that it is moving its U.S. headquarters from Los Angeles to Dallas. This will eliminate 3,000 or more generally high-wage jobs. --Occidental Petroleum recently announced that it is moving its headquarters from Los Angeles to Houston. --Until relatively recently, half of the country's top 10 energy firms -- ARCO, Getty Oil, Union Oil, Occidental and Chevron -- were based in California. Today, only Chevron remains, and it is gradually relocating in Houston. (Reuters) --Houston has added nine million square feet of new office space. Los Angeles has added one million. --Tesla will likely locate its proposed $5 billion battery factory, which would employ upward of 6,500 people, in Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico or Texas. According to greentechmedia.com, California "didn't make the short list because of the potential for regulatory and environmental delays." --California's Monterey Shale offers a potential employment bonanza for workers needing access to entry-level jobs in the high-paying energy sector. But California's green lobby is striving to deny them that opportunity. (John Husing, chief economist of the Inland Empire Economic Partnership, Los Angeles Daily News) Now back to our riddle. Why do these state-crushing economic statistics -- nearly every one of which is the result of left-wing policies -- have no effect on California's Democrats, the Los Angeles Times editorial page, New York Times economics columnist Paul Krugman or almost anyone else on the left? The answer is that they don't care. Yes, of course, as individuals with a heart, most people, right and left, care about people losing their jobs. But in terms of what matters to the left and the policies they pursue, they don't care. The left and the political party it controls do not care if their policies force to companies to leave the state (or the country). They don't care about the coming high inflation caused by Quantitative Easing (printing money) -- Krugman calls it The Inflation Obsession -- or the job-depressing effects of high taxes, or energy prices that hurt the middle class, or compelling businesses to leave. They don't care because the left is not interested in prosperity; the left is interested in inequality and in the environment. Furthermore, the worse the economic situation, the more voters are likely to vote Democrat. The worse the economic situation, the greater the number of people receiving government assistance; the greater the number of people receiving government assistance, the greater the number of people who will vote Democrat. Therefore, both philosophically and politically, the left has no reason to be troubled by bad economic news. And it isn't. It is troubled by inequality and carbon emissions. |
|
|
| (1183201) | |
Re: Why the Left Doesn't Care about Bad Economic News Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue May 13 14:01:29 2014, in response to Why the Left Doesn't Care about Bad Economic News Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'', posted by DAnD124 on Tue May 13 13:53:10 2014. They don't care about the coming high inflationKrugman is good on this one. He collects the predictions and stores them for future quoting, like the massive inflation that was going to happen in 2012 if the government kept going on its road to ruin. |
|
|
| (1183203) | |
Re: Why the Left Doesn't Care about Bad Economic News Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue May 13 14:07:35 2014, in response to Why the Left Doesn't Care about Bad Economic News Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'', posted by DAnD124 on Tue May 13 13:53:10 2014. Ultimate Issues Hour has just begun.Hope you, dand124, and all others here are listening. |
|
|
| (1183227) | |
Re: Why the Left Doesn't Care about Bad Economic News Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Tue May 13 15:13:19 2014, in response to Why the Left Doesn't Care about Bad Economic News Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'', posted by DAnD124 on Tue May 13 13:53:10 2014. Inflation? Where? There is no inflation, in fact a little would help the job market. Employers need to comprehend that people won't work if the result doesn't over their cot of living. One example is the family featured inhttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/10/us/hardship-makes-a-new-home-in-the-suburbs.html Who make more money selling ices in the park than they could with work. Working is viewed as wasted time, since selling ices is still necessary to the family to survive but work does not permit the time to do I see no conservatives intreted in the corrections to labor policy needed to remedy this. |
|
|
| (1187100) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by DAND124 on Sat May 24 21:24:37 2014, in response to Dennis Prager's "important thinking" of the week, posted by DAnD124 on Tue Mar 4 16:29:01 2014. There was no "important thinking" from Prager this week. |
|
|
| (1187102) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat May 24 21:40:27 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by DAND124 on Sat May 24 21:24:37 2014. I sleep too late and then run to the beach.There was an update on his event in Brooklyn, a thread you avoided. |
|
|
| (1187109) | |
Re: Dand124's ''important stalking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 24 21:53:33 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by DAND124 on Sat May 24 21:24:37 2014. You think that of Prager all the time, though. |
|
|
| (1187120) | |
Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat May 24 22:32:58 2014, in response to Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by DAND124 on Sat May 24 21:24:37 2014. Here I was thinking there's no thinking out of Prager any week. |
|
|
| (1188045) | |
A Young College Grad Calls My Show Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by DAND124 on Tue May 27 00:50:57 2014, in response to Dennis Prager's "important thinking" of the week, posted by DAnD124 on Tue Mar 4 16:29:01 2014. http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2014/05/27/nis-prager-n1843548Last week, on my radio talk show, I received a call from Jeff, a 21-year-old in North Carolina. I have abridged it and edited it stylistically. JEFF: I wanted to respond to your question about America being feared in the world. You brought up Syria. I think it's a little naive, and maybe that's not even the right word, to boil down such complex international issues into just good and bad. Like to say that America, for you, represents good. And to just boil down the Syria situation into good and bad is to underestimate the complexity of the situation. Because if the United States were to get involved there, you know, there might be consequences for us in that region that I think would be definitely more bad than good. DP: Like what? JEFF: If we were to depose Assad, there could be a power vacuum and that could create more problems than we intended. DP: There are two separate questions here. One is: Should the United States be feared by bad regimes? The other is: What should the United States do? They're not identical. So let's deal with the first: Would you acknowledge that it would be good if countries like Putin's Russia, Iran or North Korea -- though I don't compare Putin to North Korea -- feared us? And do you think they do? JEFF: I think that's a really good question. If I had the answer to that I think I'd be secretary of state. DP: It's not that tough a question. What we should do is a tough question. But whether America should be feared by bad regimes is not a tough question. Let me just throw in a tangential comment that I think is important: I presume you went to college. JEFF: Oh, yeah. DP: The reason I presume that you went to college is that you were taught -- and this is no knock on you whatsoever since anyone who takes liberal arts courses, in political science in particular, is taught -- what you just told me: You can't divide between good and bad, because it's too complex. But that's not accurate. There is a good and bad. Yes, sometimes there is bad and worse -- in Syria today, for example. But between Syria and the United States the difference is between bad and good. Would you agree that it's between bad and good between Syria and the United States? JEFF: As an American, absolutely. DP: Wait a minute. That's a terrible answer. I don't want you to answer me as an American. I want you to answer me as a moral human. JEFF: I can only answer you as an American. I can't answer you as anyone else. DP: That's not true. If I asked you how much two and two is, you wouldn't answer me as an American. JEFF: Here's my only comment, I would just, you know, hesitate to boil down international issues of such complexity, with multiple variables, to, "It's simply good or bad." And that's my only comment. DP: Thank you for calling. What Jeff said is what I was taught at college. It is heartbreaking to hear how effective left-wing college indoctrination continues to be, with its morally obfuscating concepts such as "too complex." The morally obvious fact is that the United States is overwhelmingly a force for good both in the world and within its borders, and Syria is overwhelmingly a force for evil both in the world and within its borders. Yet, colleges have taught for at least two generations that such judgments are illegitimate. If you want to judge whether Sweden or Denmark is better, that's complex. Or whether Iran or Syria is more evil. That, too, is complex. But between Denmark and Syria, there is no moral complexity. The other revealing comment my caller made was that he could only say "as an American" that America was a better country than Syria. This, too, reflects a fundamental left-wing doctrine taught at colleges -- that there are no moral truths, and we can only subjectively observe the world as members of a group. There are, therefore, black truths, white truths, rich truths, poor truths, male truths, female truths. Accordingly, for example, since men do not get pregnant, they cannot morally judge abortion. To Jeff's credit, he listens to a radio show that so differs from what he was taught in college. There is therefore some hope that he will eventually realize how much nonsense he was taught at college. Dangerous nonsense. |
|
|
| (1190566) | |
Who's Racist? Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by DanD124 on Tue Jun 3 00:47:41 2014, in response to Dennis Prager's "important thinking" of the week, posted by DAnD124 on Tue Mar 4 16:29:01 2014. http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2014/06/03/whos-racist-n1846794No day passes without a Democratic politician, a left-wing commentator, or, if I may be excused a redundancy, a left-wing academic labeling Republicans and conservatives racist. Given the power of repetition, one consequence is that many Americans, especially young ones, believe that one side of the political spectrum -- the right -- is racist. Having been involved with conservatives for about 30 years, I have long known that this isn't true. In fact, the charge of conservative racism is so easily refuted that it is difficult to imagine anyone without a vested interest in libeling conservatives believing it. How, for example, does one explain that the most conservative Republicans were the ones who most supported Herman Cain, the one black running for the Republican presidential nomination n 2012? Left-wing commentators offer this response: Conservative support of Cain was essentially a ruse to fool people into believing that conservatives are not the racists we liberals know them to be. The absurdity of this response only proves that there is no good response to the question. The fact is that, compared to a person's values, conservatives couldn't care less about a person's color. I have actually asked large conservative audiences if they would prefer a Supreme Court composed of nine white male Christians who were liberal or nine black secular lesbians who were conservative. I have never encountered a single vote for the former. But while I've never associated conservatives with racism, I also never used to associate liberals with racism. But I was naive in this matter. While there are liberals and leftists who are not racist, I have come to understand that many are -- considerably more than conservatives. Here are some proofs: First, white liberals repeatedly state that America is a racist a country, and that all whites are racist. The latter doctrine is taught at virtually every American university. The only difference among whites, liberal professors teach their students, is not that some are racist and some are not; it is that some acknowledge their racism and some do not. But isn't that an admission that liberals are racist? When a person says, "We are all racists," isn't he saying that he is a racist? A second proof that racism has a home on the left is the left's primary argument against requiring all citizens to show identification when they vote. The liberal-left-Democrat argument, repeated by almost every editorial page, columnist and news outlet, and by every Democrat, is that such a requirement would greatly suppress the black vote. Thus, voter ID is racist. This is said so often and with such conviction that few people ask whether it is true: Will requiring ID really suppress the black vote? The answer, shown in study after study, is no. Therefore, people who assume that voter ID would suppress the black vote have to believe that millions of blacks are uniquely incompetent citizens. Few things in civic life are simpler than obtaining an ID, and identification is needed almost everywhere in society. One has to believe in widespread black incompetence in order to believe that obtaining an ID is too difficult for a vast number of blacks. And is virtually every democracy in the world racist for requiring voter ID? Again, the answer is no. The idea is absurd. So there are only two possibilities here. Either Democrats and the left make this argument for political gain -- to reinforce their hold on black voters by scaring them into believing that Republicans are racist -- or the left really believes that blacks are less competent than other groups. It is probable that both reasons -- political opportunism and liberals' belief in black inferiority -- are at work here. Most liberals, after all, do not believe that whites -- even those who didn't graduate high school -- have any difficulty obtaining an ID, but are certain that millions of blacks find this too onerous. This insult to black intelligence is as obvious as it is ignored. Third is the liberal and left-wing advocacy of lowering standards for blacks -- what is known as affirmative action. How is it not plain as daylight that whites (and other non-blacks) who argue for the continued lowering of standards for blacks have a low view of blacks? White liberals never advocate lowering professional or academic standards for, let us say, Asian immigrants who recently arrived in America, often without money or any knowledge of English. Why not? Because white liberals think that Asians are bright. Finally, there is the Democratic and liberal opposition to school vouchers that would enable many blacks parents to send their children to schools superior to the awful ones that the (liberal-run) educational establishment has provided blacks children. Most blacks want school vouchers, but most liberals vehemently oppose them. Why? Because what is good for teachers unions is of more importance to the left than what is good for blacks. Who, then, is racist? By their own admission, and by the policies they pursue, the answer is the people who call themselves progressive. |
|
|
| (1190575) | |
Re: Who's Racist? Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 3 01:03:41 2014, in response to Who's Racist? Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by DanD124 on Tue Jun 3 00:47:41 2014. Well gee whiz, Suzie Creamcheese ... if they'd just gosh darn stop posting all that racist stuff, then maybe nobody would think they were! :) |
|
|
| (1190581) | |
Re: Who's Racist? Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jun 3 01:20:03 2014, in response to Who's Racist? Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by DanD124 on Tue Jun 3 00:47:41 2014. Pretty good piece.Male/female hour is great radio. I'm listening to Coast To Coast right now. Did you read about the house party shootings on Long Island? It's going to be a bloody summer. |
|
|
| (1190644) | |
Re: Who's Racist? Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Tue Jun 3 09:43:01 2014, in response to Who's Racist? Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by DanD124 on Tue Jun 3 00:47:41 2014. LOL! Prager is just as racist as any typical RWer.Does he actually think he can sell this? The republicans came right out and said voter ID is all about voter suppression of minorities, and in the case of Texas, women. They think these groups vote "wrong". |
|
|
| (1192784) | |
Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by DAnd124 on Tue Jun 10 07:54:33 2014, in response to Dennis Prager's "important thinking" of the week, posted by DAnD124 on Tue Mar 4 16:29:01 2014. http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2014/06/10/pope-francis-pets-cant-replace-children-n1849606Pope Francis said something so important last week that it will either be widely ignored or widely disparaged. The pope criticized "these marriages, in which the spouses do not want children, in which the spouses want to remain without fertility. This culture of well-being ... convinced us: It's better not to have children! It's better! You can go explore the world, go on holiday, you can have a villa in the countryside; you can be carefree. It might be better -- more comfortable -- to have a dog, two cats, and the love goes to the two cats and the dog." He is right. More than ever before, young men and women in most affluent Western countries (and Russia) have decided not to have children. Instead, many shower love and attention on dogs and cats. Ask many young women -- married or single -- if they have any children, and if they do not, you are likely to be told, "I have two cats" or "I have two dogs." There are authors whose book jacket photo shows them with their dog or cat. In much of the West, animals are the new children. The pope made this declaration for two reasons: one demographic and one religious and moral. The demographic reason is that the populations of European countries such as the one in which he lives -- Italy -- are gradually disappearing. --Italy's birth rate is approximately 1.41 children per woman, making Italy 203 out of 224 countries in terms of its fertility rate. --LifeSiteNews, a religious-oriented news website, reported that Italian demographer Giancarlo Baliga said last year that by 2041, "The age group most represented in the structure of the Italians will become the 70s." --According to Fred Pearce in the Guardian, "Italy has the world's second oldest population." --According to population statistics website GeoHive, Italy will have two and a half million fewer people at the end of this century than it had in the beginning. And the only reason it will not far fewer is that so many Italian citizens will be foreign-born immigrants. --According to Professor Peter McDonald, president of the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population (2010-2013) and a fellow of the Australian Academy of Social Sciences, if Italy remains at its current fertility levels and does not compensate with foreign immigrants, it will lose 86 percent of its population by the end of the century, falling to 8 million compared with today's 56 million. The pope knows that Italians and other nations are slowly disappearing. The question is: Why? Why do so many people prefer to parent pets than children? Throughout history, there were three primary reasons people had many children: Lack of contraception, economic necessity and religion. All three reasons are gone. Thanks to modern contraception, couples can have all the sex they want without conceiving. Regarding economic need, most people in welfare states no longer need children to care for them in old age because the state will do that. And with the demise of religion in the developed world, there are no values-based reasons to have children. What this means is that because of contraception and the welfare state, the one compelling reason to have children is that one's values demand it. Those values overwhelmingly come from religion. The dominant religions of the Western world, Judaism and Christianity, demand marriage and children. Consequently, the people in affluent Western countries most likely to have more than two, and certainly more than three, children are Orthodox Jews, Evangelical Protestants, religious Catholics and active Mormons. But secularism is now dominant in the West, which ends the values-based reason to have children. One might argue that there is a fourth reason to have children -- a desire to raise and love children and have a family. But one shouldn't put too much stock in that argument. Without religion, even those who want children almost never have more than two. And more and more secular individuals find that their desire to nurture is fulfilled by loving cats and dogs. That was the pope's point. |
|
|
| (1192902) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jun 10 15:04:12 2014, in response to Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by DAnd124 on Tue Jun 10 07:54:33 2014. He's so right. White people want to walk the dogs and have a glass of wine after work.Prager has his finger on the demise of white Judeo-Christian societies. |
|
|
| (1192904) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Tue Jun 10 15:24:27 2014, in response to Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by DAnd124 on Tue Jun 10 07:54:33 2014. People should not be forced to do anything against their will. That's also an important concept in Christianity, free will.There are as many reason to have a family as there are not to. Plus, sometimes it simply does not happen. Did you know catholics feel its sinful to pursue medical fertility treatments? Religiosity has been the downfall of civilizations for as long as there have been civilizations. Caveat emptor. And beware of hatespeakers. They don't get stuck with the bills for following their delusional "ideas". You do. Every time. |
|
|
| (1192906) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 10 15:26:03 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by bingbong on Tue Jun 10 15:24:27 2014. And religiosity has been the bedrock of civilization for as long as it has existed. |
|
|
| (1192908) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Tue Jun 10 15:44:17 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 10 15:26:03 2014. Too much of a good thing is still harmful. |
|
|
| (1193084) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Jun 11 07:25:54 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jun 10 15:04:12 2014. No such thing. |
|
|
| (1193085) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Jun 11 07:29:44 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by bingbong on Tue Jun 10 15:24:27 2014. At least three of your four paragraphs are wrong. |
|
|
| (1193100) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jun 11 09:14:13 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Jun 11 07:29:44 2014. ???Paragraph 1 would indicate support for outlawing taxes, so I would agree there. But the other 3 paragraphs have significant supporting evidence. She didn't say all Catholics or all civilizations, after all. |
|
|
| (1193101) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Wed Jun 11 09:17:37 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by AlM on Wed Jun 11 09:14:13 2014. Christ himself mandated the payment of taxes in support of government function."Render unto Caesar..." Is also meant literally. We are all responsible in ensuring government, as it serves its purpose in our social structure, can function well to provide benefits to all. Oops. |
|
|
| (1193128) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 11 10:14:24 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by bingbong on Wed Jun 11 09:17:37 2014. That interpretation is disputed. |
|
|
| (1193139) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Wed Jun 11 10:33:53 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 11 10:14:24 2014. As you're not catholic (or brought up as) you probably don't get that it is accepted by those within. Nor do you likely understand why. |
|
|
| (1193143) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jun 11 10:38:41 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by bingbong on Wed Jun 11 10:33:53 2014. Oh please, I went through 13 years of Catholic School (K-12) and never heard anything like that.As usual, it's your usual political band standing. |
|
|
| (1193151) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 11 11:00:47 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jun 11 10:38:41 2014. And a logical fallacy to boot! |
|
|
| (1193157) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Wed Jun 11 11:28:07 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 11 11:00:47 2014. Hardly. Seems clear to me, and even more of an imperative now as it's the government that is assisting the poor. Or given there are teabaggers, supposed to . |
|
|
| (1193159) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jun 11 11:30:32 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by bingbong on Wed Jun 11 11:28:07 2014. Again, you are intoxicated by politics. This has nothing to do with the "Catholic Church". |
|
|
| (1193160) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Wed Jun 11 11:33:07 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jun 11 11:30:32 2014. It has everything o do with the actual words of Christ. |
|
|
| (1193161) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jun 11 11:36:41 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by bingbong on Wed Jun 11 11:33:07 2014. In your religious world perhaps. |
|
|
| (1193169) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Wed Jun 11 12:42:41 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jun 11 11:36:41 2014. In what is actually written word. Oe of the few examples. |
|
|
| (1193179) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jun 11 13:22:23 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by bingbong on Wed Jun 11 12:42:41 2014. Religious Nut. I have no patience for religious extremists such as yourself. |
|
|
| (1193185) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Jun 11 13:31:52 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jun 11 10:38:41 2014. Gee ... I studied for the priesthood and heard all about that. Fulfill your earthly obligations, God's is separate. |
|
|
| (1193189) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Wed Jun 11 13:38:17 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jun 11 13:22:23 2014. LOL!!! Anything but....... |
|
|
| (1193192) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 11 13:41:48 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jun 11 13:22:23 2014. WTF? |
|
|
| (1193194) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 11 13:43:07 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by bingbong on Wed Jun 11 11:33:07 2014. Which are not exactly clear. Hence the need for qualified interpretation. |
|
|
| (1193195) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Jun 11 13:44:59 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 11 11:00:47 2014. +5 |
|
|
| (1193196) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jun 11 13:45:05 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by bingbong on Wed Jun 11 13:38:17 2014. You are the one that think paying taxes should be based on religion. You are the one making the ridiculous claims, so you just "must" be a religious nut. Tooth for a tooth. |
|
|
| (1193198) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Jun 11 13:49:47 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jun 11 13:45:05 2014. That's not it at all ... Jesus blew off the teabaggers of the time who claimed that if they joined Him then they didn't have to pay taxes anymore. Jesus slapped them for that. Lesson for the red states here. |
|
|
| (1193201) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Jun 11 13:51:40 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 11 13:43:07 2014. They were QUITE clear. |
|
|
| (1193203) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Jun 11 13:52:06 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Jun 11 13:44:59 2014. Both of you ... WRONG. |
|
|
| (1193206) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 11 13:55:30 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Jun 11 13:52:06 2014. How am I wrong about it being a logical fallacy? |
|
|
| (1193207) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 11 13:56:12 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jun 11 13:45:05 2014. No, she doesn't. |
|
|
| (1193208) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 11 13:57:14 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Jun 11 13:49:47 2014. FALSE |
|
|
| (1193209) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 11 13:57:38 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Jun 11 13:51:40 2014. Nope. |
|
|
| (1193210) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Jun 11 13:57:51 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 11 13:55:30 2014. What logical fallacy? Chris implies that bingbong has it wrong and we both understand the concept, me a bit more so. And as to turtle, I know it's just me too as some sort of Pavlovian response. |
|
|
| (1193211) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Jun 11 13:58:42 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 11 13:57:14 2014. TRUTH. Is your information from the red state bible? |
|
|
| (1193212) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 11 14:00:58 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Jun 11 13:57:51 2014. Appeal to improper authority. |
|
|
| (1193213) | |
Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 11 14:01:38 2014, in response to Re: Pope Francis: Pets Can't Replace Children Re: Dennis Prager's ''important thinking'' of the week, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 11 13:57:14 2014. http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2000/04/What-Belongs-To-God.aspx |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 11 |
||