"I'm now Catholic & so are you" (Reminds me of the Royals wearing the Star of David)

[GLOBALIST]

http://www.ktbb.com/youtellme/2012/02/09/im-now-catholic-so-are-you/

[mg]

Post by GLOBALIST
http://www.ktbb.com/youtellme/2012/02/09/im-now-catholic-so-are-you/

It seems that even Catholic women are supporting Obama. So not only
are we not all Catholics now, even many of the Catholics aren't
Catholics when it comes to birth control.

[GLOBALIST]

It seems that even Catholic women are supporting Obama. So not only
are we not all Catholics now, even many of the Catholics aren't
Catholics when it comes to birth control.
==================
You assholes still don't get it do you?
Catholics may discuss things among themselves as any
family does, but God help the fucking STATE
that thinks they can dictate theology.
Hell they can't even pay their bills.
The state can go straight to hell. (or is it
already there?)
Want to know how many Catholics ate bacon
or a hamburger on a Friday before Vatican II?
Want to know how many Catholic commit adultery.
Want to know how many divorced?
Want to know how many committed incest?
Catholics are just not at that state of
perfection that you guys are yet? I know
your goodness is innate and you were born without
original sin and doing bad things is just not
a part of your vocabulary.
All your constant polls about Catholic women
don't mean jack shit when some little asshole
tells the Church...YOU WILL DO THIS
Obama can fuck off and eat shit

[Alias]

Post by GLOBALIST
Obama can fuck off and eat shit

WWJS?

[Jean]

Post by GLOBALIST
Obama can fuck off and eat shit

WWJS?

Render under Caesar ... Any argument that the sick are God's?

[mg]

Post by mg
It seems that even Catholic women are supporting Obama. So not only
are we not all Catholics now, even many of the Catholics aren't
Catholics when it comes to birth control.
==================
You assholes still don't get it do you?
Catholics may discuss things among themselves as any
family does, but God help the fucking STATE
that thinks they can dictate theology.
Hell they can't even pay their bills.
The state can go straight to hell. (or is it
already there?)
   Want to know how many Catholics ate bacon
or a hamburger on a Friday before Vatican II?
Want to know how many Catholic commit adultery.
Want to know how many divorced?
Want to know how many committed incest?
   Catholics are just not at that state of
perfection that you guys are yet?   I know
your goodness is innate and you were born without
original sin and doing bad things is just not
a part of your vocabulary.
   All your constant polls about Catholic women
don't mean jack shit when some little asshole
tells the Church...YOU WILL DO THIS
   Obama can fuck off and eat shit

I don't care what Catholics discuss. They can discuss why over 90% of
Catholic women have used birth control if they want to. What I care
about is how they are going to vote, and right now it looks like most
of them are going to vote for Obama.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by mg

Post by mg
It seems that even Catholic women are supporting Obama. So not only
are we not all Catholics now, even many of the Catholics aren't
Catholics when it comes to birth control.
==================
You assholes still don't get it do you?
Catholics may discuss things among themselves as any
family does, but God help the fucking STATE
that thinks they can dictate theology.
Hell they can't even pay their bills.
The state can go straight to hell. (or is it
already there?)
   Want to know how many Catholics ate bacon
or a hamburger on a Friday before Vatican II?
Want to know how many Catholic commit adultery.
Want to know how many divorced?
Want to know how many committed incest?
   Catholics are just not at that state of
perfection that you guys are yet?   I know
your goodness is innate and you were born without
original sin and doing bad things is just not
a part of your vocabulary.
   All your constant polls about Catholic women
don't mean jack shit when some little asshole
tells the Church...YOU WILL DO THIS
   Obama can fuck off and eat shit

I don't care what Catholics discuss. They can discuss why over 90% of
Catholic women have used birth control if they want to. What I care
about is how they are going to vote, and right now it looks like most
of them are going to vote for Obama.

Globalist appears not to want the government to
have any authority over what the Catholic church
does even in endeavors through which it is
subsidized by the state to serve the general
population, but does feel that his church has the
right to impose its own screwed-up (IMV) morality
on the entire nation. The church should be praised
for helping the state with general charity, but not if
in doing that it feels it has the right to alter the law
of the land by its own fiat.

P.S., I'm holier and more Catholic than Globalst at
as I type this than is, because I have Josquin's
"Tu Solus" playing on the stereo.

[Jerry Okamura]

How can you say you are a catholic, if you do not follow the positions taken
by the religion you say you belong to?

Post by GLOBALIST
http://www.ktbb.com/youtellme/2012/02/09/im-now-catholic-so-are-you/

It seems that even Catholic women are supporting Obama. So not only
are we not all Catholics now, even many of the Catholics aren't
Catholics when it comes to birth control.

[mg]

Post by Jerry Okamura
How can you say you are a catholic, if you do not follow the positions taken
by the religion you say you belong to?

My observations over 70 years is that religious people often pick and
choose which parts of their religion they want to believe in and which
ones they don't. There's actually nothing very unusual about that. As
to the question of why they do that, I suppose you would have to ask a
psychologist. I don't think very many people have ever claimed that
humans are a particularly logical species, especially when it comes to
religion.

Post by Jerry Okamura

Post by GLOBALIST
http://www.ktbb.com/youtellme/2012/02/09/im-now-catholic-so-are-you/

It seems that even Catholic women are supporting Obama. So not only
are we not all Catholics now, even many of the Catholics aren't
Catholics when it comes to birth control.

[GLOBALIST]

My observations over 70 years is that religious people often pick and
choose which parts of their religion they want to believe in and which
ones they don't. There's actually nothing very unusual about that. As
to the question of why they do that, I suppose you would have to ask a
psychologist. I don't think very many people have ever claimed that
humans are a particularly logical species, especially when it comes to
religion.
=============
More of your own illogical bullshit. Religious folks
often know what is essential and what is not essential to
a relationship with Christ. Many rituals, traditions, are
icing on the cake.
It is probably illogical to walk around with ashes on your
forehead, but millions and millions of christians did yesterday.

[mg]

Post by mg
My observations over 70 years is that religious people often pick and
choose which parts of their religion they want to believe in and which
ones they don't. There's actually nothing very unusual about that. As
to the question of why they do that, I suppose you would have to ask a
psychologist. I don't think very many people have ever claimed that
humans are a particularly logical species, especially when it comes to
religion.
=============
   More of your own illogical bullshit.  Religious folks
often know what is essential and what is not essential to
a relationship with Christ. Many rituals, traditions, are
icing on the cake.
  It is probably illogical to walk around with ashes on your
forehead, but millions and millions of christians did yesterday.

If there really is a god up there and a Jesus Christ, I wouldn't be
surprised if He has something to say to all those people who thought
they knew what is essential and what is not.

[High Miles]

Post by mg

Post by Jerry Okamura
How can you say you are a catholic, if you do not follow the positions taken
by the religion you say you belong to?

My observations over 70 years is that religious people often pick and
choose which parts of their religion they want to believe in and which
ones they don't. There's actually nothing very unusual about that. As
to the question of why they do that, I suppose you would have to ask a
psychologist. I don't think very many people have ever claimed that
humans are a particularly logical species, especially when it comes to
religion.

Religion and genuine logic cannot coexist.

[mg]

Post by High Miles

Post by mg

Post by Jerry Okamura
How can you say you are a catholic, if you do not follow the positions taken
by the religion you say you belong to?

My observations over 70 years is that religious people often pick and
choose which parts of their religion they want to believe in and which
ones they don't. There's actually nothing very unusual about that. As
to the question of why they do that, I suppose you would have to ask a
psychologist. I don't think very many people have ever claimed that
humans are a particularly logical species, especially when it comes to
religion.

 >
Religion and genuine logic cannot coexist.

I have a very close acquaintance who years ago had one child and
decided she didn't want to have anymore. So she shopped around, among
the Mormon leadership, until she found one that told her it was OK not
to have anymore. :-)

In a way, I suppose that is a psychologically healthy way for a
person to use religion to achieve peace of mind, but is it logical? Of
course not.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by mg

Post by Jerry Okamura
How can you say you are a catholic, if you do not follow the positions taken
by the religion you say you belong to?

My observations over 70 years is that religious people often pick and
choose which parts of their religion they want to believe in and which
ones they don't. There's actually nothing very unusual about that. As
to the question of why they do that, I suppose you would have to ask a
psychologist. I don't think very many people have ever claimed that
humans are a particularly logical species, especially when it comes to
religion.

I don't know who originally said it, but "most reason is
rationalization" seems to me a good catchphrase to
remember about people and the things they "believe" in.
That applies to thee and me of course, but it applies in
cinemascope to conservatives and to religious people.

The quackery of "Defense of Marriage" is a particularly
conspicuous example - a phrase without meaning since
there is no "threat". A threat is an essential prerequisite
for something to be called a "defense" against it, but the
term succeeds as a rallying cry, since it allows bigots to
pretend at least a little that they're not just being bigots.
It works as long as they don't inspect the word "defense",
which they can be depended upon not to do because if
they did inspect the word, that would expose the face
behind the mask.

Post by mg

Post by Jerry Okamura

Post by GLOBALIST
http://www.ktbb.com/youtellme/2012/02/09/im-now-catholic-so-are-you/

It seems that even Catholic women are supporting Obama. So not only
are we not all Catholics now, even many of the Catholics aren't
Catholics when it comes to birth control.

[mg]

Post by mg

Post by Jerry Okamura
How can you say you are a catholic, if you do not follow the positions taken
by the religion you say you belong to?

My observations over 70 years is that religious people often pick and
choose which parts of their religion they want to believe in and which
ones they don't. There's actually nothing very unusual about that. As
to the question of why they do that, I suppose you would have to ask a
psychologist. I don't think very many people have ever claimed that
humans are a particularly logical species, especially when it comes to
religion.

   I don't know who originally said it, but "most reason is
rationalization" seems to me a good catchphrase to
remember about people and the things they "believe" in.
That applies to thee and me of course, but it applies in
cinemascope to conservatives and to religious people.
   The quackery of "Defense of Marriage" is a particularly
conspicuous example - a phrase without meaning since
there is no "threat".  A threat is an essential prerequisite
for something to be called a "defense" against it, but the
term succeeds as a rallying cry, since it allows bigots to
pretend at least a little that they're not just being bigots.
It works as long as they don't inspect the word "defense",
which they can be depended upon not to do because if
they did inspect the word, that would expose the face
behind the mask.

The U.S. has a lot of things in common with Pakistan: (1) Both
countries have nuclear weapons, and (2) Both countries are filled with
fundamentalist, religious fruitcakes. The biggest difference is that
we are, or could be, a lot more dangerous.

Post by mg

Post by Jerry Okamura

Post by GLOBALIST
http://www.ktbb.com/youtellme/2012/02/09/im-now-catholic-so-are-you/

It seems that even Catholic women are supporting Obama. So not only
are we not all Catholics now, even many of the Catholics aren't
Catholics when it comes to birth control.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:43:16 -0800 (PST), mg <***@yahoo.com>
<snip>

Post by mg
The U.S. has a lot of things in common with Pakistan: (1) Both
countries have nuclear weapons, and (2) Both countries are filled with
fundamentalist, religious fruitcakes. The biggest difference is that
we are, or could be, a lot more dangerous.

I wouldn't underestimate how dangerous Pakistan could
be. We have a really shameful war record so far in the
third millennium, but it really can't compare with how loony
a truly religious nuclear power could be, IMO. There is still
a modicum of sanity in the USA, but that might end when
Jehovah tells President Santorum that His Will is for
Santorum to exterminate the infidels.

[mg]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
The U.S. has a lot of things in common with Pakistan: (1) Both
countries have nuclear weapons, and (2) Both countries are filled with
fundamentalist, religious fruitcakes. The biggest difference is that
we are, or could be, a lot more dangerous.

   I wouldn't underestimate how dangerous  Pakistan could
be.  We have a really shameful war record so far in the
third millennium, but it really can't compare with how loony
a truly religious nuclear power could be, IMO.  There is still
a modicum of sanity in the USA, but that might end when
Jehovah tells President Santorum that His Will is for
Santorum to exterminate the infidels.

In the case of Pakistan, I suppose the risk is with India, and there
could be, in theory at least, a huge nuclear war there. One could
probably blame that on the British, I suppose, and the way they
divided up the two countries.

One possible solution, I suppose, would be for both countries to train
their nuclear weapons on the U.K. :-) :-)

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
The U.S. has a lot of things in common with Pakistan: (1) Both
countries have nuclear weapons, and (2) Both countries are filled with
fundamentalist, religious fruitcakes. The biggest difference is that
we are, or could be, a lot more dangerous.

   I wouldn't underestimate how dangerous  Pakistan could
be.  We have a really shameful war record so far in the
third millennium, but it really can't compare with how loony
a truly religious nuclear power could be, IMO.  There is still
a modicum of sanity in the USA, but that might end when
Jehovah tells President Santorum that His Will is for
Santorum to exterminate the infidels.

In the case of Pakistan, I suppose the risk is with India, and there
could be, in theory at least, a huge nuclear war there. One could
probably blame that on the British, I suppose, and the way they
divided up the two countries.
One possible solution, I suppose, would be for both countries to train
their nuclear weapons on the U.K. :-) :-)

That would be mindless vengeance, since Britain
is only the shade of its former self now. India has
every call to be worried about what the religious
loonies in Pakistan might do though. "You don't
count the dead when God's on your side" as Bob
Dylan sang before he turned his coat inside-out.

[mg]

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
The U.S. has a lot of things in common with Pakistan: (1) Both
countries have nuclear weapons, and (2) Both countries are filled with
fundamentalist, religious fruitcakes. The biggest difference is that
we are, or could be, a lot more dangerous.

   I wouldn't underestimate how dangerous  Pakistan could
be.  We have a really shameful war record so far in the
third millennium, but it really can't compare with how loony
a truly religious nuclear power could be, IMO.  There is still
a modicum of sanity in the USA, but that might end when
Jehovah tells President Santorum that His Will is for
Santorum to exterminate the infidels.

In the case of Pakistan, I suppose the risk is with India, and there
could be, in theory at least, a huge nuclear war there. One could
probably blame that on the British, I suppose, and the way they
divided up the two countries.
One possible solution, I suppose, would be for both countries to train
their nuclear weapons on the U.K.  :-)  :-)

   That would be mindless vengeance, since Britain
is only the shade of its former self now.  India has
every call to be worried about what the religious
loonies in Pakistan might do though.  "You don't
count the dead when God's on your side" as Bob
Dylan sang before he turned his coat inside-out.

What's wrong with "mindless vengeance"? Sometimes I think there should
be more of it. Why, for example, aren't the Sunnis, in Iraq,
committing acts of mindless, terrorist, vengeance against the U.S. and
the U.K. for the criminal war against Iraq?

[Evelyn]

Post by mg

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
The U.S. has a lot of things in common with Pakistan: (1) Both
countries have nuclear weapons, and (2) Both countries are filled with
fundamentalist, religious fruitcakes. The biggest difference is that
we are, or could be, a lot more dangerous.

   I wouldn't underestimate how dangerous  Pakistan could
be.  We have a really shameful war record so far in the
third millennium, but it really can't compare with how loony
a truly religious nuclear power could be, IMO.  There is still
a modicum of sanity in the USA, but that might end when
Jehovah tells President Santorum that His Will is for
Santorum to exterminate the infidels.

In the case of Pakistan, I suppose the risk is with India, and there
could be, in theory at least, a huge nuclear war there. One could
probably blame that on the British, I suppose, and the way they
divided up the two countries.
One possible solution, I suppose, would be for both countries to train
their nuclear weapons on the U.K.  :-)  :-)

   That would be mindless vengeance, since Britain
is only the shade of its former self now.  India has
every call to be worried about what the religious
loonies in Pakistan might do though.  "You don't
count the dead when God's on your side" as Bob
Dylan sang before he turned his coat inside-out.

What's wrong with "mindless vengeance"? Sometimes I think there should
be more of it. Why, for example, aren't the Sunnis, in Iraq,
committing acts of mindless, terrorist, vengeance against the U.S. and
the U.K. for the criminal war against Iraq?

That sort of thing would seem to be happening right now in Pakistan.
They are sick of ten years of occupation, drones, war, senseless
killings and more. The catalyst was this Koran burning incident.

Who can blame them?

Evelyn

[mg]

Post by Evelyn

Post by mg

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
The U.S. has a lot of things in common with Pakistan: (1) Both
countries have nuclear weapons, and (2) Both countries are filled with
fundamentalist, religious fruitcakes. The biggest difference is that
we are, or could be, a lot more dangerous.

   I wouldn't underestimate how dangerous  Pakistan could
be.  We have a really shameful war record so far in the
third millennium, but it really can't compare with how loony
a truly religious nuclear power could be, IMO.  There is still
a modicum of sanity in the USA, but that might end when
Jehovah tells President Santorum that His Will is for
Santorum to exterminate the infidels.

In the case of Pakistan, I suppose the risk is with India, and there
could be, in theory at least, a huge nuclear war there. One could
probably blame that on the British, I suppose, and the way they
divided up the two countries.
One possible solution, I suppose, would be for both countries to train
their nuclear weapons on the U.K.  :-)  :-)

   That would be mindless vengeance, since Britain
is only the shade of its former self now.  India has
every call to be worried about what the religious
loonies in Pakistan might do though.  "You don't
count the dead when God's on your side" as Bob
Dylan sang before he turned his coat inside-out.

What's wrong with "mindless vengeance"? Sometimes I think there should
be more of it. Why, for example, aren't the Sunnis, in Iraq,
committing acts of mindless, terrorist, vengeance against the U.S. and
the U.K. for the criminal war against Iraq?

That sort of thing would seem to be happening right now in Pakistan.
They are sick of ten years of occupation, drones, war, senseless
killings and more.   The catalyst was this Koran burning incident.
Who can blame them?
Evelyn

I'm a strong believer in vengeance and I believe that obligation
should be passed down from father to son, and I don't believer there
should be any statue of limitation on it. If there was more vengeance,
there might be less war criminals.

[Jerry Okamura]

Post by Jerry Okamura
How can you say you are a catholic, if you do not follow the positions taken
by the religion you say you belong to?

My observations over 70 years is that religious people often pick and
choose which parts of their religion they want to believe in and which
ones they don't. There's actually nothing very unusual about that. As
to the question of why they do that, I suppose you would have to ask a
psychologist. I don't think very many people have ever claimed that
humans are a particularly logical species, especially when it comes to
religion.


Or, human being are not very logical when it comes to just about everything?

[mg]

Post by mg

Post by Jerry Okamura
How can you say you are a catholic, if you do not follow the positions taken
by the religion you say you belong to?

My observations over 70 years is that religious people often pick and
choose which parts of their religion they want to believe in and which
ones they don't. There's actually nothing very unusual about that. As
to the question of why they do that, I suppose you would have to ask a
psychologist. I don't think very many people have ever claimed that
humans are a particularly logical species, especially when it comes to
religion.
Or, human being are not very logical when it comes to just about everything?

I would guess the human brain evolved to only be used when absolutely
necessary. A caveman, for instance, probably wouldn't spend a lot of
time thinking about "what if" questions.

[High Miles]

Post by mg

Post by mg

Post by Jerry Okamura
How can you say you are a catholic, if you do not follow the positions taken
by the religion you say you belong to?

My observations over 70 years is that religious people often pick and
choose which parts of their religion they want to believe in and which
ones they don't. There's actually nothing very unusual about that. As
to the question of why they do that, I suppose you would have to ask a
psychologist. I don't think very many people have ever claimed that
humans are a particularly logical species, especially when it comes to
religion.
Or, human being are not very logical when it comes to just about everything?

I would guess the human brain evolved to only be used when absolutely
necessary. A caveman, for instance, probably wouldn't spend a lot of
time thinking about "what if" questions.

Intellectually limited people today don't spend time on abstract thought
either.

[mg]

Post by High Miles

Post by mg

Post by mg

Post by Jerry Okamura
How can you say you are a catholic, if you do not follow the positions taken
by the religion you say you belong to?

My observations over 70 years is that religious people often pick and
choose which parts of their religion they want to believe in and which
ones they don't. There's actually nothing very unusual about that. As
to the question of why they do that, I suppose you would have to ask a
psychologist. I don't think very many people have ever claimed that
humans are a particularly logical species, especially when it comes to
religion.
Or, human being are not very logical when it comes to just about everything?

I would guess the human brain evolved to only be used when absolutely
necessary. A caveman, for instance, probably wouldn't spend a lot of
time thinking about "what if" questions.

 >
Intellectually limited people today don't spend time on abstract thought
either.

I think it's in our blood; we're not designed to do that. If the truth
were known, most people would probably rather solve their problems by
torturing heretics, burning witches, and throwing virgins into
volcanoes.

[Evelyn]

Post by mg

Post by High Miles

Post by mg

Post by mg

Post by Jerry Okamura
How can you say you are a catholic, if you do not follow the positions taken
by the religion you say you belong to?

My observations over 70 years is that religious people often pick and
choose which parts of their religion they want to believe in and which
ones they don't. There's actually nothing very unusual about that. As
to the question of why they do that, I suppose you would have to ask a
psychologist. I don't think very many people have ever claimed that
humans are a particularly logical species, especially when it comes to
religion.
Or, human being are not very logical when it comes to just about everything?

I would guess the human brain evolved to only be used when absolutely
necessary. A caveman, for instance, probably wouldn't spend a lot of
time thinking about "what if" questions.

 >
Intellectually limited people today don't spend time on abstract thought
either.

I think it's in our blood; we're not designed to do that. If the truth
were known, most people would probably rather solve their problems by
torturing heretics, burning witches, and throwing virgins into
volcanoes.

Same thing as we see here every day. Note the right wingers and
religious nuts go wild cursing others rather than making a real point
or actually discussing an issue? I always say they would be back to
the tactics of the inquisition quickly enough given half a chance.

Evelyn

[Jigme Dorje]

Post by mg

Post by High Miles

Post by mg

Post by mg

Post by Jerry Okamura
How can you say you are a catholic, if you do not follow the positions taken
by the religion you say you belong to?

My observations over 70 years is that religious people often pick and
choose which parts of their religion they want to believe in and which
ones they don't. There's actually nothing very unusual about that. As
to the question of why they do that, I suppose you would have to ask a
psychologist. I don't think very many people have ever claimed that
humans are a particularly logical species, especially when it comes to
religion.
Or, human being are not very logical when it comes to just about everything?

I would guess the human brain evolved to only be used when absolutely
necessary. A caveman, for instance, probably wouldn't spend a lot of
time thinking about "what if" questions.

 >
Intellectually limited people today don't spend time on abstract thought
either.

I think it's in our blood; we're not designed to do that. If the truth
were known, most people would probably rather solve their problems by
torturing heretics, burning witches, and throwing virgins into
volcanoes.

Same thing as we see here every day.   Note the right wingers and
religious nuts go wild cursing others rather than making a real point
or actually discussing an issue?   I always say they would be back to
the tactics of the inquisition quickly enough given half a chance.
Evelyn

Because they don't have an issue.

And there's 2 reasons for that:

First the issues are too nuanced for a bigot to understand.

Second, their issues are merley incoherent, internally inconsistant
outbursts of rage and hatred.

For instance: we don't want big government, we want intrusive
government.

Melisa Harris Perry put it this way: since there's so much that these
men can't control, they're reverting to what they think they can
control - women's reproductive rights. Add to that suppression of
African American voting rights, defunding schools in porr
neighborhoods (with help from corporatist Demorats) and the
elimination of opportunity for the. Poor and middle class.

They're mean but cowardly, and can only pick on the weak.

[Evelyn]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:40:26 -0800 (PST), Jigme Dorje

Post by Jigme Dorje

Post by mg

Post by High Miles

Post by mg

Post by mg

Post by Jerry Okamura
How can you say you are a catholic, if you do not follow the positions
taken
by the religion you say you belong to?

My observations over 70 years is that religious people often pick and
choose which parts of their religion they want to believe in and which
ones they don't. There's actually nothing very unusual about that. As
to the question of why they do that, I suppose you would have to ask a
psychologist. I don't think very many people have ever claimed that
humans are a particularly logical species, especially when it comes to
religion.
Or, human being are not very logical when it comes to just about everything?

I would guess the human brain evolved to only be used when absolutely
necessary. A caveman, for instance, probably wouldn't spend a lot of
time thinking about "what if" questions.

 >
Intellectually limited people today don't spend time on abstract thought
either.

I think it's in our blood; we're not designed to do that. If the truth
were known, most people would probably rather solve their problems by
torturing heretics, burning witches, and throwing virgins into
volcanoes.

Same thing as we see here every day.   Note the right wingers and
religious nuts go wild cursing others rather than making a real point
or actually discussing an issue?   I always say they would be back to
the tactics of the inquisition quickly enough given half a chance.
Evelyn

Because they don't have an issue.
First the issues are too nuanced for a bigot to understand.
Second, their issues are merley incoherent, internally inconsistant
outbursts of rage and hatred.
For instance: we don't want big government, we want intrusive
government.
Melisa Harris Perry put it this way: since there's so much that these
men can't control, they're reverting to what they think they can
control - women's reproductive rights. Add to that suppression of
African American voting rights, defunding schools in porr
neighborhoods (with help from corporatist Demorats) and the
elimination of opportunity for the. Poor and middle class.
They're mean but cowardly, and can only pick on the weak.

They may get a rude awakening. Women are not so weak as they think.

Evelyn

[Islander]

Post by Jigme Dorje

Post by Evelyn

Post by mg

Post by High Miles

Post by mg

Post by mg

Post by Jerry Okamura
How can you say you are a catholic, if you do not follow the positions taken
by the religion you say you belong to?

My observations over 70 years is that religious people often pick and
choose which parts of their religion they want to believe in and which
ones they don't. There's actually nothing very unusual about that. As
to the question of why they do that, I suppose you would have to ask a
psychologist. I don't think very many people have ever claimed that
humans are a particularly logical species, especially when it comes to
religion.
Or, human being are not very logical when it comes to just about everything?

I would guess the human brain evolved to only be used when absolutely
necessary. A caveman, for instance, probably wouldn't spend a lot of
time thinking about "what if" questions.

Intellectually limited people today don't spend time on abstract thought
either.

I think it's in our blood; we're not designed to do that. If the truth
were known, most people would probably rather solve their problems by
torturing heretics, burning witches, and throwing virgins into
volcanoes.

Same thing as we see here every day. Note the right wingers and
religious nuts go wild cursing others rather than making a real point
or actually discussing an issue? I always say they would be back to
the tactics of the inquisition quickly enough given half a chance.
Evelyn

Because they don't have an issue.
First the issues are too nuanced for a bigot to understand.
Second, their issues are merley incoherent, internally inconsistant
outbursts of rage and hatred.
For instance: we don't want big government, we want intrusive
government.
Melisa Harris Perry put it this way: since there's so much that these
men can't control, they're reverting to what they think they can
control - women's reproductive rights. Add to that suppression of
African American voting rights, defunding schools in porr
neighborhoods (with help from corporatist Demorats) and the
elimination of opportunity for the. Poor and middle class.
They're mean but cowardly, and can only pick on the weak.

Tom Schaller, Assoc Prof at U. Maryland, and author of "Whistling Past
Dixie" was a guest on UP w/ Chris Hayes this morning and put it more
pragmatically. He said, "When issues are very complex, for example
social services and things like that, immigrant populations vs. older
white populations who have spent all their lives in a region, it is
easier to go after cultural issues where politicians have an easier
point of purchase like Spanish language issues rather than trying to win
an argument about social service distribution which is more complex."
He is essentially arguing that politicians go after low-hanging fruit
that doesn't take a lot of explaining.