archenemy

Please. As if liberals don't presume to be "know-it-alls" and tell people "what they need to be told". Liberals always talk about "educating" people to be "tolerant", "informed", etc. So this should be right up your alley. Excuse me? What the FUCK makes you think my parents are liberals? You get *dummer* with each post. And can you please use a different graemlin-you are wearing that one out.

Do you really think you have a deeper understanding of things than others? I am curious about folks who speak out against religion by telling others to think for themselves. Seems to me, that's just a line people learn from others. Regurgitation dressed as "free thinking". Comical. Oh, and it is not a reduction to the impossible. It is quite possible that no one really is a true expert on anything.

Agreed. But looking at the change listed above, it might even be helpful to look at folks who hold themselves up when they start out with everything. From what I have read in the WSJ, the rags-to-riches story just doesn't happen all that often in America anymore. I have not read about this anywhere else, so I really don't know shit about it; but it is an interesting thing to look at.

We can start by telling people what they need to be told, not what they want to hear. And entitlements should be tied to performance/self-improvement - quid pro quo. We can also look at those who are successful, happy, upwardly mobile and learn why this is the case. It seems to me that there are plenty of immigrants who come here with nothing, speak the language poorly, and seem to work their butts off and succeed. The Home Simpson's of America could learn a thing or two from them... My parents are some of those immigrants. But they would never presume to be know-it-alls and to tell people "what they need to be told"

Your logic is faulty. The logic is yours. The rest is extrapolation. Get it straight.

Historically Australia proves a good example of this. There was an interesting book a few years ago ( The Great Wave, here's a review which tied, among other things, increases in crime to a decrease in real wages and an increase in income inequality. Of course, crime has nothing to do with the breakdown of the family unit, destructive socio-cultural attitudes, and a dependency/entitlement mentality fostered by left-wing social engineers. And laziness never ever has anything to do with it either, I suppose. It's easier to demand a check from someone else than to work, study, and aspire to do better. What I like about you is that you are consistent.

If a whole bunch of Asians die, who is going to finance our debt?

Very, very well said. Bravo.

As long as I can get tanked while on the job, I'm in.

Are you in the top 50%? If so, and you feel so bad about the "widening gap between rich and poor", nothing is stopping YOU from donating a portion of YOUR salary to someone in the bottom 10% thereby equalizing your income with theirs. Go for it. This is my favorite response to this issue. There is always one idiot who makes it. Yeah, a donation will certainly fix the systemic problem.

And you can work in the evening to suplement your WalMart paycheck!!

Yeah, supply side economics is proven.

If you are leaving Oct 10 pm and returning Oct 14th pm; PM me.

Whatdaya have there? like, four different soaps? How dirty is your pussy anyway?

"For the third consecutive year, the rich got richer. In this, the 24th annual edition of The Forbes 400, the collective net worth of the nation's wealthiest climbed $125 billion, to $1.13 trillion. All but 26 people on our roster are billionaires." Forbes The division between rich and poor continues to widen.

this is like when scrapbookers take a picture of their scrapbook pages.

I agree with you Selkirk. What I think is funny is that a person could even think they can read something without interpreting it. How is that possible? Even if someone else tells you what the text means, you still have to interpret what that person is saying. It is impossible to take anything in without using your powers of perception, interpretation, meaning-making, et al.

I thought that was Peggy?

Going to school for years doesn't inherently make you an expert on anything but going to school. And since priests study theology, I don't think anyone would expect them to inherently know things other than theology ( The study of the nature of God and religious truth) We don't need to debate these statements because they cancel each other out. If you seriously believe the first statement, then the second statement cannot be true. But then, that's just something I learned in a logic class while going to school. Oh, but wait, logic wasn't my area of study. How could it be that I learned other stuff besides just what directly relates to my area of study? Oh yeah, because that is how a formal higher education is structured--even one in theology (take a look at the classes required for a degree in theology at Seattle University (a Jesuit school) if you prefer to not just take my word on this). But if I step back from all that and agree to follow the logic of your first statement, then it would follow that by going to work, the only thing I learn is how to go to work. I would never become an expert in what I work on every day of the week. So basically, none of us ever become experts at anything. Unless it is inherent to us--right?

Considering how much it's changed, the thinkings obviously not done, is it? Hence my question about Liberation Theology, a doctrine of social justice that a majority of 1st world catholics don't subscribe to but is popular in S. America. The church presents its narrative as immutable, and most practitioners assume it to be so, a quick look at history will show it isn't. I will be right back.. have a meeting for about an hour. So, I don't know anything about L.T.--I have never heard the phrase before now. When you say that a doctrine is presented as immutable, I think of groups like orthodox folks who study the Torah or the Koran and believe that those words are the actual words of God. Most Christians, as far as I understand, believe that the Bible is not the direct word of God--that it was written by men who were inspired by God. This is what has allowed (after much contention) the numerous translations and versions of the Bible. This necessarily opens avenues for discussion. Furthermore, there are numerous clear, direct examples of the Bible saying one thing, and then saying the opposite thing somewhere else (i.e. Knowledge is good, Knowledge is bad). Some folks believe this is so in order to allow different interpretations of the narrative. Many Jewish studies (non-orth) also add to the Old Testament (not the Pentatuch part of course) and are used as a basis of discussion. My point is, there is a lot of wiggle room in the Bible, people know it, and folks often use it as an entry to discussion. All of this is different from the concept of an Ideology--which is far less flexible.

Considering how much it's changed, the thinkings obviously not done, is it? Hence my question about Liberation Theology, a doctrine of social justice that a majority of 1st world catholics don't subscribe to but is popular in S. America. The church presents its narrative as immutable, and most practitioners assume it to be so, a quick look at history will show it isn't. I will be right back.. have a meeting for about an hour.

What do you think seminary school is? Do you have any idea of what is required to become a Catholic Priest? And if course the Priest will counsel within the views of the church--that is why the couple is there. They are members of the church seeking to get married within the laws of that church. And again, a Priest need not be an expert on the issue of marriage (is anyone, really? Isn't each relationship unique?). The Priest, however, is the expert on counselling the people who come to them for guidence.

Have you not actually read the thread you are posting to?

You could say this, but it would be bullshit because you are willfully ignorant of organized religion and therefore know nothing of the issue.