I'm really looking forward to this one!

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Guess you missed the sarcasm in spite of the emoticon. Let's try again: maybe Franklin Graham will be next:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Sorry, I didn't miss the sarcasm. My response was in kind, as well. But it doesn't really read that way. Even though I quoted you, I wasn't replying to you directly. I quoted it for reference. I was replying to anyone reading who has the same thought, because it's a legitimate point on which a legitimate argument can be made.

Franklin Graham. Isn't he the one that has been asked to be the next president of Duke University?
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Among others.

I really was referring to those here on this honorable message board that keep screaming about supporting the constitution in it's entirety, not just those parts you support. Where are they on this.
Yeah, I knew that. I just didn't want to take this as an opportunity to take cheap pokes at individuals for any past comments made outside this thread. If they want to comment here on this (the more the better, I think) then let the game begin.

I think (obviously) the Pope addressing a Joint Meeting of Congress is a significant issue, and a significant problem. Others, I'm sure, think the opposite. I would love to hear differing opinions as to why it's not a problem.


Did you know there is a difference between a Joint Session and a Joint Meeting of Congress? The end result of both is they're all in the same room, but how they got there is different. It's mostly procedural, where a Joint Session requires an actual resolution in each House to meet in session, and a Joint Meeting is where each House gives unanimous consent to recess in order to meet with the other legislative body. So a Joint Session is where they are still in session, ostensibly to do some work, and a Joint Meeting is where they are not in session but are just meeting. :D

Joint Sessions are reserved for the State of the Union address by the President, or when He comes to deliver some important message to Congress, and for the counting of Electoral Votes. Everything else is a Joint Meeting.

(The capital H in "He" above is a joke. Some will get it, some won't. But it will be especially biting if the Pope meets with a Joint Session of Congress, that's for sure. LOL)
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
No, you missed the point. Liberals would like nothing more than to see conservatives calling out the Pope publicly so they can use it for political purposes. Not knowing that is just ignorant on your part. BTW many conservatives agree with him about being charitable. It's a conservative track record.

Maybe in whatever fantasy world you inhabit the "liberals would like nothing more than to see conservatives calling out the Pope publicly", but in the real world? No one want to see anyone disrespect the Pope, for any reason - the man is very much admired. Maybe the conservatives and/or Republicans would do it anyhow, [they didn't hesitate to disrespect the POTUS in his SOTU speech, after all], but trust me: liberals would not like it one little bit.
The conservative track record on being charitable is considerably more talk than anything else, unless it's "faith based" charity, which they support wholeheartedly. When it comes to taxpayer funded programs to provide compassion, they'd prefer to provide it without any actual benefits attached for "the 47% who are dependent on government".
As if they themselves are not. :rolleyes:
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Maybe in whatever fantasy world you inhabit the "liberals would like nothing more than to see conservatives calling out the Pope publicly", but in the real world? No one want to see anyone disrespect the Pope, for any reason - the man is very much admired. Maybe the conservatives and/or Republicans would do it anyhow, [they didn't hesitate to disrespect the POTUS in his SOTU speech, after all], but trust me: liberals would not like it one little bit.
The conservative track record on being charitable is considerably more talk than anything else, unless it's "faith based" charity, which they support wholeheartedly. When it comes to taxpayer funded programs to provide compassion, they'd prefer to provide it without any actual benefits attached for "the 47% who are dependent on government".
As if they themselves are not. :rolleyes:

Surprise! Conservatives are more generous than liberals | The Daily Caller
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
No one want to see anyone disrespect the Pope, for any reason - the man is very much admired. Maybe the conservatives and/or Republicans would do it anyhow, [they didn't hesitate to disrespect the POTUS in his SOTU speech, after all], but trust me: liberals would not like it one little bit. :rolleyes:

No one? Hardly. If liberals can benefit politically, they will be sitting there eating their popcorn,and cackling with glee yelling fight! Lol

From article--
A war between conservatives and the Roman Pontiff would be rollicking good news from the standpoint of progressive liberals. They have everything to gain here and nothing to lose. Take note, conservatives.

Pope Francis is from Argentina. His political and economic sensibilities were formed in a very different context from our own. He pushes a lot of conservative buttons, but we should try to remember he’s not really trying to provoke us; there’s some mismatch of perspective here. With our homegrown liberals (and especially the Catholic ones) it’s another story. They’re baiting us. Be smart and don’t give them satisfaction.

‘War’ Between the Pope and Conservatives Benefits Liberals
Does that mean you’re not permitted to criticize Pope Francis? No. It’s still a free country. No matter how viciously you trash the Holy Father, I guarantee that George, Reno, and I aren’t going to form a posse and come after you. Here’s my suggestion, though. Before tearing into the pope, visualize yourself standing with him in a circle of your least-favorite liberal pundits, with them hooting and chanting, “Fight! Fight! Fight!” Because that’s a pretty good metaphor for where things stand right now.
Think of the benefits (for them). Catholics used to be solidly Democratic voters. That’s no longer the case, and among Mass-going Catholics especially, Republicans have continued to gain ground. Naturally, I think Catholics should vote Republican more reliably than they do, given how successfully Democrats are making themselves into the party of death (not to mention religious persecution). Nevertheless, the trends have been eye-opening. In 2006, 55 percent of Catholics voted Democrat; by 2014 the percentage had fallen to 45 percent. Their loss was mostly the Republicans’ gain. Among white Republicans, the shift was even larger.

Anything Democrats can do to halt that stampede will be good for them. So, let’s see. What if they could incite a “war” between the GOP and the Vatican? That sure could help them persuade on-the-fence Catholics that hey, abortion, marriage, and religious freedom aren’t everything. Vote for the party that doesn’t hate the pope!

Even among those who would never vote Democrat, there’s plenty to gain if liberals can erode the solidarity that orthodox Christians have built in recent years. Catholics and Protestants still have their differences, of course, but of late they’ve mostly been willing to set those aside in pursuit of common social and political goals. It’s pretty obvious by now that aggressive secularists are a threat to good-faith religious people of all stripes, and that believers in God, country, and traditional morality will be better off if they can work together rather than coming to blows over the filioque or transubstantiation.

How do you get Christians at each others’ throats? Here’s an oldie but goodie: get them fighting about the pope!
That solidarity is obviously a threat to the liberal agenda. So how do you get Christians at each others’ throats? Here’s an oldie but goodie: get them fighting about the pope! Papal authority has always been a sore point between Catholics and Protestants, and also (in a slightly different way) between Catholics and the Orthodox. Inter-conservative disputes about the Roman Pontiff could provide a great distraction as we gear up for the next major election.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Sorry, I didn't miss the sarcasm. My response was in kind, as well. But it doesn't really read that way. Even though I quoted you, I wasn't replying to you directly. I quoted it for reference. I was replying to anyone reading who has the same thought, because it's a legitimate point on which a legitimate argument can be made.

Franklin Graham. Isn't he the one that has been asked to be the next president of Duke University?
Must be...I guess that's why the Duke Univ Admin decided not to have the Muslim call to prayer broadcast from the school's Christian chapel bell tower.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
No one? Hardly. If liberals can benefit politically, they will be sitting there eating their popcorn,and cackling with glee yelling fight! Lol

From article--
A war between conservatives and the Roman Pontiff would be rollicking good news from the standpoint of progressive liberals. They have everything to gain here and nothing to lose. Take note, conservatives.

Pope Francis is from Argentina. His political and economic sensibilities were formed in a very different context from our own. He pushes a lot of conservative buttons, but we should try to remember he’s not really trying to provoke us; there’s some mismatch of perspective here. With our homegrown liberals (and especially the Catholic ones) it’s another story. They’re baiting us. Be smart and don’t give them satisfaction.

‘War’ Between the Pope and Conservatives Benefits Liberals
Does that mean you’re not permitted to criticize Pope Francis? No. It’s still a free country. No matter how viciously you trash the Holy Father, I guarantee that George, Reno, and I aren’t going to form a posse and come after you. Here’s my suggestion, though. Before tearing into the pope, visualize yourself standing with him in a circle of your least-favorite liberal pundits, with them hooting and chanting, “Fight! Fight! Fight!” Because that’s a pretty good metaphor for where things stand right now.
Think of the benefits (for them). Catholics used to be solidly Democratic voters. That’s no longer the case, and among Mass-going Catholics especially, Republicans have continued to gain ground. Naturally, I think Catholics should vote Republican more reliably than they do, given how successfully Democrats are making themselves into the party of death (not to mention religious persecution). Nevertheless, the trends have been eye-opening. In 2006, 55 percent of Catholics voted Democrat; by 2014 the percentage had fallen to 45 percent. Their loss was mostly the Republicans’ gain. Among white Republicans, the shift was even larger.

Anything Democrats can do to halt that stampede will be good for them. So, let’s see. What if they could incite a “war” between the GOP and the Vatican? That sure could help them persuade on-the-fence Catholics that hey, abortion, marriage, and religious freedom aren’t everything. Vote for the party that doesn’t hate the pope!

Even among those who would never vote Democrat, there’s plenty to gain if liberals can erode the solidarity that orthodox Christians have built in recent years. Catholics and Protestants still have their differences, of course, but of late they’ve mostly been willing to set those aside in pursuit of common social and political goals. It’s pretty obvious by now that aggressive secularists are a threat to good-faith religious people of all stripes, and that believers in God, country, and traditional morality will be better off if they can work together rather than coming to blows over the filioque or transubstantiation.

How do you get Christians at each others’ throats? Here’s an oldie but goodie: get them fighting about the pope!
That solidarity is obviously a threat to the liberal agenda. So how do you get Christians at each others’ throats? Here’s an oldie but goodie: get them fighting about the pope! Papal authority has always been a sore point between Catholics and Protestants, and also (in a slightly different way) between Catholics and the Orthodox. Inter-conservative disputes about the Roman Pontiff could provide a great distraction as we gear up for the next major election.

Funny, that's exactly the article I thought of when I read your original assertion. The thing is, you said "liberals would like to see conservatives calling out the Pope", as in publicly disrespecting him, which isn't going to happen, and liberals wouldn't like it if it did. Do you like seeing someone you admire insulted?
But there's no need for them to do it, because their policies: opposing minimum wage hikes, action on climate change, getting rid of Obamacare, and especially cutting aid to the poor, are themselves in opposition to what the Pope stands for.
It's too late for Republicans to avoid opposing the Pope - it's what they've been doing for years, under their own agenda. And that's why the headline says they should be terrified: they need to explain why they are against everything [except abortion & contraceptives] that the Pope is for, without disrespecting him. Because that would be political suicide, and they know that.
Somehow, I think that went right over your fuzzy little head.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Perhaps it isn't so much that they oppose all those things, it's that they realize it's only in the world of the fuzzy headed that there is an unlimited fountain of money to pay for everything under the sun plus half of everything under the moon. Perhaps they realize it's only in the world of the fuzzy brained that everything under the sun is the responsibility of government, even the myriad of things not included in the actual enumerated list of government responsibilities. Perhaps the fuzzy heads and brains are an entirely different group. Perhaps there's no perhaps about it.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Liberals don't think there is unlimited money, they simply don't approve of "balancing the budget" on the backs of those who can least afford it, while at the same time giving breaks and subsidies and sweet deals to those who already have more money than they know what to do with. They really don't giveadam if the rich get richer, but if it's because the poor [and everyone who isn't rich] get poorer, they have a problem with that.
Liberals also don't think the government is responsible for everything, but they are responsible for promoting the general welfare, not an oligarchy. "Of, by, and for the people" is a pretty clear statement of purpose, I think.
 
Top