Breaking news: the Pope is a liberal

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,852
6
81
Originally posted by: CSMR
Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
the policies they support and the actions they perform are in direct opposition to the teachings of Jesus.

1. Pro death penalty while being against abortion
2. Against public programs to help the poor, homeless, and veterans
3. Racist
4. Homophobic and not accepting of different lifestyles
5. For wars and seeing the death and destruction of their enemies
Almost complete nonsense. Only 2 and 5 may have merit. 1 is compatible with Christianity and 4 is completely necessary, except for the liberal term "homophobic". I am not aware that republicans tend to be racist.

:Q You're even more right wing than I could have possibly imagined.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Christianity was a revolutionary way of thinking when it first appeared -

The Sermon on the mount = early socialism

But things evolve, Its obvious. many elements of Christianity are irrelevant today. Greek philosophy was a development in human thought and ethics that was eventually superseded by other philosophies, some more influential than others. Religion was a stage in man's intellectual development, nothing more.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Will you people stop using that word incorrectly? Liberal WHAT? Socially liberal? No, the pope is not socially liberal, he's just another social dinosaur that retards look up to. Economically liberal? Yeah, sure, he's a wasteful asshole.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Why don't you stop with the straw men, misrepresenting liberals, who are not haters of charities as you imply?
Fiscal liberalism is the replacement of private charity by "charity" mandated and run by the state. If you love charity so much, you shouldn't need the government to do it for you. Yet there is overwhelming evidence that fiscal liberals rarely, and to very little extent, participate in private charity. I can give you entire books on the subject if you want.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,014
8,646
136
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Craig234
Why don't you stop with the straw men, misrepresenting liberals, who are not haters of charities as you imply?
Fiscal liberalism is the replacement of private charity by "charity" mandated and run by the state. If you love charity so much, you shouldn't need the government to do it for you. Yet there is overwhelming evidence that fiscal liberals rarely, and to very little extent, participate in private charity. I can give you entire books on the subject if you want.

Do it. List them. Provide links. Do it.

 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,999
109
106
Originally posted by: Darwin333
Says the head of one of (if not THE) the richest organizations of modern mankind.

This may have been historically true at one point in time, but I don't believe that to be the case now. IIRC, the Vatican released their fiscal books to the public quite a while ago to combat this perception. Considering its scale, many modern multinational corporations have much more in terms of wealth.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Craig234
Why don't you stop with the straw men, misrepresenting liberals, who are not haters of charities as you imply?
Fiscal liberalism is the replacement of private charity by "charity" mandated and run by the state.

No, it's not.. The Republic lie and myth is about that. Liberals understand that government and charity both have a place, not that there should be no private charity.

overnment's role is to identify where it can best meet a need, and where charity can best meet a need.

Private charity lacks the scale and some other benefits of a government program. It's good for some things and not so much for others.

Only an anti-government ideologue would attack government adding its programs to help people in addition to thecharities, much less attack the so dishnestly as to say that the government wants to replace all private charity. You have on the one side people who want to do more to help those in need, and on the other hand the crazy, dangerous ideologues who would happily leave the needs unmet just to get government cut.

If you love charity so much, you shouldn't need the government to do it for you.

Yes, you should. Private charity is great, and it *cannot begin to meet the needs of society*. We had private charity before social security - there was 90% elder poverty.

There was a lack of medical care, even with private charity, which Medicare was created to meet, which it does well. And so on. Charity and government are complementary.

Yet there is overwhelming evidence that fiscal liberals rarely, and to very little extent, participate in private charity. I can give you entire books on the subject if you want.

If liberals gave at the same rate as the right, it wouldn't chage a thing about the inadequacy of the scale of charity to meet society's needs - turning this into nothing but an ad hominem attack not having any relevance, rather than any relevant argument that the issue would be addressed if liberals donated more.

Face it, the problem isn't liberals donating less to charity, it's Republicans having an ideological opposition to government programs that work.

Yes, there's a cult-like set of views, encouraged by a big propaganda machine, and you are exhibiting the problem.

The thing is, the fact that the liberals can run such good governmet is not known by so many people - most Amerrcans never saw governmen from LBJ and before.

The right-wing myths are widely spread instead, poisining our society.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Craig234
Why don't you stop with the straw men, misrepresenting liberals, who are not haters of charities as you imply?
Fiscal liberalism is the replacement of private charity by "charity" mandated and run by the state. If you love charity so much, you shouldn't need the government to do it for you. Yet there is overwhelming evidence that fiscal liberals rarely, and to very little extent, participate in private charity. I can give you entire books on the subject if you want.

Do it. List them. Provide links. Do it.

He can provide evidence that liberals donate less than the right wing. He can't show evidence that charitable causes and needs would be better met by charity alone.
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,852
6
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Craig234
Why don't you stop with the straw men, misrepresenting liberals, who are not haters of charities as you imply?
Fiscal liberalism is the replacement of private charity by "charity" mandated and run by the state. If you love charity so much, you shouldn't need the government to do it for you. Yet there is overwhelming evidence that fiscal liberals rarely, and to very little extent, participate in private charity. I can give you entire books on the subject if you want.

Do it. List them. Provide links. Do it.

He can provide evidence that liberals donate less than the right wing. He can't show evidence that charitable causes and needs would be better met by charity alone.

Karl Rove was actually involved heavy in the process of gathering money for the Republican party and used technology to do it better than the democrats at the time. Skip to 3:58 or so for Karl Rove's portion of the interview.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Why do people think Catholics in the United States are a conservative religion?
Pope cosidered a liberal by our standards? Big surprise.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Craig234
Why don't you stop with the straw men, misrepresenting liberals, who are not haters of charities as you imply?
Fiscal liberalism is the replacement of private charity by "charity" mandated and run by the state. If you love charity so much, you shouldn't need the government to do it for you. Yet there is overwhelming evidence that fiscal liberals rarely, and to very little extent, participate in private charity. I can give you entire books on the subject if you want.

You dont need to provide books. Look a the democrat candidates.

Obama avg'd under 2% of his income for most of his political career. Biden doesnt even make it to .5%.

McCain last year gave 28% of his income to charity. I dont know Palin's.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
No, it's not.. The Republic lie and myth is about that. Liberals understand that government and charity both have a place, not that there should be no private charity.

overnment's role is to identify where it can best meet a need, and where charity can best meet a need.

Private charity lacks the scale and some other benefits of a government program. It's good for some things and not so much for others.

Only an anti-government ideologue would attack government adding its programs to help people in addition to thecharities, much less attack the so dishnestly as to say that the government wants to replace all private charity. You have on the one side people who want to do more to help those in need, and on the other hand the crazy, dangerous ideologues who would happily leave the needs unmet just to get government cut.

If you love charity so much, you shouldn't need the government to do it for you.

Yes, you should. Private charity is great, and it *cannot begin to meet the needs of society*. We had private charity before social security - there was 90% elder poverty.

There was a lack of medical care, even with private charity, which Medicare was created to meet, which it does well. And so on. Charity and government are complementary.

Yet there is overwhelming evidence that fiscal liberals rarely, and to very little extent, participate in private charity. I can give you entire books on the subject if you want.

If liberals gave at the same rate as the right, it wouldn't chage a thing about the inadequacy of the scale of charity to meet society's needs - turning this into nothing but an ad hominem attack not having any relevance, rather than any relevant argument that the issue would be addressed if liberals donated more.

Face it, the problem isn't liberals donating less to charity, it's Republicans having an ideological opposition to government programs that work.

Yes, there's a cult-like set of views, encouraged by a big propaganda machine, and you are exhibiting the problem.

The thing is, the fact that the liberals can run such good governmet is not known by so many people - most Amerrcans never saw governmen from LBJ and before.

The right-wing myths are widely spread instead, poisining our society.
Your argument boils down to the fact that private charities can't meet the needs of the people, therefore government should fill the gap. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Given that argument, I can points out that if the government weren't taking money from potential charity donors, private charities might be able to meet all of society's needs without government intervention. This is clearly supported by the superior monetary efficiency of private charities relative to government. If you are going to argue that the government is more efficient than private charities, then you are simply an idiot.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Are there really no fiscal liberals in this entire forum who can even make an argument for their position?