• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Majority Leader Cantor loses GOP primary to tea-party challenger[W:243:247:349]

Re: Eric Cantor is Gone

What is 'dragging posts forward from before?'
 
Re: Eric Cantor is Gone

Looks good to me! The more extreme the right, the better chance for Democrats.

Being against bans on gay marriage and abortion is extreme. Noted! You people can't seem to decide what's right for you.
 
Re: Eric Cantor is Gone

Being against bans on gay marriage and abortion is extreme. Noted! You people can't seem to decide what's right for you.

Yup, equal rights is definitely more of a concern for Democrats.
 
Re: Eric Cantor is Gone

Looks good to me! The more extreme the right, the better chance for Democrats.

What do you consider 'extreme' these days and what indication has there been that there will be anything "extreme"?
 
Re: Eric Cantor is Gone

Unless you're joking you should know that is untrue.

From the examples you gave, most esp. true.
 
Re: Eric Cantor is Gone

What do you consider 'extreme' these days and what indication has there been that there will be anything "extreme"?

Even the suggestion of basing law on religion.

Not supporting equal pay for women (even Romney dropped that ball).

Obstructing women's reproductive rights.

For starters.
 
Re: Eric Cantor is Gone

Well first of all it's a tongue in cheek comment
Thanks, but it's often difficult to tell when liberals are joking or being serious.
There actually IS something known as "Christian capitalism", just as there's also Islamic Banking Laws, and the like.
There may be something known as Christian Capitalism but it's of little consequence.
I question the notion however that Christianity is a source tool for the practice of an economic ideology beyond simple morals and ethics that
might be found in any established faith, but more importantly I question the notion that Christian capitalism gives license to the interpretation of
wealth generation because Christian scripture is open to so many interpretations and sub-sects that the first question is, WHICH Christian faith is considered
the standard?
Which is why its of little consequence. Nobody really cares about it.

Should we adhere to the tenets of Southern Baptists? What about Episcopals? Catholics? Unitarian Universalists? Seventh Day Adventists? Mormons?
And what about the Jews? Are they hereby cut out because they don't see Christ as the Messiah?
These are questions no one is raising and there seems little interest in the subject.
Generally speaking, Christ commands his followers to be generous, compassionate and mindful of the needs of the poor and he admonishes those who would
interpret their own great wealth as a sign that they are good practitioners of faith. He makes clear in his teachings that wealth on Earth is not the same as wealth in the Kingdom of HeavenThat's in direct opposition to the currently popular "prosperity gospels" being hawked around the megachurch universe.Thus we're already in the middle of theological arguments before we even start. And I call into question any notion that Christianity pays homage to any form of socially darwinistic attitudes toward the less fortunate. So for me at the very least, the question of Christianity being the most important template for an economic blueprint is not settled because interpretations of any religion are always unsettled, due to their nature.I particularly take exception to fundamentalist interpretations of religion OR economics, or both.
Well, that's very interesting.
 
Re: Eric Cantor is Gone

Even the suggestion of basing law on religion.
Most laws already are heavily based on the Christian/Judeo religion.

Not supporting equal pay for women (even Romney dropped that ball).
It's alread law that women get equal pay for equal work, though apparently this isn't the case in the Obama White House.

Obstructing women's reproductive rights.
No one is obstructing their 'reproductive' rights if they want to reproduce. What many are saying is that abortion is a very bad thing. If everyone wanted to end babies lives the world would not necessarily be a better place.

For starters.[/QUOTE]
 
Re: Eric Cantor is Gone

Thanks, but it's often difficult to tell when liberals are joking or being serious.
There may be something known as Christian Capitalism but it's of little consequence.
Which is why its of little consequence. Nobody really cares about it.

These are questions no one is raising and there seems little interest in the subject.

"....difficult to tell when liberals are joking or being serious."
I'm just going to ignore the little "bon mot" about "the libruls" and plod firmly along with the subject instead.
That okay with you? ;)

Okay, it is entirely possible that you might have missed this bit of writing from Brat.

Capitalism is here to stay, and we need a church model that corresponds to that reality.
Read Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s diagnosis of the weak modern Christian democratic man was spot on.
Jesus was a great man. Jesus said he was the Son of God. Jesus made things happen. Jesus had faith. Jesus actually made people better.
Then came the Christians.
What happened? What went wrong? We appear to be a bit passive. Hitler came along, and he did not meet with unified resistance.
(WTF??????????)
I have the sinking feeling that it could all happen again, quite easily.
The church should rise up higher than Nietzsche could see and prove him wrong.
We should love our neighbor so much that we actually believe in right and wrong, and do something about it.
If we all did the right thing and had the guts to spread the word, we would not need the government to backstop every action we take.
I think the main point is that we need to synthesize Christianity and capitalism.

“God and the Advanced Mammon — Can Theological Types Handle Usury and Capitalism?” - Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology

Here's this supposedly highly educated professor, expecting us to believe that if we all just group hug and embrace his Christian pop-psy pablums,
no one will do anything wrong anymore and we won't need government. One could also interpret it as "we better embrace the tenets of
Christian capitalism or Hitler will come back."

This is so utterly absurd it would be funny, except it's a guy who intends to lead in elected office and make laws.
I almost hate to dredge up the old cliche about how this is some kind of "extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all"...except that, in this case, it happens to fit.

So if there really is little interest in the subject we might want to direct a little more of it in that direction because that's the kind of twaddle that's being peddled in much of the Evangelical prosperity gospel megachurches today and this guy sounds like he's their Timothy Leary.

And I don't want religion mucking about in my economics, or my laws. If I wanted to live in a theocracy there are plenty to choose from.
I won't even delve further into the hypocrisy of the whole Hitler business, seeing as how I assume most folks are aware of the fact that Hitler managed to
coerce Christian churches into supporting his ideology and his long range plans with nary a whimper.

This man's writings sound like pure nut-phuquery.
 
Re: Eric Cantor is Gone

Most laws already are heavily based on the Christian/Judeo religion.

Not so sure I buy that. And in any case it's not the same thing as churches writing the laws.

It's alread law that women get equal pay for equal work, though apparently this isn't the case in the Obama White House.

Lily Ledbetter Act notwithstanding of course ;)

No one is obstructing their 'reproductive' rights if they want to reproduce. What many are saying is that abortion is a very bad thing. If everyone wanted to end babies lives the world would not necessarily be a better place.

For starters.

"If they want to reproduce?"
What does that mean?

If you want to have a baby, you go right ahead, we won't stop you?
Nice...LOL, thanks for reassuring me on that.

I say abortion is a very bad thing, in almost any circumstance, except in those circumstances where almost anything else is worse, and I am more than happy
to be as open minded as possible about compromising on what defines "worse" because again, as I said, I say that abortion IS a very bad thing.
 
Re: Eric Cantor is Gone

Most laws already are heavily based on the Christian/Judeo religion.

It's alread law that women get equal pay for equal work, though apparently this isn't the case in the Obama White House.

No one is obstructing their 'reproductive' rights if they want to reproduce. What many are saying is that abortion is a very bad thing. If everyone wanted to end babies lives the world would not necessarily be a better place.

For starters.


No, it's not law everywhere that women receive equal pay. Romney ignored it, refused to pass it in MA, and it still is not passed in that state, for example. (Maybe it has passed now, not sure)

ANd the reproductive rights issue is not just about abortion but your opinion is noted and no one is infringing on anyone's rights with the current status of abortion.


And none of our laws (that I can think of except for old stuff left on the books) are based exclusively on religion...they still need to be supported by or not infringe on the basic rights in the Constitution. Of course there's a great deal of overlap....which is why religious people have felt so 'comfortable' for so long.
 
Re: Eric Cantor is Gone

I'm just going to ignore the little "bon mot" about "the libruls" and plod firmly along with the subject instead.
It's spelled and pronounced 'liberal'.
Here's this supposedly highly educated professor, expecting us to believe that if we all just group hug and embrace his Christian pop-psy pablums,
no one will do anything wrong anymore and we won't need government.
He never mentioned anything about a 'group hug". If you are going to comment on what the man has to say then quote him correctly and don't try to interpret it on your own.
 
Re: Eric Cantor is Gone

No, it's not law everywhere that women receive equal pay. Romney ignored it, refused to pass it in MA, and it still is not passed in that state, for example. (Maybe it has passed now, not sure)
The federal law was passed in 1963.Equal Pay Act of 1963 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ANd the reproductive rights issue is not just about abortion but your opinion is noted and no one is infringing on anyone's rights with the current status of abortion.
You know what reproduction, or reproducing, means, right? No one is stopping you from reproducing, i.e. having a baby or babies.You are repeating words from slogans which have no real meaning without thinking it through.
And none of our laws (that I can think of except for old stuff left on the books) are based exclusively on religion...they still need to be supported by or not infringe on the basic rights in the Constitution. Of course there's a great deal of overlap....which is why religious people have felt so 'comfortable' for so long.
No, they are not based exclusively on religion, at least not so much anymore, as there are new laws being introduced almost every day and religious influence has dropped. But there is no doubt that Christianity influenced laws and human rights throughout the western democracies and I'm somewhat surprised that this history has not been taught in the schools, given its importance.

Do you feel that the laws were more influenced by atheists or agnostics?
 
Re: Eric Cantor is Gone

It's spelled and pronounced 'liberal'.

I was already aware of that, which is why I put it in quote marks.

He never mentioned anything about a 'group hug". If you are going to comment on what the man has to say then quote him correctly and don't try to interpret it on your own.

No he didn't. I did, and I am not quoting him. I had already done that further up the page.
I think I'll just ignore your warning and do as I like as far as interpretation, thank you.
That's why it's known as a comment. Comments and quotes are two different things.
I never extended the invitation to you to "grade my paper", so please, go back to being the hall monitor
for the kiddies and let the grownups talk amongst themselves.
 
Re: Eric Cantor is Gone

Whether you buy it or not is beside the point. Do you know how the country arrived at the laws it has?

Yes, but again, this gentleman, Mr. Brat, seems to be laboring under the impression that the church should be directly involved in writing the law and directly involved in controlling the economy, based on his writings.
And since by the tone of your posts it is evident that you take enjoyment in wagging your finger and talking down to people, I'll indulge in a little of the same:
I suggest that you abandon your Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and become an advocate of secular government, because we will never become a theocracy.
Again, repeating for all needing:
This is not nor has it ever been a theocracy, nor shall it ever be one.

When a church becomes directly involved in the writing of the law, then the law of the church becomes the law of the land, which is the textbook definition of a theocracy.
Would you like for me to dredge up the actual PAGE in the dictionary where it is defined or will you accept my word on that?

Either way, the United States of America is in no sense "founded upon the Christian religion". It is a secular government.
 
Re: Eric Cantor is Gone

Yes, but again, this gentleman, Mr. Brat, seems to be laboring under the impression that the church should be directly involved in writing the law and directly involved in controlling the economy, based on his writings.
Seems to be? You're guessing again at what he has to say?
And since by the tone of your posts it is evident that you take enjoyment in wagging your finger and talking down to people, I'll indulge in a little of the same:
It is impossible to discuss issues with leftists without talking down to them. They're juvenile.
I suggest that you abandon your Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and become an advocate of secular government, because we will never become a theocracy.
Again, repeating for all needing:
Another example. I'm not even Christian!
This is not nor has it ever been a theocracy, nor shall it ever be one.
I see you've done your homework.
When a church becomes directly involved in the writing of the law, then the law of the church becomes the law of the land, which is the textbook definition of a theocracy.
Would you like for me to dredge up the actual PAGE in the dictionary where it is defined or will you accept my word on that?
You're guessing at what was being said again.
Either way, the United States of America is in no sense "founded upon the Christian religion". It is a secular government.
Who are you quoting here?
 
Re: Eric Cantor is Gone

The federal law was passed in 1963.Equal Pay Act of 1963 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You know what reproduction, or reproducing, means, right? No one is stopping you from reproducing, i.e. having a baby or babies.You are repeating words from slogans which have no real meaning without thinking it through.
No, they are not based exclusively on religion, at least not so much anymore, as there are new laws being introduced almost every day and religious influence has dropped. But there is no doubt that Christianity influenced laws and human rights throughout the western democracies and I'm somewhat surprised that this history has not been taught in the schools, given its importance.

Do you feel that the laws were more influenced by atheists or agnostics?

The president just announced another attempt 2 months ago that he was passing yet another bill to gain equal pay for women. If he...and Romney in MA were/are still dealing with this, it appears it was not settled in 1963 :doh

Your dismissive attitude about women's reproductive rights and issues is exactly why we dont need more religion in our laws. Thanks for proving it. I am well-educated on the issues....your assumption that I'm not indicates a misogynistic bias also common (but not exclusive to) the fundamentalist Christians and some other religions.

And I am fine with the influence of Christianity on our history and laws. It was not ignored in school and I acknowleged their influence in early law....did you miss that? Was reading comprehension left out of your education? Or are you just on remote control not even bothering to read but just preach?
 
Re: Eric Cantor is Gone

Well, then you should try to come up with an example of that.

SSM and abortion.

2 right off the top.

Next question?
 
Re: Eric Cantor is Gone

It is impossible to discuss issues with leftists without talking down to them. They're juvenile.

---You don't belong on Debate Politics then.
Your comment in and of itself is juvenile.
Nitey nite Grant.

palin-thats-all-folks-palin.jpg
 
Re: Eric Cantor is Gone

An unrealistic and unfair challenge. You're forcing them to face reality, which is their weakest area.

Took me 2 seconds :mrgreen:

Sadly tho, I have a feeling I'll have to explain how they are equal rights issues....which is pretty pathetic.

We'll see just how much mature understanding and reality you really can manage.
 
Re: Eric Cantor is Gone

The president just announced another attempt 2 months ago that he was passing yet another bill to gain equal pay for women. If he...and Romney in MA were/are still dealing with this, it appears it was not settled in 1963 :doh
Unless, of course, he is still trying to appeal to those who tend to believe in the "War on Women", as well as to divert attention from the real issues of the day.
Your dismissive attitude about women's reproductive rights and issues is exactly why we dont need more religion in our laws.Thanks for proving it.
Perhaps I was dismissive but words have meanings and we shouldn't distort them.
I am well-educated on the issues....your assumption that I'm not indicates a misogynistic bias also common (but not exclusive to) the fundamentalist Christians and some other religions.
That's nonsense. Not only am I not religious but I treat foolish men with the same regard.
And I am fine with the influence of Christianity on our history and laws.
So am I and said so.
It was not ignored in school and I acknowleged their influence in early law....did you miss that? Was reading comprehension left out of your education? Or are you just on remote control not even bothering to read but just preach?
If you read my post again, the one directed to you, then you would be more understanding of my rather sympathetic response.
 
Back
Top Bottom