A political party is more than the person chosen to stand at the podium and speak for them. A political party is a collection of individuals that would elect that person and support their views. So far the Tea Party supporters have:
- Cheered an example of someone dying because they didn't have insurance
- Booed an active duty soldier.
- Cheered historic levels of government sanctioned murder (death penalty)
All on national television during the Tea Party debates. None of the candidates condemned these actions and in fact most went on to support those opinions. I've accused the GOP of having no compassion for those less fortunate and I stand by that accusation. However, the Tea Party has taken a giant step lower than that. They are just plain mean.
Thankfully, I doubt any of the current candidates will get the GOP nomination. Surely there must be someone else that represents the GOP in a better light. God help us if any one of these heartless idiots actually wins.
51 comments:
Don't EVEN get me started.
"None of the candidates condemned these actions and in fact most went on to support those opinions."
That is simply not true, Dennis. Are you just mistaken, or are you intentionally lying about it?
In all three of the examples you listed, a number of the candidates vehemently objected...and all on national television (cable).
Have you actually watched the video of these occurances and listened to the follow up comments by the candidates, or are you just mindlessly parroting the hateful lies of the leftwing propoganda?
Just one example:
http://www.nationalreview.com/
see the middle column video entitled: "Santorum Condemns Those Who Booed Gay Soldier" (all 2 of them, out of an audience of over 5000...it's not even clear whether they were booing the soldier, or the idea of re-instituting DADT)
" I've accused the GOP of having no compassion for those less fortunate and I stand by that accusation."
Yes, even after I repeatedly presented you with the statistical evidence which showed that Conservatives are far more generous than Liberals when it comes to donating their time and money to helping those less fortunate than themselves.
This is an article of blind fundamentalist-like faith on your part, one which no amount of evidence can ever shake, because so much of your world view is built upon the foundation of this hateful and destructive lie.
Free your mind, dude.
First off, that spin came a full day after the debate, not directly after the incident like it should have and the only reason for the half-assed defense from Santorum was because it caused such an online furvor. It was hardly a "vehement" objection.
I would also like to point out that his answer to that question was to reinstate DADT, which drew thunderous applause. A ridiculous answer, by the way. I guess that would mean after almost a year and a half of an open policy, those gay and lesbian soldiers that are now able to put up pictures of their significant others and share stories (like their straight collegues do) about spouses and loved ones would then have to take them down and act like they never existed.
Santorum has made plenty of anti-gay remarks in the past and if you need a link Andre, google it yourself. I have my own blog to update and don't have time to point you in the right direction.
Open you eyes Andre
Haha!
The title to that fair and balanced National Review clip is... Santorum SLAMS gay soldier booers. How laughable is that.
Boy, Santorum really gave his supporters a tongue-lashing, didn't he Andre. They'll certainly think twice before doing that again.
Andre - sadly, I have watched some of the entire debates - including he one where they cheered the dying man without insurance and the one where Perry smugly smiled at the applause for his milestone murders. I SAW IT FOR MYSELF. I don't need the media to regurgitate things for me. I did not see the last debate as I was busy but the clip with the soldier's question, the boo, and the response speak for themselves. And they speak badly of the Tea Party.
Capital punishment is legal because people decided to make it legal - the same way they made abortion legal. If the holy books say that legal murder is OK well then I guess we've solved it.
Focus, Thohea, focus.
Dennis made an inaccurate claim, and I provided evidence that proved his claim was inaccurate.
Now,instead of just admitting that Dennis misstated the true facts of the situation, you are instead expanding the discussion into other areas, none of which are relevant to my point of dispute with Dennis.
Santorum's condemnation may not have been aggressive enough for your taste, or not as big of a "tongue-lashing" as you would have preferred to hear, you may even think that he is a big poo-poo head, but none of that is relevant to the truth or falsehood of Dennis's original claim, or of my rebuttal to it.
Interestingly though, implicit in your criticism of his condemnation of the two people who booed, is the admission that he in fact DID condemn them, which is exactly the point that I was attempting to make.
Thank you for the corroboration that I was correct about that.
BTW: I thought that Santorums's remarks in that video were quite gracious, reasonable, measured, and that his tone was perfectly pitched and appropriate for the context. I don't know a lot about him, but just going on how he presented himself in that video, I have to say that I was impressed.
You say he has made "anti-gay" remarks in the past? Maybe, I don't know, but I can't help but wonder if what you really mean by that is that he has made anti-radical gay political agenda remarks. You would probably see that as a distinction without a difference, but I can easily imagine how one could make one without necessarily making the other.
Sorry Andre, I forget, you need links, charts, graphs and quotes in order to get the point. Ok. If the blog allowed it, I'd provide narration but since it doesn't, from now on i'll respond to you in the way in which you will be able to understand...
Andre: "In all three of the examples you listed, a number of the candidates vehemently objected...and all on national television (cable)."
The clip you provided was hardly a "vehement" objection. It was an excuse that came a day later, after the booing incident became a viral video on the internet. His excuse was, he didn't hear the boos.
Andre: "(all 2 of them, out of an audience of over 5000...it's not even clear whether they were booing the soldier, or the idea of re-instituting DADT)"
Really Andre? You were unsure of why they were booing? You can seriously say to me you thought they were booing at the idea of re-instituting DADT?
Andre: see the middle column video entitled: "Santorum Condemns Those Who Booed Gay Soldier"
I'm sorry Andre, the title I see is "Santorum Slams gay soldier booers". There was no slamming...at all.
Dennis can defend his own statement that you object too (and has). And once again, you've tried unsuccessfully to twist and spin things to make it appear as if I've missunderstood your point or been unable to make my own.
"Really Andre? You were unsure of why they were booing? You can seriously say to me you thought they were booing at the idea of re-instituting DADT?"
I never said that I thought that. I said that it was "not clear" what they were booing at; whether it was the new policy, or the possible overturning of that policy.
Here is the video and sound recording of the incident. Listen again (and again, and again, if you need to):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/23/did_the_audience_boo_a_gay_soldier_at_thursdays_debate.html
Exactly when do the boos occur?
The boos happen immediately after the soldier (via video tape) mentions the possible re-institution of the DADT policy (notice that there are absolutely no boos at all when he openly admits lying about his sexual orientation in order to protect "his job").
It seems to me that either interpretation would be completely reasonable and consistent with the evidence we have.
The fact of the matter is YOU DO NOT KNOW, AND I DO NOT KNOW. Come to think of it, neither of us even know whether the 2 people who booed were Republicans or Democrats.
Unless you are privy to some special information regarding the identities of these two people, and what their motivations were, then all you have is assumptions, not facts.
"... the title I see is "Santorum Slams gay soldier booers". There was no slamming...at all."
You're right, I made a mistake and transcribed the words inaccurately.
I also agree with you that "Slams" was somewhat of an exaggeration on the part of the editor who wrote the title copy for that piece. I would not have used that precise word if I had been that copy writer(which was maybe unconsciously mistranslated it)'
I would have used the word I did use, which was "condemns" , because that accurately describes what Rick Santorum did: he condemned the two people who booed during the video question asked by the gay soldier.
Since Dennis had claimed that "None of the candidates condemned these actions", these comments by Santorum stand as proof that Dennis was incorrect in that claim, and that was all that I was using that video to prove.
***
"Dennis can defend his own statement that you object too (and has)"
All Dennis has shown is that when it is pointed out to him that he made a misstatement of fact, he is unable to admit that he just made a simple error.
As they say in Washington, the cover-up is usually worse than the crime!
"The clip you provided was hardly a "vehement" objection."
Point taken. That was a poor choice of adjective on my part (typing on the fly).
I've re-watched that video a few times now, and I think a much more accurate description of it would be something like a "sincere and unequivocal" condemnation.
I stand corrected.
Andre: In all three of the examples you listed, a number of the candidates vehemently objected...and all on national television (cable).
I'd also like to point out that, as far as I know, no press release has been issued with Santorum's "condemnation". He simply answered a (Fox)news anchors question. Had that news anchor not asked the question, would Santorum have brought up the subject on his own?
That's a far cry from "vehemently objected".
So Andre, now that you've gotten lost in the details of the post, let's get back to the point:
Dennis: "So far the Tea Party supporters have:
•Cheered an example of someone dying because they didn't have insurance
•Booed an active duty soldier.
•Cheered historic levels of government sanctioned murder (death penalty)"
These are facts. Twist them as you may but it's still the reality of the Tea Party and the GOP does nothing to stop it. THIS is the point of the post Andre.
After the outburst at ANY of the debates, did any of the candidates "condem" audience member immediately following the incident? After the thunderous applause to Santorum's answer to the question of the gay soldier, did ANY candidate stand-up for the soldier for being booed? I would think that would be a perfect opportunity to score major points. The fact is, nobody said anything until a full day had passed, when a news anchor asked Santorum a bated question.
Thank you Thohea. That is exactly my point. This article does not pertain to any follow-up media coverage - especially on Fox News that I wouldn't have likely seen. My statement in the original post was that they did not condemn the bad behavior when they had the chance - during the debate. Ron Paul almost did - but stopped short. Andre seems to find my totally accurate statement false. Whatever.
Been busy for the past couple of days and missed this post. Andre, your defense of Santorum is really weak. The tea party is still a sad sorry bunch of Americans that have given us all a bad name and reputation. Disgusting really. And they are supposed to be Christians? I don't know how anyone would want to be standing side-by-side with that party. Wow. Just Wow.
Lisa in Indy
GOProud.org, which "represents gay conservatives and their allies," says Santorum owes the soldier an apology.
http://www.goproud.org/rick-santorum-owes-gay-soldier-an-apology/
From the article:
“That brave gay soldier is doing something Rick Santorum has never done – put his life on the line to defend our freedoms and our way of life. It is telling that Rick Santorum is so blinded by his anti-gay bigotry that he couldn’t even bring himself to thank that gay soldier for his service."
Go ahead Andre, keep defending Santorum. It's very clear where you stand.
Thohea, I thought you said you actually listened to that Santorum interview? Didn't you? Maybe I misunderstood you but I got the impression that you did listen to it.
Was I mistaken about that? I must have been, because I don't see how else to explain your posting that quote from Go Proud that erroneously claims "Rick Santorum is so blinded by his anti-gay bigotry that he couldn’t even bring himself to thank that gay soldier for his service."
If you had listened to the Santurom interview that I linked you to, you would have realized that the Go Proud statement is just plain wrong. Santorum repeatedly thanked that soldier for his service, and wished him a safe return home after a successful completion of his mission.
My question to you is did GoProud make that false claim before Santurom's comments, did they just not know of them, or are they just lying about it?
"My statement in the original post was that they did not condemn the bad behavior when they had the chance - during the debate."
Now you are just lying. You may have been speaking in honest ignorance before, but now you are just outright making things up in order to try to spin your way out of a simple mistaken claim. You may very well have meant "during the debate", but you did NOT say that (go back and read your own words).
And even if you had said that, you would be wrong: I specifically remember at least one of the candidates "during the debate" challenge Ron Paul's seeming implication that someone should be left to die if they didn't have insurance ( I think it was Perry, and maybe Bachmann also....I'd have to go back and check the tape).
Why are you so incapable of just admitting that in the passion and hurry of the moment you overreached a bit and made a simple misstatement of fact?
Is such a minimal standard of honesty and integrity really such a reach for you?
" "So far the Tea Party supporters have:
•Cheered an example of someone dying because they didn't have insurance
•Booed an active duty soldier.
•Cheered historic levels of government sanctioned murder (death penalty)"
1. They did not cheer someone dying because they didn't have insurance. They cheered a call for increased personal responsibility. Are you so opposed to the concept of personal responsibility that you are offended by people cheering the concept?
2. The booing: Two people out of over 5000 thousand booed, and you can not even determine with the slighteist bit of certianty whetherr they were
Tea Partiers, non-Tea Party Republicans, Democrats, or Independents. You also cannot determine with any certainty exactly which policy it was that they were booing. Yet based on this flimsy "evidence" you do not hesitate for a moment to disparage and hatefully villianize a movement consisting of millions of people that don't know. That is a pathetically weak argument, one which I would be embarrassed to try to defend.
3."Cheered historic levels of government sanctioned murder (death penalty)" They were cheering for the concept of Justice. You may not agree that is an important social value, but a large majority of Americans disagree with you.
BTW: The list of the large majority of Americans who support the legitimacy Capital Punishment includes President Barack Obama, and the Clintons. I guess that makes them "despicable, heartless, mean" too.
Lisa:
"your defense of Santorum is really weak."
How so? All I have done is present some factual information. If you think that I am in error about any of the facts, call them out, and provide some evidence that I am wrong.
Otherwise, all you are doing is indulging in childish name calling.
"Had that news anchor not asked the question, would Santorum have brought up the subject on his own?"
Probably not. Why would he? Two bozos in a crowd of over 5000 is not that big of a deal. I mean, it's not as if he invited one of those those clowns to get up on a stage with him and introduce one of his speech's or anything.
A few weeks ago, President Obama received much criticism for saying nothing to correct, what all observers agreed, were completely inappropriate and vile introductory remarks by a prominent Union leader introducing one of the President's public speeches. The president said nothing then, and to the best of my knowledge has said nothing since (and this is in the wake of repeated published requests from all sides that he distance himself from the ugly spirit and content of those remarks). His Press Secretary merely said that the President is not responsible for remarks that any of his supporters may make.
I can only imagine how apoplectic you guys would get if Santorum had tried that lame excuse. But he didn't, did he? He did the right thing ,and when asked a direct question about it, he came right out and condemned it (and he didn't pass the buck off to some hired spokesman, either).
The President could take some lessons in class and dignity from Rick Santorum..
And you guys could take some lessons in "fair and balanced" from this whole situation, but I doubt you will. I suspect that you are all too emotionally and psychologically committed to the Liberal Double Standard for anything as even-handed and reasonable as that.
Twisting, turning, changing the subject.
My three points are concise and true. The topic is the Tea Party Debates - not the 24 hour news cycle. Not Obama. You have read a lot into my original post that simply isn't there.
" You have read a lot into my original post that simply isn't there."
Perhaps...and if I did, I apologize...but it was certainly no more than you read into the boos of a couple of goofballs in an audience of thousands of pumped up partisans..
Whatever..just rode my new bike home (Civia Halsted)...skies are blue, birds are singing...life is sweet (sometimes)!
Unbelievable.
Since when has denbec ever intimated that he would be 'fair and balanced' on this blog? Come ON!
One of the reason I continue to come back to this blog is not for fair and balanced views but left wing Liberal viewpoints that are similar to mine. There is no 'fair and balanced' in someone's personal blog. It's their viewpoint and you can agree or disagree but drop the "faux spews" nonsense already.
Good Grief, read the header of this blog and if you don't know this is a left leaning blog, then your reading comprehension is far worse than we all imagined.
Sheesh.
Lisa in Indy
Wow Andre, you truly need everything explained to you, don't you. I believe the reason you have trouble seeing the bigger picture is because you get hung up on minute details.
The GOProud article i referred to was written before the Fox news anchor prompted Santorum a chance to explain himself. The point was even a conservative group took note of the slight that Santorum showed to the serviceman and called for him to apologize - something Santorum should've done at the debate. Had it been ANY other subject and the serviceman not been identified as gay, he would have thanked him before giving an answer.
Politicians will never pass up a chance to publicly applaud active dutty military personnel...except when they're gay.
And let me just say Andre, i'm not trying out for the college debate team and this blog doesn't require that i adhear to the formal rules of debate. I'm just a semi-intelligent guy with opinions, some of which i'm passionate about. I don't need links or case studies to back up my beliefs or opinions either.
"..the slight that Santorum showed to the serviceman.."
Give me a f%$#ing break...THERE WAS NO SLIGHT. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Just because he didn't immediately freaking genuflect on the alter of political correctness, you imagine that there was some offensive slight given, when it is plainly obvious to anyone who bothers to look into it that absolutely none was intended or given.
Santorum was asked a question, and he answered it. Later, in another venue, when there was a follow-up question about this faux controversy that had absolutely nothing to do with the Congressman, he clarified his position in a completely reasonable and gracious manner.
This whole ridiculous episode has only brought to my attention what a class act Rick Santorum is.
Should he be president? I don't know, but he sure couldn't do a worse job than the current holder of that office.
"Since when has denbec ever intimated that he would be 'fair and balanced' on this blog?"
That has to be the biggest back-handed slam against Dennis that I have ever read on this blog.
"With friends like that...."
***
" There is no 'fair and balanced' in someone's personal blog."
You obviously are only familiar with Left-wing blogs.
"I don't need links or case studies to back up my beliefs or opinions either."
No, of course not. You only need them if you are attempting to prove that your beliefs or opinions are based on anything other than your own wishful thinking or fantasy-based bias.
I'm done. I think the post and the thread speak for themselves. :-)
And if you need links and case studies to prove something beyond your own Wishful thinking or fantasy-based bias...
Show me a link that proves the existance of God.
I am indeed a Liberal. The GOP uses it as a dirty word. Look it up - it's a good thing!
Also, I like to think of myself as a "middle of the road Democrat" but since there isn't a middle right now - my political views and this blog do lean left - and proudly so.
Dennis, just one question:
Do you attempt to be fair and balanced in your political judgments and analysis?
"Show me a link that proves the existance of God."
Just one?
Oh man, that's going to be tough(so many immediately come to mind).
Give me a little bit to mull it over...
These are my opinions. I make every attempt to be accurate and truthful. I do not support the Tea Party agenda AT ALL so I can't say that I am being fair or balanced with regard to the Tea Party or the GOP. But that's where you come in. By allowing you to comment freely the blog can be balanced. If I decided to delete comments that I didn't agree with - then I would say it is definitely not fair and balanced. I would not do that unless I felt there were a personal attack going on or comments were racist or insensitive as I've said in the past. I also wouldn't allow any sort of advertising. So far we haven't crossed that line yet.
Fair enough.
I appreciate your honesty.
Andre:
"And if you need links and case studies to prove something beyond your own Wishful thinking or fantasy-based bias..."
Thohea:
"Show me a link that proves the existance of God."
Andre:
1. Technically, "proof" only exists in mathematics and formal logic.
2. Given that technical definition of proof, what we usually mean when we attempt to "prove" any claim or belief is to provide persuasive and compelling evidence in support of that claim or belief..
3. The clear implication of your retort asking for a "link that proves the existance of God", is that such a belief could only be based on "Wishful thinking or fantasy-based bias".
4. Your retort fails because "persuasive and compelling evidence" exists for the existence of God that is based solely on the use of reason, applied both through philosophical means, and through scientific observation of the natural world.
The number of links to resources that would lend support to #4 above surely numbers into the many thousands, but her are just a few quick and ready examples:
A good popular introduction to some particularly modern evidences for the existence of God, written by one of the most famous atheists of the twentieth century, who was compelled to change his mind due to recent scientific disvoveries:
http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335304/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317147078&sr=8-1
A more sophisticated and rigorous treatment of much of the same material can be found here:
http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833
A good and accessible discussion on video with the author of the above book can be viewed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI1QBj3aFfg&feature=related
The traditional arguments for the existence of God begin with Aristotle, and are more fully developed later by Aquinas. A very readable and fascinating recent book that surveys those arguments, with a special emphasis on contrasting them to the feeble writings of the so called "new-athiets" is "The Last Superstition" by Edward Feser:
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314525/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317147616&sr=1-1
Feser is an absolute treasure, and his blog is indispensable for anyone interested in these topics. Dip into him anywhere, he's always fascinating, but here is one recent post of his that also goes more relevantly to your question:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html
Not even scratching the surface...
misquoted myself at the very beginning of the above post (multi-tasking!)...but you get the point.
We are, of course, way off topic once again. But I find it interesting how people need to explain the unexplainable. Remember when I said truth is easy? There is only one true answer to the question "Is God Real?" That answer is "We don't know and we can never know"
If you choose to believe - then:
God is because God is.
If you choose not to believe - then:
God isn't because God isn't.
It's really quite simple.
Well Andre, i think you've proven the point that you can justify anything.
I'm with Dennis.
The cult of relativism:
If you choose to believe - then:
2 + 2 = 4.
If you choose not to believe - then:
2 + 2 = Not 4.
Great.
As Chesterton said: "When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything"
***
Thohea:
"...you've proven the point that you can justify anything."
Andre
I believe that I have already demonstrated, to take merely one example, my belief that elective abortion can NOT be justified, so that alone would prove your statement to be false.
(Come to think or it, I couldn't justify the statement "2 +2 = Not 4" either.)
Wow. Really odd post. But let me correct your math. For a question that can never be answered:
? + ? = ?
Truth.
? + ? =?
Fine. That is a true equation (even if painfully tautological), but you haven't at all shown that the question of God's existence is that type of question (one that "can never be answered").
You have just assumed it to be such.
That's not an argument. That's just graffiti.
I'm speechless
Speaking of Capital Punishment...and of Edward Feser:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/09/4033
***
Thohea:
"I'm speechless"
Andre
See, there IS a God...he has struck Thohea dumb!
Only one person was struck dumb here and it wasn't thohea.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. :)
So you bring up the old "Eye for an Eye" argument. An argument that Jesus disputed with the "turn the other cheek" statement. Oh - and also "love thy neighbor as thyself".
As a Christian (a religion based on the teachings of Jesus), I would hope you would be more forgiving. Guess not.
I don't need to be struck dumb...I've been that way all along.
I'll try to keep this as short as possible:
"..the old "Eye for an Eye" argument. An argument that Jesus disputed with the "turn the other cheek" statement."
That is not quite accurate.
The Bible is a complex collection of many different books, which span a fairly long stretch of time. It is easy to cherry pick quotes from completely unrelated texts,, that superficially appear to contradict each other. However, once you dig even a a little bit into the history and context from which the quotes are taken, most of the seeming conflicts evaporate fairly quickly.
"an eye for an eye" is a statement about Justice, and comes from the Mosaic civil laws for the governing of the tribe (Exodus 21:24).
"Turn the other cheek" is a statement about Mercy, and comes from the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:18) which is primarily concerned with inter-personal conduct and behavior (though it still retains obvious implications for the right conduct of the State in the administration of Justice).
Justice and Mercy do not contradict one another, they are in fact complimentary. I think that Feser makes that case quite convincingly in the article cited.
Two other related points:
1. The concept of "an eye for an eye" sounds brutal to under-educated modern ears, but in fact it is a highly advanced and progress ethical position. It's entire purpose was to LIMIT retaliatory justice. Previously, in a shame and revenge culture, it was common for an aggrieved party to retaliate to an extent out of all proportion to the original insult or damage. It would not be uncommon for a man who had been publicly ridiculed to retaliate by killing his mocker. The concept of "an eye for an eye" mandated that punishment must be proportional to the level of the crime.
That is a very reasonable and good concept, and one which almost every civilized and humane criminal justice system in the world embraces to this day.
2. It should also be remembered that this concept of proportionality was rendered in a poetical language which everyone in the culture understood as such. There is absolutely no historical or anthropological evidence from ancient Judaic culture of a man who had blinded another ever having been punished by the state by being blinded in return, or a rapist being raped in return, or an arsonist having his own house burned down as punishment, etc,etc.
Thus a man who blinded another man, might be fined to an extent sizable enough to compensate his victim for the loss of his vision, which needles to say, would far exceed what another man would have to pay who merely knocked out one of his victims teeth.
***
"I would hope you would be more forgiving. Guess not."
I have no idea what you are referring to.
Ugh..Typos!
progress =progressive
needles = needless
probably others too!
(too tired from tonight's Critical Mass)
You spent a lot of time defending the Old Testament "Eye for an eye" and completely ignored the teachings of Jesus with "Turn the other cheek" and "Love thy neighbor as yourself".
Not surprising. Most Christians ignore the teachings of Jesus.
"Most Christians ignore the teachings of Jesus."
That is undoubtedly true, nor should it be, from a Christian perspective, all that surprising, given our natural fallibility and susceptibility towards Sin. As Paul famously laments in Romans 7:20: "For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do".
However, supporting the legitimacy of Capital Punishment, in principle, would not be an example of such concupiscence*.
You should watch this short video from Fr. Barron (I can't remember if I posted it here before at the tim e of the killing of Osama Bin Laden). It touches on a number of relevant points:
http://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Fr-Barron-comments-on-Celebrating-Bin-Laden.aspx
* Concupiscence: "..the inclination of fallen man to misuse his free will in sinful and selfish ways. It manifests itself in an unremitting desire for pleasure, power, and possessions. Even the baptized have to wrestle with this inner force, although Paul insists that the Spirit can give us victory over its unmanageable urges (8:2,13. So concupiscence remains in the believer, but it need not rule us like a tyrant (6:12-14) (CCC 405, 1426, 2520)" - Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, p. 267
Please don't expect me to watch every video or read every story you link to - I simply don't have that much time.
No worries.
I am merely making a case and offering evidence and corroboration.
You are of course free, as always, to choose to consider it or to choose to ignore it.
We must all budget the little time that we have as we judge best.
Post a Comment