Yes, i remember the Vice-President, Joseph Biden, in October 2012 making Ryan cringe. Ryan could only comfort himself by drinking water. Joseph Biden did what Barack Obama did not do. He challenged nearly every lie that his opponent uttered. He made Ryan uncomfortable. He showed the Republican his hypocrisy.
A season earlier, Sister Simone Campbell, of the social justice 'lobby' NETWORK, argued for a 'Faithful Budget'. She and a group of Catholic sisters travelled across the Mississippi to the Potomac (Nuns on the Bus), across the rustbelt to the citadel of government. The journey started at Des Moines, Iowa on June 18th, and they continued to the nation's capital. On the second day, there was a stop at Janesville, Wisconsin. Janesville is the home of the Republican budget guru, Rep. Paul Ryan.
Now, Biden, Campbell, and the guy from Argentina are co-religionists of Paul Ryan, supposedly. He can not defeat them in an argument, or in sincerity. Ryan is a propagandist whose philosophy comes from Ayn Rand, whom he made his staff read. Jesus' Sermon on the Mount discourse is a few sentences. Dropping Rand on your foot, would make it smart. Reading Rand has a contrary effect.
"Ayn Rand, more than anyone else, did a fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism. And this to me is what matters the most: it is not enough to say that President Obamas taxes are too big or that the health care plan does not work, or this or that policy reason. It is the morality of what is occurring right now; and how it offends the morality of individuals working for their own free will, to produce, to achieve, to succeed that is under attack." Congressman Paul Ryan
I read through thirty responses on this thread. And maybe there is not one answer alone.
Several people have suggested in their own parlance, that they hate the "other", and several have included non-Christians as a constituent of the other. Sometimes this is true, but sometimes the Christian is a constituent of that other. Ayn Rand was never a Christian, and became a selfish atheist. Ayn Rand is considered a "Conservative" heroine. O, and by the way the worst writer in the English language. She is wretched in fifty pages, yet she puts a thousand in a book, and it still sells now.
Many of these hate filled conservatives profess to be Christians. Some are liars on that subject too, others are pharasaic, hypocritical Christians. But yes, that hypocrisy is a more salient characteristic; for it is not only in the religious sphere of morality, in which one shows hypocrisy. We have those who call for thrift, and spend lavishly on themselves. We have those who call for war, and made sure they never went. The listing of self contradiction in word compared to deed is quite long.
There is a meanness, it is very evident and palpable. I see where fear would explain some of it, i also see egotism, selfishness, mental aberration. I would suggest that the mean spirit is of an hateful nature; and to speak in theological terms, hate is like evil (or hate is an evil), and evil can be defined by the absence of love.
To quote Tony Bennett, the singer:
"I grew up during the Depression and I have stayed a Democrat my whole life. My dad died when I was very young and my mother had to raise three children. She was a seamstress. She worked for a penny a dress. I could not believe the way the Hoover administration left everybody so stranded. I have never gotten over that. I know times change, but not really. I am against super greed."
The resiliency of the Republican Party just beggars belief. After 1929, they should never have outperformed the Democracy. Roosevelt and the New Deal saved the country. The US was a victor in WWII. What have the Republicans done other than resent the success of the Democracy? Then a generation later, Nixon and Watergate should have soured the country on Republicans again. Reagan was successful in a gathering of a great repeal of what FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ and the rest had achieved. Reagan was a fortunate blunderer, and was a hero to half the country. He was a disaster, and the progenitor of the great increased disparity we suffer from. bush jr is a complete disaster and usurped power for eight years, with the evil and repellant cheney next to him. Yet, the beast survives. Explain to me how? They get progressively, and continuously worse.
I have thought that this teabagger element would be fatal to the beast. How can ignorant goons succeed? That after 2016 there would not be a single effective party comparable to the size of the Democracy. Either the Republican party would transform, or there would be a splintering into separate entities.
nota bene: I am using older terminology, "the Democracy" is a synonym for the Democratic Party. It is a usage, which should be made common again.
When i was a child, and patriotism was instilled in elementary school education, i went to the Civil War monument in Public Square. I bought a little plaster bust of Abraham Lincoln. I still have it.
Lincoln is an historical personage of depth and importance. He was the first Republican president of the country, the country survived almost four score and seven years without one. There is much respect for the lesser Roosevelt, in some quarters. The positive contributions to the patrimony beyond these two are negligible (at best).
The modern Republican party has Ronald Reagan as their founder, and his politics was to eliminate Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. When does a Republican of to-day quote Lincoln? Reagan quoted Democrats continuously while president. Reagan was a pitch man who served to convince potential customers to become satisfied customers. As fortunate as Reagan's career was, his legacy to the patrimony is a disaster.
I have written other essays: Cogito, ergo Democrata.,
Cogito, ergo Democrata II elsewhere.
I have tried to point this out to acquaintances before, but they did not respond. Barry Goldwater of Arizona was considered an extreme conservative in politics, so extreme that his sanity was often questioned. To-day, it is not easy (perhaps not possible) to find a more liberal Republican than he.
In 1964 Barry Goldwater was the Republican nominee for president. Lyndon Johnson had signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and lost five of the first six states of the Confederacy (and it has been difficult for any Democrat to win such states since). The only other state Goldwater won was Arizona, his home state. It was the closest state of the fifty, he won by less than 5,000 votes. The country was scared of a Goldwater conservative America. In 1996, speaking to Bob Dole, Goldwater said, We're the new liberals of the Republican Party.
The press has now made a point of defining the teabaggers as conservatives, who happen to be in the Republican party. What are the rest? Is this some sort of drunken fraternity contest to see who can be the most extreme? there is a standard to surpass?
... Dick Cheney is the most evil man in US history. People once often pointed to Charles Manson as the embodiment of evil; he had his followers kill nine people, and his planned race war (or what ever the hell it was) was only a demented fantasy. Cheney worked years to achieve access to the greatest earthly powers. He has the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands.
There are several [more than can fit to mention in this short essay] vignettes of episodic evil with cheney. He was all for the Viet Nam war, he got five deferments to make sure he didn't go. He stopped filing when he turned twenty-six, and was too old to be drafted. As he said, "I had other priorities in the 60's than military service. I don't regret the decisions I made". In August 2002 he told the world, through a speech, that the country was going to war with Iraq. Mid-March, his then puppet, gwbjr did start it on the false premises that had been invented, and no voice to the contrary was going to be respected. Often cheney was reported hiding "in an undisclosed location". That was bullshit too. ...
We all know he is "heartless", recently he received an human heart from a dead person. He has put out a book about the marvels of such medicine, he does not consider the dead man. ...
Laws don't apply to cheney, and his kind. He is an international war criminal, and in some countries he could be arrested, hell, if other countries followed his suit, he could be captured (extraordinary rendition) and tortured (water boarded) in a real undisclosed location. He approves of such activities. It would be poetic justice. ...
I remember a priest telling a story of how he refused a family's request of having "My Way" played at a funeral. See, a Christian is not supposed to be prideful in himself. A Christian is supposed to follow the Way of Jesus. Lucifer lost Heaven for his pride of having his way. Cheney, and Lucifer always made it sure they could say "I did it my way". Cheney was always self assured while lying, and wrong. He has never regretted anything, not even his lack of political etiquette. He told Senator Leahy, on the Senate floor, "go f@$# yourself". Leahy had criticised cheney over Halliburton (his source of mammon). Cheney had no regrets, he went on radio and said, "That's sort of the best thing I ever did".
Some people posit Hitler as the face of evil. It must be "sweeps week", one of the local television news stations is promoting a piece by that name, face of evil. They show a wax head of Hitler. Hitler had a sense of satanic theatre, cheney is blood thirsty, manipulative, but not theatrical. All men die, when cheney croaks, the sound of a colossal sizzle will emanate from Hell.
The esteem, sometimes foggy nostalgia, that encompasses many in regards to Ronnie Reagan is curious. Goldwater lost the presidency, primarily because the majority of people thought he was nuts. Ronnie, was often moreso than Barry. When Ronnie was in the Executive Mansion, i would often think, and say, "No, that can not be. I was dreaming something stupid".
Ronnie had no respect for history, and therefore, truth. He pitched falsity, but he pitched it well. He played Grover Cleveland Alexander, The Winning Team; perhaps he learned something; but for many of us he was the fellow who acted with a chimp, Bedtime for Bonzo.
With something (about Norman Thomas) he said fifty years ago, whether it originated with him or not, people will quote as true. He would later refer to events in a movie as an historical occurrence. Here is my question: did Reagan cleverly lie to promote his agenda? or did reality and fantasy blur in his mind? or what he wished to be true, became true?
Now granted, that when John Kennedy was president, Reagan was against civil rights, and therefore, human rights. Did a feeling against non-whites erupt with him then? or was it longstanding?
Reagan was a disaster for the United States, and very little correction has been accomplished. His legend only grows among idiots, conservatives, and Republicans. O, excuse me, i was getting redundant.
Excuse me friends, i do not know whether this sort of activist post is proper on a forum. But,
There is this petition:
Tell Rush Limbaugh: We support Pope Francis!
We are disturbed by Rush Limbaugh's incendiary comments last Wednesday, November 27th about Pope Francis and are joining together with Catholics and other allies throughout the nation to support the Holy Father. To call the Francis a proponent of "pure marxism" is both mean spirited and naive. Francis's critique of unrestrained capitalism is in line with the Church's social teaching. His particular criticism of "trickle down economics" strengthens what Church authorities have said for decades: any economic system which deprives the poor of their dignity has no place within a just society.
Contrary to what Mr. Limbaugh suggests, the Catholic Church isn't built on money, but on the firm foundation of Jesus Christ.
We call on Mr. Limbaugh to apologize and retract his remarks. We urge other Church organizations and leaders--both ordained and lay--to also condemn Mr. Limbaugh's comments.
We proudly stand with Pope Francis as he provides prophetic leadership for the Catholic Church and the entire world.
from this story [click], and elsewhere on your search engine
....The pope spent four hours Sunday at a parish visit of the church of San Cirillo Alessandrino in a working-class neighborhood on the outskirts of Rome...
....He said it's enough to be a witness of hope and, as St. Peter said, "always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope."...
..."Hypocrisy is a grave sin," he said, underlining how important credibility was in helping the church grow, not through proselytism, but by attraction. ...
Yes, i am familiar with these lines of propaganda. I don't need to know who is Moseley, they are legion. Such pseudo-Christians, or neo-Pharisees search to find a phrase they can wrench out of context, and graft onto their agenda.
One typical fundamental argument this sort uses, says Jesus speaks only to the individual (this is a basis of protestantism). No, Jesus speaks to all men. All men are brothers, and this was presented early in Genesis. Cain said to God, "And the Lord said to Cain: Where is thy brother Abel? And he answered, I know not: am I my brother's keeper?". -- Genesis iv. 9. Cain was wrong. This message is re-inforced in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, which is in the Gospel of Luke x. 30-7. We are responsible for each other, a good neighbour (and by extension--a Christian) is one that helps those in need. We are a community. Christianity is a communal religion, it is not an individual pursuit.
Christ was a logician. As Christ logically taught we have only one master: it is God or Mammon. This principle is even taught in some business schools, in that, they acknowledge one can not concentrate on two demands at once. One will be primary.
No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. -- Matthew vi. 23.
Capitalism (which was generated in the area where Calvinistic protestantism met the industrial revolution) is a form of mammon worship. Capitalism wants to maximise profit. Capital is stored and accumulated labor. Without this cache of labor--there is no capital. Profit is receipts minus expenses. In every capitalistic business exchange the goal is to increase this vigorish. To accelerate and expand the principle: to get the most, while giving the least. To reduce to the ultimate simplicity: everything for nothing. THIS IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF JESUS CHRIST, AND HIS WAY. He gave all, and demanded no material in return. A capitalist is a materialist (some of this is merely definition).
Christian economic theories were: the early, simple communism of the early church; the theory of just prices of Augustine; the distributivism of Chesterton. In capitalism, as we know it to-day, there is given great power to the owner, or the chief economic officer, or simply management. In his business he demands to be as powerful as faro of old, an absolute despot. The dissenter is to be crushed, his prescribed role is to be silent and obedient. This is rather standard US business management theory. In regards to the Church of Christ, Peters Barque, it is anathema.
The greed of capitalism is complete. Community and justice are not to be considered. The desire is maximisation of profit. How is that done? Reducing cost of production, and increasing the price. When this is done fully, the product which is the goods and the labor would be reduced to zero, and the price would be all. Which is an absurdity. A nothing that costs all. A complete concentration of wealth, with no distribution. To receive everything, to give nothing.
The petty viciousness of the Republicans (or "Conservatives" , and their teabagger contingent has no limit. Any action of government that would help the non-rich they would not permit. Their arguments reduce to the principle and cry "the rich are too poor, and the poor too rich; we must rectify this by all means". They worship Mammon, and hate the poor.