Yes, interesting. The author states that Ryan can be an objectionist, or he can be a Christian, but he can not have it both ways.

Has the author ever put in print "Biden can either be a Catholic or he can be an abortion advocate, but he can not have it both ways?". Nope...

Apples and oranges.

Biden is a known quantity and his position on abortion has been consistent. I'm not sure polls indicate that the Roman Catholic's absolute position on abortion is really embraced in the US anyway.

With Ryan the author is assertion a clear and very recent contraction. Ryan is a subject of interest who most people don't know much about...

Apples and oranges.

-spence

it's trending well :uhuh::)

"Pro-Choice" Americans at Record-Low 41%

Half of Americans, 51%, consider abortion morally wrong and 38% say it is morally acceptable

this could be BIG trouble

The percentage of political independents identifying as pro-choice is 10 points lower today than in May 2011, while the percentage pro-life is up by six points. As a result, pro-lifers now outnumber pro-choicers among this important swing political group for only the second time since 2001, with the first occurring in 2009.

More broadly, since 2009, independents have been fairly closely divided between the two abortion positions, whereas for most of the 2001-2008 period, significantly more independents were pro-choice than pro-life.

It's still pretty flat over 5 years...go back a year and it was flipped...some of those Catholics must have been back in the kitchen...

-spence

Spence, I'm not sure what planet you live on. Here on Earth, recent polls I see, show it's about 50-50 in this country. And as Scott correctly said, it's trending in the Catholic doctrine. I don't know why, but it is.

Spence, at 5:12 PM, you say that the anti-abortion position isn't really embraced in the US. At 5:35, you admit that polls show otherwise, but you dismiss it.

Spence, do you ever get tired of incessantly moving the goalposts until it looks as though your side has scored a goal?

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;953839]Spence, at 5:12 PM, you say that the anti-abortion position isn't really embraced in the US. At 5:35, you admit that polls show otherwise, but you dismiss it.

QUOTE]

makes you wonder what he was doing between 5:13 and 5:34

You're not paying attention.

There's a difference between an absolute position on abortion and what Catholics or for that matter Americans really think.

Please read my posts twice before you respond.

-spence

really?

"Half of Americans, 51%, consider abortion morally wrong"

what's the diffrence between this and an "absolute position on abortion and what Catholics or for that matter Americans really think."


"38% say it is morally acceptable"

is there a difference between those that find abortion morally accptable and an absolute position in favor of abortion and what pro choice or for that matter Americans really think?

it's either morally wrong or morally right..if you want to talk about certain exceptions in either case, it doesn't change the morality, if someone robs a bank it's morally wrong ( AT LEAST MOST AMERICANS MIGHT AGREE)....if someone robs a bank because they need money to feed their starving family......it's still morally wrong but some might look on it with less condemnation due to the situation that prompted the action, it doesn't suddenly become morally right due to your situation and the victim(s) don't know the difference :uhuh:

why do I feel a relativism argument coming on?

Spence, there's no need for me to read your posts twice. I don't even need to read them once, because I know what you're going to say before you post it. Always, always, always the liberal spin. Ignore anything that makes the conservative side look good, and focus on what makes the liberal side look good. If there is nothing that makes the liberal side look good, then do whatever you have to do to poke holes in the conculsion that conservatives might therefore have a point.

A little intellectual honesty makes life a whole lot easier. When I say intellectual honesty, I mean this...

Yes, Paul Ryan is proposing changes to Medicare. But so is Obama, who (1) shifted $500+ billion out of Medicare to pay for Obamacare, and (2) proposed that Medicare start paying doctors even less than they get paid now.

In an honest world, we would debate the pros and cons of both proposals. In the world we live in, Obama (and everyuone in the media not employed by Foxnews) tells seniors to be afraid of Paul Ryan, and no one caresthat Obama's plan is the only one that will effect those currently on Medicare. So, thanks to dishonest dialogue, seniors are afraid of Ryan, and they are embracing Obama.

Your side doesn't want that honesty injected in the debate Spence. Your side goes to unbelievable lengths to avoid anything resembling an honest debate. Because it's easier to defend slavery than it is to defend most (not all) liberal platforms.

First you denied that abortion was getting less popular. When you couldn't deny it any longer, you dismissed it.

"There's a difference between an absolute position on abortion..."

I assume by "absolute" you mean no allowance for abortion, even in the case of rape or when the mom's life is in danger. Spence, no one on the Republican ticket is saying that they would outlaw all abortions. Even if one of the candidates is saying they personally never support abortion, they aren't suggesting that become public policy.

Yes, it has consistently been in direct violation of the sacred teachings of the church he claims to be a member of. Spence, Biden goes to Catholic Mass on Sunday because he wants those votes. Then he goes to a pro-abortion rally on Monday because he also wants those votes. That's called pandering. If you want to get the Klan vote, fine. But you shouldn't also court the endorsement of the NAACP.

Real leaders take a stand, tell you what they think, and let you decide if you like them or not. To believe in everything, is to believe in nothing.

You've just clearly articulated my biggest gripe and reservations with Romney.

I am admittedly a lapsed Catholic, but I know more than a few people who are practicing Catholics, but disagree with some of the Dogma, but still believe in their faith and are supportive of their church. They do not go just to pander...

Of course, there are exactly zero Catholics who are perfect, we all have our flaws.

But the cathechism has binding beliefs, and non-binding beliefs. Binding beliefs means just what it says...those are things that you cannot disagree with and call yourself Catholic...like believing that Jesus is the son of God, believing in the importance of charity (not a strength of Biden either), and being opposed to abortion.

My point being, it's OK to disagree with some of the dogma. It's OK if you don't say the rosary, for example. It's not OK to disagree on abortion.

I don't know why anyone who is pro-choice would choose to call themselves a Catholic. I'm certain Biden (and Nancy Pelosi) does it to increase his voting base. And if his bishop had any spine whatsoever, he'd tell 'Plugs' to decide whether or not he wants to get Communion on Sundays.

Separation of church and state. :rtfm:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, and if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

That Ryan's views on Ayn Rand might put him at odds with the christian right or the Catholic Church are moot since both are at odds with both parties, but probably more so with the progressive anti-religious views of the Dems.

Weiss allows college students to go through a "literary infatuation" with Rand and then to repudiate her later, but Ryan must not be allowed this path, and must always forever be a true and absolute Randian.

Weiss mentions that her books celebrated greed and selfishness and saw altruism as "evil," but doesn't go into her arguments of why so, just drops those loaded words into his essay to help paint her as a brutish, uncaring, anti-social being. Also mentions that she was a militant atheist who favored abortion, which, not being an atheist who favors abortion actually is a prime reason to understand that Ryan is not a pure Randian.

Ryan says, according to the article, that he was more deeply influenced by his Catholic faith and by Thomas Aquinas (than, it follows,more than by Ayn Rand.) But, somehow, we must not accept that as true, but, rather, as true the implication that he is a true Randian because of a speech, whose words in that speech must be the total truth of his views that negate anything else he might say. In that speech he says he was taught quite a bit about who he is and what his value systems are and what his beliefs are. But "quite a bit" is different than "totally." But we are to assume, by the author's implication, that the true and total Randian view is what his value systems are, therefore they cannot be his Catholic faith or Thomas Aquinas.

Further, Ryan, according to the article, says that if there were one person who he might credit for going into politcs, it would be Rand and her views (in stark terms as the Weiss emphasizes) on the struggle between the individual and the collective.

The thing about Howard Roark, hero of "The fountainhead" is he was an ideal, a totally virtuous individual, not a real flawed human being full of various sometimes conflicting ideas. Being an ideal, it is likely that such men do not, or rarely exist. He was a literary emblem. And Weiss points out, gratuitously, that the book was denounced as amoral. Which is strange since it was about an ultimate morality, and was contradicted as a Randian position by Weiss's comment on her next book, "Atlas Shrugged," being a statement that laissez fair capitalism is the only moral social system.

The fact that, as Weiss concedes, "Ryan is no atheist, but atheism was at the core of [Rand's] philosophy," certainly indicates that Ryan does not fully accept Rand's philosophy. He certainly doesn't act like a true Randian hero--he is fighting for his views through government, not as an individual ousider. Just as the only ideal Christian was Jesus Christ, the only ideal objectivist might be Ayn Rand. The other "Christians"--see puritans, liberation theologists, Catholics and various protestants and sects, can, apparently depart from the ideal Christian, so saying that Ryan cannot be an objectivist and a Christian at the same time is an extreme and absolutist view. One that a "centrist" might object to. We as centrists, relativists, rationalists, eclectivists, modernists, pholosopers, realists, individualists (more so than collectivists), and especially politicians (even statesmen), can take what is good and useful from philosphies, even those like Rand's, which might be impossible or too ideal, yet have value that take us in the direction, the vector, of our society's ideals.

The U.S. Constitution (you know I had to get that in here) which Rand admired (except for the commerce clause not being more clearly articulated) points the vector toward individual freedom. Socialism's, Marxism's, Communism's, and progressivism's vector points us toward the collective over the individual.

Which vector do you prefer?

Don't think Ryan was in college seven years ago, but you're right, there's danger in interpreting Weiss's interpretation of Ryan's interpretation of Rand.

That being said, listen to the actual audio here from 2005 that received condemnation from the Catholic Church:

Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand's ideas: in the hot seat again | The Atlas Society

If you're a Rand fan I'd say he articulates a very compelling position.

Then contrast with his statements in 2012 to the National Review:

Ryan Shrugged - Robert Costa - National Review Online

A lot of my views have certainly evolved since college, but not like that in the past seven years. Is he guilty of hyper-pandering? Perhaps, but like the author says, you can't have it both ways. If Ryan really is the intellectual leader of the GOP in regards to money, I would think voters would want to know where he'll really get his inspiration in 2013.

Then again, perhaps he really is that smart. If he chose to side with the Ayn Rand caucus over the Vatican there would be even greater cause for concern :hihi:

-spence

In today's New York Times, columnist Maureen Dowd wrote this about Paul Ryan...

"Ryan should stop being so lovable. People who intend to hurt other people should wipe the smile off their faces."

The New York Times published a statement that Paul Ryan's intent is to hurt people.

Why can't liberals honestly lay out Paul Ryan's ideas, and then explain why they think Obama's ideas are better?

Go ahead and defend that, Spence...

Most papers have both news and personality driven opinion. Dowd is an opinion columnist. She's their bomb thrower. Her comment was clearly meant to highlight the irony of Ryan's positions.

I'm glad you're reading Dowd but I'd also encourage you to think in the process.

-spence

why is this difficult?....

in the first case he's referring to Rand's political philosphy:

"that Ayn Rand, more than anybody else, did such a good job of articulating the pitfalls of statism and collectivism"

Rand's political philosophy emphasized individual rights (including property rights),[103] and she considered laissez-faire capitalism the only moral social system because in her view it was the only system based on the protection of those rights.[104] She opposed statism, which she understood to include theocracy, absolute monarchy, Nazism, fascism, communism, democratic socialism, and dictatorship.[105] Rand believed that rights should be enforced by a constitutionally limited government.[106] Although her political views are often classified as conservative or libertarian, she preferred the term "radical for capitalism". She worked with conservatives on political projects, but disagreed with them over issues such as religion and ethics.[107]


and in the second he's referring to her religeous philosophy(or lack of)......and in response to "These Rand-related slams, Ryan says, are inaccurate and part of an effort on the left to paint him as a cold-hearted Objectivist. Ryan’s actual philosophy, as reported by my colleague, Brian Bolduc, couldn’t be further from the caricature. As a practicing Roman Catholic, Ryan says, his faith and moral values shape his politics as much as his belief in freedom and capitalism does."



“I reject her (objectivist) philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview."



Rand called her philosophy "Objectivism", describing its essence as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."[91] She considered Objectivism a systematic philosophy and laid out positions on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy and esthetics.[92]

In metaphysics, Rand supported philosophical realism, and opposed anything she regarded as mysticism or supernaturalism, including all forms of religion.[93




if you know anything about Rand you know that she was a bit of a conundrum...

she often took controversial stances on political and social issues of the day. These included supporting abortion rights,[72] opposing the Vietnam War and the military draft (but condemning many draft dodgers as "bums"),[73] supporting Israel in the Arab-Israeli War of 1973 as "civilized men fighting savages",[74] saying European colonists had the right to take land from American Indians,[75] and calling homosexuality "immoral" and "disgusting", while also advocating the repeal of all laws against it..........

Sounds like Ryan might be one as well,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought you were smarter than that:uhuh:

The greater cause for concern in the campaign rhetoric the next few months, in the interest of informing the voters, is truthful debate. Both sides are claiming this to be a most important election. It is fitting, then, to be honest, not to merely win, not to lie or influence by inuendo or implications.

Weiss's article is very much inuendo and implication--that mixture of half truths and facts meant to imply contradictions that don't exist. Somewhat similar to your post earlier in this thread in response to the National Review article on Ryan's plan where you said that the author "admits" the plan might be a "total failure" . . ." twice!" There was no such "admission." There was speculation that "if" it did, things would simply revert to the present state which the Democrats seem to prefer. And if that is "total failure," then the status quo that the Dems prefer is a total failure. And the article was far more optimistic about Ryan's plan than your assertion, and its choice of words, implies.