Donald Trump

Halifax2TheMax

BS44325 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Remind me again of how many Obama campaign staffers and administration officials were indicted, convicted and sentenced to prison? Yay, go Team!

Who here is suggesting that the Obama administration was corrupt like Trump's? 

Nobody. Trump's team...if you can call it that...is/was being investigated for things that pre-dated his administration. I don't believe his Presidency is being accused of being corrupt. I know a lot of you "feel" that it is but that is not exactly the same thing. I am saying that the Obama administration was corrupt "unlike" Trump's. Fast and Furious, IRS, Bengazhi, Uranium One, DOJ interfering in FBI investigations, FISA abuse to spy on one's political opponents...to name a few.

Fast & Furious: Started under Bush, investigated by repub Congress, no charges or indictments
IRS: Both dem and repub donors targeted, investigated by IG and repub congress, no charges or indictments
Benghazi: 4 separate repub Congressional investigations, SOS Clinton testified for over 14 hours in public testimony, no charges or indictments
Uranium One: Investigated by IG and repub Congress, signed off on by 12 other Administration departments, no charges, no indictments
DOJ interferring in FBI investigations? Which ones?
FISA abuse? How so? Repubs investigated, held hearings, had 2 years of the executive, legislative and judicial branches and "POOF," no charges, no indictments.
"To name a few?" What others are there? Did any lead to charges or indictments? Anyone arrested, charged, convicted of a crime and sentenced? Anyone?

I guess you haven't been following the separate congressional investigations of the Secretary of Interior and the EPA? We also don't know about the financing for Jared Dear Boy's 666 5th Avenue and administration decisions regarding Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, Russia, Deutch Bank, etc, etc. Been in a bubble? or Echo chamber?

CM189191

BS44325 said:

CM189191 said:

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1105871012065935366

lol

And again...nothing to do with Trump...except for the fact that it removes Trump's pardon power for any state charges/convictions.

...during the period from on or about December 22, 2015 to on or about March 7, 2016, knowingly and with intent to...

In March 2016, he joined Trump's presidential campaign

Don't you think it's odd they are charging him with everything they have right up until he joined tRUmps' campaign?

Now fast forward to the future, where Manafort actually is charged with crimes related to tRUmp.  Imagine Manafort, convicted of multple felonies, trying to plead his case. 

Or can't you see past the nose on your face? 

Meltdown99

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yes, the celibacy oath is a big problem, and I actually think it is the main factor that attracts all those pedophiles to the Catholic Church. But I have an even bigger problem with the fact that women are not allowed to be leaders in the Church. At all. The entire Vatican has exactly zero women participating in Church politics, and women are not allowed to be priests, and now finally it is just coming out about how many nuns have been sexually abused by priests as well (which comes as NO surprise whatsoever). Just what kind of terrible message does that disseminate to Catholic followers???? It REALLY pisses me off! Someone asked how Muslim women could feel okay about being in that faith given the sexual inequality... Well what about Catholic women?? I don't understand how any woman is okay with that kind of blatant sexism. Frankly, it doesn't even seem legal to me. Has no one challenged it legally?? Someone should!

Completely agree on the women in leadership part.  It's a relic.  As far as the pedos, again I think you are right.  But I also think that the Church attracts gay men (not equating with pedos).  Boys who were Catholic but did not feel attracted to women saw the church as the next logical step.  They must have been "called" to the church.  It was almost a refuge, a reason they didn't live the same life as other people.  Now you put them in a spot where they are voluntarily repressed, but surround them with the same sex.  It seems like a combustion chamber.  Allowing women and married men into the church clergy could really have changed this dynamic.  It's sad.  

The pope should be arrested and charged for running a pedophile ring, he fails to implement concrete measures to stop the abuse.  And these victims of the priest should sue the VaticananVatican...until the vatican bleeds money, those evil popes will do nothing.  Since they believe in heaven, they all can rot...

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

njnancy said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

Ending the quote because it's out of control. 

Yes they are weaponizing it, and she should have been smarter.  That's been my point as well.  They gave the Trump side an opening and it's been exploited.  It was going to be weaponized as soon as she typed it.  Her Democratic colleagues were offended.  They are Jewish.  They were offended and saw the trope.  You can't say they fucked it up.  She fucked it up to start.  And Pelosi was forced into damage control and did the best she could to move past it while mollifying her own constituency.  

I can't say that because she was 100% right when it comes to the relationship the US has with Israel, and I'm not about to say that someone fucked up by being honest. I just wish more of them would talk about it. Her only mistake was being the one brave enough to say it out loud IMO. I can indeed say they fucked it up, and I'm not inclined to side with the ones who are offended Jews, because I don't believe it's right that they are offended. If the Dems had any balls at all, they would have stood behind her and finally initiated a REAL conversation about the US/Israel situation.

I tend to agree about her comments.

I also can’t  believe any women would be Muslim....or any person would take their kid to a Catholic Church...so what do I know 

Most religious people were born into it, meaning that they were brainwashed from birth, whatever the faith. They know nothing else, and simply truly believe the religious dogma they were taught, and lived in the middle of the culture that facilitates that, even if it is an impediment to them. I don't find that so hard to understand (although do find it hard to get how anyone believes the dogma - to me it seems ludicrous, but somehow people believe it like they believe their own existence). I do think it's very unfortunate though.

As for the Catholic Church and the pedo stuff... well, that's the reason Catholics have been leaving the Church in droves and why the Church is in permanent crisis now. They are working hard to try and bring some back, but it's probably ultimately too late... The Church will be around for a long time to come, but its power will likely dwindle more and more over time, and in a couple Centuries it will probably be a fringe religion.... Unless somehow there is a resurgence... if something really fucked in the world happens, like a massive pandemic or WWIII, that's possible too. They really do need to cut it out with the sexual repression and sexism though. That just isn't flying with most modern people anymore.

I just typed a long thing and erased it. 

Please don't refer to people who went to a Catholic school or who choose to practice their Jewish or Muslim faiths brainwashed. There are certain things that you are taught that stay with you but brainwashed is too severe a term and it also sounds condescending. It makes it sound like only people who are atheists have any idea of what is going on. I don't go to church anymore, I stopped when I went to public high school (which pissed the nuns off immensely) and there was a lot of bad shit that went on but also there were some really good people.  I had my son baptized by a Catholic priest who runs sobriety retreats - had to do it - and I had him receive Communion at an Episcopal Church with my sister's girls. My sister started going to Church in her 40's after being an atheist most of her life. The priest is an ex Catholic priest who is gay and is an awesome person. They got gluten free hosts just for my son. My sister felt a sense of community there and when she was dying she found a lot of comfort in speaking with the priest. So did I and so did my mom. I don't know what created everything (aside from the scientific realities) but I like to think that my dad and sis and bro are all together somewhere; another dimension? IDK.  My dad was my higher power during my early years of sobriety, he had died when I was weeks clean and it was the only connection I could make and it worked. Who am I to think I know better than other people?  If it brings them comfort and they are good people and not hypocritical aholes telling me how to live, then fine. I don't have it all figured out.  (This is the short version )

I'm with you all the way here.  I was brought up Catholic, being from Cleveland where everyone was Catholic.  I 'left' the church as soon as I could make my own choices, but I also baptized and confirmed all three of my children.  It was mostly out of tradition and to make the grandparents on both sides happy.  Nothing wrong with that.  You also can't discount the wealth of knowledge and wisdom that can come from reading the Bible.  The stories are timeless, so long as you treat them as parables and guideposts (New Testament) vs. a history book.  I don't judge people on their religion at all.  When I'm facing death, there's a really good chance I circle back to it. 

I was talking about the practicing faithful, as well as those who tolerate injustices in the name of their religion/religious culture. I thought that was made clear, but I guess not. People who aren't even really practicing obviously managed to avoid the brainwashing, or their own parents/community didn't do it to them in the first place. And FWIW, reading the Bible doesn't mean much. I'm an Atheist, and I've read the Bible.

I do indeed think that just belief in God in general is a result of a kind of mass social brainwashing too though, sorry. I don't know any other word for it. It's just how I view religious belief.

I actually wasn't commenting as much on your statement, more on agreement with Nancy about how people view their religion.  But your comments on people leaving the church are interesting.  I think the pedo stuff certainly was extremely damaging and has hurt the opportunity for new converts.  That's why you see the only growth taking place in poorer areas.  But I left the Church for lots of reasons, and I actually thought about going back at one point.  But the disconnect for me is that they do not allow priests to marry.  It inhibits a priest from really being able to give sage advice when they have no experience that mirrors mine.  They are in a different world economically, socially, culturally and from a family perspective.  When I hear a homily, it's like it could have been said 150 years ago.  

Yes, the celibacy oath is a big problem, and I actually think it is the main factor that attracts all those pedophiles to the Catholic Church. But I have an even bigger problem with the fact that women are not allowed to be leaders in the Church. At all. The entire Vatican has exactly zero women participating in Church politics, and women are not allowed to be priests, and now finally it is just coming out about how many nuns have been sexually abused by priests as well (which comes as NO surprise whatsoever). Just what kind of terrible message does that disseminate to Catholic followers???? It REALLY pisses me off! Someone asked how Muslim women could feel okay about being in that faith given the sexual inequality... Well what about Catholic women?? I don't understand how any woman is okay with that kind of blatant sexism. Frankly, it doesn't even seem legal to me. Has no one challenged it legally?? Someone should!

freedom of religion and all that stuff. 

PJ_Soul

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yes, the celibacy oath is a big problem, and I actually think it is the main factor that attracts all those pedophiles to the Catholic Church. But I have an even bigger problem with the fact that women are not allowed to be leaders in the Church. At all. The entire Vatican has exactly zero women participating in Church politics, and women are not allowed to be priests, and now finally it is just coming out about how many nuns have been sexually abused by priests as well (which comes as NO surprise whatsoever). Just what kind of terrible message does that disseminate to Catholic followers???? It REALLY pisses me off! Someone asked how Muslim women could feel okay about being in that faith given the sexual inequality... Well what about Catholic women?? I don't understand how any woman is okay with that kind of blatant sexism. Frankly, it doesn't even seem legal to me. Has no one challenged it legally?? Someone should!

Completely agree on the women in leadership part.  It's a relic.  As far as the pedos, again I think you are right.  But I also think that the Church attracts gay men (not equating with pedos).  Boys who were Catholic but did not feel attracted to women saw the church as the next logical step.  They must have been "called" to the church.  It was almost a refuge, a reason they didn't live the same life as other people.  Now you put them in a spot where they are voluntarily repressed, but surround them with the same sex.  It seems like a combustion chamber.  Allowing women and married men into the church clergy could really have changed this dynamic.  It's sad.  

The pope should be arrested and charged for running a pedophile ring, he fails to implement concrete measures to stop the abuse.  And these victims of the priest should sue the VaticananVatican...until the vatican bleeds money, those evil popes will do nothing.  Since they believe in heaven, they all can rot...

I agree.

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Outside Mar-I-Lieo, courtesy of the NYT. Show me the dem/lib equivalent.

Ask for psycho dems and you shall receive. 

I believe she was widely condemned by both sides, investigated by the Secret Service and has since been ostracized and blown away inot the dustbin of history. In fact, I don't even recall her name and haven't seen nor heard of her since. If that had been a Team Trump Treason supporter with Obama's head, she would have been made SOS or VP.

Okay so you were supportive of fellow liberals holding her accountable because what she did was wrong, even though the Republican's house isn't in order?  Or were you against condemning her because some lady has a sign outside Mar A Lago?

Yes, but my point being, the repubs will never get their house in order. Its too effective for them. Meanwhile, us libs will continue to have it shoved up our ass, all the while being told to be "more civil." Again, I'm more than happy to meet half way but I need to see movement on the right. The left moves all the time and tries to build bridges and coalitions and solicits cooperation. And what do we get for our efforts? More ridicule, demonization and denigration. The problem isn't biggest on, or with, the left. Were leftiies standing outside Obama's motorcade with signs ridiculing repubs/conservatives? Obama was ridiculed for wearing a tan suit by repub members of Congress. Remeber that?

Sorry, but how is political art wrong in any way? Is everyone mad at Jim Carrey for his paintings too? I haven't noticed that anyone is, nor should they be. An idiot with a sign outside a building designated a safe place for MAGA supporters isn't the same thing as that Kathy Griffin art photography session at all - that was a terrible comparison (as much as it behooves me to defend her - I can't stand that woman).

Lots of people have criticized Carrey's "art".  But if you are saying that Griffin's severed head is okay because it's art and the women's sign is not okay for whatever reason, then you and I are on different wavelengths here.  

mrussel1

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Outside Mar-I-Lieo, courtesy of the NYT. Show me the dem/lib equivalent.

Ask for psycho dems and you shall receive. 

I believe she was widely condemned by both sides, investigated by the Secret Service and has since been ostracized and blown away inot the dustbin of history. In fact, I don't even recall her name and haven't seen nor heard of her since. If that had been a Team Trump Treason supporter with Obama's head, she would have been made SOS or VP.

Okay so you were supportive of fellow liberals holding her accountable because what she did was wrong, even though the Republican's house isn't in order?  Or were you against condemning her because some lady has a sign outside Mar A Lago?

Yes, but my point being, the repubs will never get their house in order. Its too effective for them. Meanwhile, us libs will continue to have it shoved up our ass, all the while being told to be "more civil." Again, I'm more than happy to meet half way but I need to see movement on the right. The left moves all the time and tries to build bridges and coalitions and solicits cooperation. And what do we get for our efforts? More ridicule, demonization and denigration. The problem isn't biggest on, or with, the left. Were leftiies standing outside Obama's motorcade with signs ridiculing repubs/conservatives? Obama was ridiculed for wearing a tan suit by repub members of Congress. Remeber that?

You're talking about the echo chambers on both sides.  I'm talking about winning the middle.  I don't think one swing or disengaged voter cared about a tan suit.  No one in their echo chambers is changing their mind.  

That's why it's time for Schultz-A-Mania!

Haha, says the guy that sees him stealing Democratic votes.  His campaign is dead.  I think a lot of people yearn for the normalcy of Biden.  I know I do.  Let's set things back to square and then can implement some progressive ideas, like universal healthcare, but not breaking up tech companies because we don't like rich guys.  It's interesting that Warren didn't single out Apple when they are much more active in mixing platform with product than Amazon.  

Biden will not get the support of his party. I had hopes for Hickenlooper but his answer on whether he is a capitalist was pathetic. It shows where the base is. I don't see how Biden pulls it out. It's Bernie's party now.

So far Biden leads in Iowa and Michigan, two statewide polls that have been released.  And both are after Bernie announced.  Bernie is the 2nd.  So while you may be right, current evidence doesn't support it.  The worst case scenario for the Democrats is for this to be a battle between capitalism and socialism ideas.  That's a loser every time.  It must be a referendum on Trump.  

I think Biden and Bernie are 1 and 2 out of name recognition at this early stage. My feeling is that Bernie has far more committed backers while Biden's support is softer and out of nostalgia. This is not a bad place to be for Biden but in a field this large he cannot lose his soft support to any of the other candidates. Bernie's support is strong and enduring and in a crowded field he will likely have the enthusiasm needed to come out on top.

I think he's helped by the large field, between NH/IA and into the deep primaries.  It will be interesting when the field thins out and those are the two that are standing, plus maybe one more that is well financed.  I agree that Bernie has more passionate supporters but I don't know if that means more supporters.  Remember at the end of the day, Hillary garnered far more votes than him in the primary.  

Very true but no super delegates this time around. It will be very interesting. I think if Beto gets in it hurts Bernie which should clear the path for Biden.

She won the popular, so the absence of the supers would not have changed the outcome.  Democrats will rue the day that they gave up the SD's.  It may be in 2020.  

Ledbetterman10

I think things are getting a little confusing here. Halifax posted a picture of a dumb conservative holding something, and asked for a liberal equivalent, so I posted a picture of a dumb liberal holding something. That's the only reason this picture of Griffin is here. 

cincybearcat

PJ_Soul said:

Yes, the celibacy oath is a big problem, and I actually think it is the main factor that attracts all those pedophiles to the Catholic Church. But I have an even bigger problem with the fact that women are not allowed to be leaders in the Church. At all. The entire Vatican has exactly zero women participating in Church politics, and women are not allowed to be priests, and now finally it is just coming out about how many nuns have been sexually abused by priests as well (which comes as NO surprise whatsoever). Just what kind of terrible message does that disseminate to Catholic followers???? It REALLY pisses me off! Someone asked how Muslim women could feel okay about being in that faith given the sexual inequality... Well what about Catholic women?? I don't understand how any woman is okay with that kind of blatant sexism. Frankly, it doesn't even seem legal to me. Has no one challenged it legally?? Someone should!

I have had some discussions with some Catholics regarding the treatment on women in their religion.  I truly think the only way to save the Catholic church is to 1) Allow women to be priests 2) Allow priests to marry 3) Kick out anyone convicted (or with enough evidence to convict) of sexual abuse, regardless of their stature in the church 4) Kick out anyone found to be hiding/protecting a sexual predator

Even then....not sure.

But since I'm someone that was raised Catholic but left the church long before I was 18 due to many reasons, I may not be the best person to speak for what the Catholic Church should do. I am a big fan of a lot of religious people...they really do seem to follow the word of their god and are genuinely good people.  But, I am not a fan of organized religion and it's use of it's people to gain/keep power/control and gain $.

Halifax2TheMax

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yes, the celibacy oath is a big problem, and I actually think it is the main factor that attracts all those pedophiles to the Catholic Church. But I have an even bigger problem with the fact that women are not allowed to be leaders in the Church. At all. The entire Vatican has exactly zero women participating in Church politics, and women are not allowed to be priests, and now finally it is just coming out about how many nuns have been sexually abused by priests as well (which comes as NO surprise whatsoever). Just what kind of terrible message does that disseminate to Catholic followers???? It REALLY pisses me off! Someone asked how Muslim women could feel okay about being in that faith given the sexual inequality... Well what about Catholic women?? I don't understand how any woman is okay with that kind of blatant sexism. Frankly, it doesn't even seem legal to me. Has no one challenged it legally?? Someone should!

I have had some discussions with some Catholics regarding the treatment on women in their religion.  I truly think the only way to save the Catholic church is to 1) Allow women to be priests 2) Allow priests to marry 3) Kick out anyone convicted (or with enough evidence to convict) of sexual abuse, regardless of their stature in the church 4) Kick out anyone found to be hiding/protecting a sexual predator

Even then....not sure.

But since I'm someone that was raised Catholic but left the church long before I was 18 due to many reasons, I may not be the best person to speak for what the Catholic Church should do. I am a big fan of a lot of religious people...they really do seem to follow the word of their god and are genuinely good people.  But, I am not a fan of organized religion and it's use of it's people to gain/keep power/control and gain $.

Catholic Church officials should turn it over to law enforcement as soon as it’s brought to their attention or an allegation is made and law enforcement should treat the accused like any other alleged child molester. No more hiding behind the cross and the cloth and the hands off approach. By all sides, religiosity doesn’t elevate you to some higher level where rule of law doesn’t apply. Do other religions have this issue?

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Outside Mar-I-Lieo, courtesy of the NYT. Show me the dem/lib equivalent.

Ask for psycho dems and you shall receive. 

I believe she was widely condemned by both sides, investigated by the Secret Service and has since been ostracized and blown away inot the dustbin of history. In fact, I don't even recall her name and haven't seen nor heard of her since. If that had been a Team Trump Treason supporter with Obama's head, she would have been made SOS or VP.

Okay so you were supportive of fellow liberals holding her accountable because what she did was wrong, even though the Republican's house isn't in order?  Or were you against condemning her because some lady has a sign outside Mar A Lago?

Yes, but my point being, the repubs will never get their house in order. Its too effective for them. Meanwhile, us libs will continue to have it shoved up our ass, all the while being told to be "more civil." Again, I'm more than happy to meet half way but I need to see movement on the right. The left moves all the time and tries to build bridges and coalitions and solicits cooperation. And what do we get for our efforts? More ridicule, demonization and denigration. The problem isn't biggest on, or with, the left. Were leftiies standing outside Obama's motorcade with signs ridiculing repubs/conservatives? Obama was ridiculed for wearing a tan suit by repub members of Congress. Remeber that?

Sorry, but how is political art wrong in any way? Is everyone mad at Jim Carrey for his paintings too? I haven't noticed that anyone is, nor should they be. An idiot with a sign outside a building designated a safe place for MAGA supporters isn't the same thing as that Kathy Griffin art photography session at all - that was a terrible comparison (as much as it behooves me to defend her - I can't stand that woman).

Lots of people have criticized Carrey's "art".  But if you are saying that Griffin's severed head is okay because it's art and the women's sign is not okay for whatever reason, then you and I are on different wavelengths here.  

I'm not saying that. I'm saying it was a bad comparison. I personally don't give a shit if some idiot wants to stand there embarrassing herself on the sidewalk. But I'm also saying that condemning Griffin is wrong - that art photo does not make her psycho IMO, while I think standing there with that dumb sign calling Dems psychos seems pretty wacked.

Halifax2TheMax

Ledbetterman10 said:

I think things are getting a little confusing here. Halifax posted a picture of a dumb conservative holding something, and asked for a liberal equivalent, so I posted a picture of a dumb liberal holding something. That's the only reason this picture of Griffin is here. 

Sure, it’s all my fault.

PJ_Soul

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yes, the celibacy oath is a big problem, and I actually think it is the main factor that attracts all those pedophiles to the Catholic Church. But I have an even bigger problem with the fact that women are not allowed to be leaders in the Church. At all. The entire Vatican has exactly zero women participating in Church politics, and women are not allowed to be priests, and now finally it is just coming out about how many nuns have been sexually abused by priests as well (which comes as NO surprise whatsoever). Just what kind of terrible message does that disseminate to Catholic followers???? It REALLY pisses me off! Someone asked how Muslim women could feel okay about being in that faith given the sexual inequality... Well what about Catholic women?? I don't understand how any woman is okay with that kind of blatant sexism. Frankly, it doesn't even seem legal to me. Has no one challenged it legally?? Someone should!

I have had some discussions with some Catholics regarding the treatment on women in their religion.  I truly think the only way to save the Catholic church is to 1) Allow women to be priests 2) Allow priests to marry 3) Kick out anyone convicted (or with enough evidence to convict) of sexual abuse, regardless of their stature in the church 4) Kick out anyone found to be hiding/protecting a sexual predator

Even then....not sure.

But since I'm someone that was raised Catholic but left the church long before I was 18 due to many reasons, I may not be the best person to speak for what the Catholic Church should do. I am a big fan of a lot of religious people...they really do seem to follow the word of their god and are genuinely good people.  But, I am not a fan of organized religion and it's use of it's people to gain/keep power/control and gain $.

Agreed. And they also need to allow women to be cardinals and Popes. Oh, and they have to stop condemning gay marriage. And stop discouraging birth control.

PJ_Soul

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

I think things are getting a little confusing here. Halifax posted a picture of a dumb conservative holding something, and asked for a liberal equivalent, so I posted a picture of a dumb liberal holding something. That's the only reason this picture of Griffin is here. 

Sure, it’s all my fault.

Haha. Nope, definitely not your fault! Ledbetterman10, I don't think anything is confused. I'm simply saying that your liberal equivalent is not equivalent, IMO.

cincybearcat

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yes, the celibacy oath is a big problem, and I actually think it is the main factor that attracts all those pedophiles to the Catholic Church. But I have an even bigger problem with the fact that women are not allowed to be leaders in the Church. At all. The entire Vatican has exactly zero women participating in Church politics, and women are not allowed to be priests, and now finally it is just coming out about how many nuns have been sexually abused by priests as well (which comes as NO surprise whatsoever). Just what kind of terrible message does that disseminate to Catholic followers???? It REALLY pisses me off! Someone asked how Muslim women could feel okay about being in that faith given the sexual inequality... Well what about Catholic women?? I don't understand how any woman is okay with that kind of blatant sexism. Frankly, it doesn't even seem legal to me. Has no one challenged it legally?? Someone should!

I have had some discussions with some Catholics regarding the treatment on women in their religion.  I truly think the only way to save the Catholic church is to 1) Allow women to be priests 2) Allow priests to marry 3) Kick out anyone convicted (or with enough evidence to convict) of sexual abuse, regardless of their stature in the church 4) Kick out anyone found to be hiding/protecting a sexual predator

Even then....not sure.

But since I'm someone that was raised Catholic but left the church long before I was 18 due to many reasons, I may not be the best person to speak for what the Catholic Church should do. I am a big fan of a lot of religious people...they really do seem to follow the word of their god and are genuinely good people.  But, I am not a fan of organized religion and it's use of it's people to gain/keep power/control and gain $.

Agreed. And they also need to allow women to be cardinals and Popes. Oh, and they have to stop condemning gay marriage. And stop discouraging birth control.

Yes, sorry.  When I said Priest I really meant the whole thing.

I agree with you about gay marriage and birth control...but those are a little trickier and I could understand some of that.  Not the condemnation of it...not attacking.  I'd like the start and worry about the individual issues later  

cincybearcat

PJ_Soul said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

I think things are getting a little confusing here. Halifax posted a picture of a dumb conservative holding something, and asked for a liberal equivalent, so I posted a picture of a dumb liberal holding something. That's the only reason this picture of Griffin is here. 

Sure, it’s all my fault.

Haha. Nope, definitely not your fault! Ledbetterman10, I don't think anything is confused. I'm simply saying that your liberal equivalent is not equivalent, IMO.

Well of course they aren't equivalent.  One is just an idiot with a sign.  The other was a thought out plan that basically threatens a sitting president with a beheading and hides behind "art".  Not equivalent at all!  I'm certain that's what you mean, because if you see it any other way then you are simply in denial.

Ledbetterman10

PJ_Soul said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

I think things are getting a little confusing here. Halifax posted a picture of a dumb conservative holding something, and asked for a liberal equivalent, so I posted a picture of a dumb liberal holding something. That's the only reason this picture of Griffin is here. 

Sure, it’s all my fault.

Haha. Nope, definitely not your fault! Ledbetterman10, I don't think anything is confused. I'm simply saying that your liberal equivalent is not equivalent, IMO.

Yeah, it's worse. The conservative is just a random woman with a sign, while the liberal is a celebrity showing off violent imagery. I guess if I went with Antifa protesters it would have been more equivalent. Or liberals pounding on the doors of the Supreme Court following the Kavanaugh confirmation. 

PJ_Soul

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

I think things are getting a little confusing here. Halifax posted a picture of a dumb conservative holding something, and asked for a liberal equivalent, so I posted a picture of a dumb liberal holding something. That's the only reason this picture of Griffin is here. 

Sure, it’s all my fault.

Haha. Nope, definitely not your fault! Ledbetterman10, I don't think anything is confused. I'm simply saying that your liberal equivalent is not equivalent, IMO.

Well of course they aren't equivalent.  One is just an idiot with a sign.  The other was a thought out plan that basically threatens a sitting president with a beheading and hides behind "art".  Not equivalent at all!  I'm certain that's what you mean, because if you see it any other way then you are simply in denial.

Well he did say it was an equivalent, so you can't blame me for thinking that's what he meant. But, um, what?? You think an art piece is a threat?? I could not disagree with you more strongly on that. No, I'm not in denial, I am drawing a distinction between political art and just some random participating in public douchebaggery.

Halifax2TheMax

Ledbetterman10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

I think things are getting a little confusing here. Halifax posted a picture of a dumb conservative holding something, and asked for a liberal equivalent, so I posted a picture of a dumb liberal holding something. That's the only reason this picture of Griffin is here. 

Sure, it’s all my fault.

Haha. Nope, definitely not your fault! Ledbetterman10, I don't think anything is confused. I'm simply saying that your liberal equivalent is not equivalent, IMO.

Yeah, it's worse. The conservative is just a random woman with a sign, while the liberal is a celebrity showing off violent imagery. I guess if I went with Antifa protesters it would have been more equivalent. Or liberals pounding on the doors of the Supreme Court following the Kavanaugh confirmation. 

Did the woman holding the dumb repub sign suffer a backlash, ostracism, shouted down by her brethren? Shunning used to be popular.

cincybearcat

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

I think things are getting a little confusing here. Halifax posted a picture of a dumb conservative holding something, and asked for a liberal equivalent, so I posted a picture of a dumb liberal holding something. That's the only reason this picture of Griffin is here. 

Sure, it’s all my fault.

Haha. Nope, definitely not your fault! Ledbetterman10, I don't think anything is confused. I'm simply saying that your liberal equivalent is not equivalent, IMO.

Well of course they aren't equivalent.  One is just an idiot with a sign.  The other was a thought out plan that basically threatens a sitting president with a beheading and hides behind "art".  Not equivalent at all!  I'm certain that's what you mean, because if you see it any other way then you are simply in denial.

Well he did say it was an equivalent, so you can't blame me for thinking that's what he meant. But, um, what?? You think an art piece is a threat?? I could not disagree with you more strongly on that. No, I'm not in denial, I am drawing a distinction between political art and just some random participating in public douchebaggery.

Kathy was participating in some thought out public douchebaggery.

And yes, I find that not to be art at all.  Just someone trying to hide behind art as the reason they can be a doucehbag.