quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Catholic dogma makes the issue a lot less clear. If the pope declares he is speaking ex cathedra all catholics are expected to assent to his proclomation. If the underlying basis for this isn't that he pope speaks for some supernatural entity I don't see the basis.

The tradition has never been that the Pope speaks for god, it is expected that if he comes up with something drastic, he has had a divine inspiration to lead him to that point, for instance some of Pope Alexander VI declarations were later over turned by the church when it was revealed that they were made for secular not spiritual reasons.

You may know Alexander VI by his given name, Rodrigo Borgia.

The difference between Catholics and Mormons is the simple fact that the head of the church is called a prophet and gets messages direct from god.

And I am sorry, the last being on this planet that had a direct line to god was Jesus Christ. There have been numerous people since who have had visions of the divine, including the holy mother and others, but none of those that I can remember were more than a one time deal, with the exception of Joan of Arc, there might have been others, but as I said I am not a practicing Catholic, just raised in the church and have not been to mass in 8 years, and before that it was 12 years.

Strangely the only officially ex cathedra statement by any pope was in 1950 when the pope declared the bodily assumption of Mary into Heaven. I still don't see how that can be something a guy in 1950 to be smething all Catholics must accept unless he is claiming to be speaking for some supernatural entity.

quote:

Ex Cathedra

Literally "from the chair", a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Ok, just trying to work this out for myself. Where do you think a practicing devout Catholic thinks the popes pronouncement, in 1950, that Mary assended bodily to heaven came from? There is obviously no evidence in favor of such and there is no record of such an event.

quote:

The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary "ascended" into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power.

The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven."

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

This thread just explained something. I couldnt quite grasp the whole "obama is a socialist" spin but this thread exposed why.

The right needed to misdirect americas so they didnt catch on,to the rich getting bailed out at the expense of the middle class. They had to reframe the debate otherwise people might start questioning,things they are terrified of getting,examined.

Trillions for wealthy investers to protect them from capitalism AND preserve not only their wealth but the system,they use to,strip mine the middle class.

The nitwits are bitching about socialism, the irony would be hysterical if it wasnt,so destructive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

This thread just explained something. I couldnt quite grasp the whole "obama is a socialist" spin but this thread exposed why.

The right needed to misdirect americas so they didnt catch on,to the rich getting bailed out at the expense of the middle class. They had to reframe the debate otherwise people might start questioning,things they are terrified of getting,examined.

Trillions for wealthy investers to protect them from capitalism AND preserve not only their wealth but the system,they use to,strip mine the middle class.

The nitwits are bitching about socialism, the irony would be hysterical if it wasnt,so destructive.

You've hit the nail on the head. Contemporary neo-liberal capitalism is socialism for the rich, brute capitalism for the rest. 

The more capitalism in the west fails, the more welfare capitalists get from the state for their failure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

There is no single reason. There are multiple reasons.

1. Romney's ground game sucked. Really badly. Meanwhile, Obama's ground game was phenomenal.
2. Romney was severely damaged by the primary. He was forced to be so conservative as to be unelectable during the primary. He pivoted to become a moderate for the general, but by then there were sound bites.
3. Incumbents have advantages. Very few were not reelected in modern times. Even W squeaked out a second term.
4. Romney's plan to blame the economy on Obama didn't work well. Many people, myself included, saw Obama as being a bystander, not able to fix things, but that the real trashing of the economy happened under Bush.
5. The GOP never repudiated Bush, and Romney never elucidated policies that differed from Bush.
6. Romney pissed off the Latinos with self deportation. Fastest growing demographic.
7. The demographics that favored Obama were easily identified for GOTV purposes.
8. The GOP kept playing to its own base instead of to the independents.

That's off the top of my head.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

I am not sure that this the exact truth. A true free trade world economy would support capitalism and promote job growth as well as supply and demand factors being met.

However, in the present world market, investors are free to make speculative bets (for lack of a better word) on various parts of the economy and banks are free to make rather risky loans on bad prospects. When these loans fail, the impact is spread across the market, even affecting seemingly unrelated parts of the economy.

Admittedly I am not an economist, and I am sure there are other aspects that I have not figured on that have profound effects on the world market.

As for the systems that could replace capitalism, I find none truly appealing. I mean the various socialist theories that have been put forth do not allow for individual advancement based on motivation, drive and merit. Nor am I thrilled with the idea that all industry be nationalized. Humans may be a social animal, but that does not mean that the human does not look for rank, prestige or other symbols of success.

Nor do I believe in what I call the "Star Trek Utopia" where there is no money, everybody is taken care of based on need, and there are other driving forces than wealth and privilege. I mean the drive to have a better life than our parents seems to be a universal one in the human race.

I would say that this debate about which economic system is best is going to go on until the human race evolves past the point of having physical bodies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

There is no single reason. There are multiple reasons.

1. Romney's ground game sucked. Really badly. Meanwhile, Obama's ground game was phenomenal.
2. Romney was severely damaged by the primary. He was forced to be so conservative as to be unelectable during the primary. He pivoted to become a moderate for the general, but by then there were sound bites.
3. Incumbents have advantages. Very few were not reelected in modern times. Even W squeaked out a second term.
4. Romney's plan to blame the economy on Obama didn't work well. Many people, myself included, saw Obama as being a bystander, not able to fix things, but that the real trashing of the economy happened under Bush.
5. The GOP never repudiated Bush, and Romney never elucidated policies that differed from Bush.
6. Romney pissed off the Latinos with self deportation. Fastest growing demographic.
7. The demographics that favored Obama were easily identified for GOTV purposes.
8. The GOP kept playing to its own base instead of to the independents.

That's off the top of my head.

You forgot the GOP's war on women. This election cycle much like 1992 is remarkable for the number of women who won contested seats.

But the biggest factor, once the race was as close, was the OFA ground game. Romney's GOTV effort was too late and too small. Relying on robocalls to get out the vote is a pretty awful waste of money. Orca was of course a total failure in easily predictable ways. Which does bring to mind a question, Putting together a national campaign organization is pretty directly analogous to building a successful business so why was Romney, supposedly a very successful business thinker, so godawful bad at the nuts and bolts of a national campaign?