Massachusetts Senate election

ynotdu

sceptre wrote: »

You guys are aware that this thread is about the Massachusetts Senate election?

Sharp turns back on topic would be appreciated, ironically I've seen drunk people drive off bridges that were more focussed.

/mod

Ah now sceptre when were politics not about everything???

You using the word ironic about drunk people driving off bridges I believe was intended to be cruel now was'nt it? i'd say cruel and unkind to drag up something that happened to a Kennedy more than 40 years ago,and if anybody paid for it, and tried to recompense for it it was Teddy.
He is not off-topic even though his name was not on the ballot,the ghost of his name certainly was , and to a large extent was the reason the Democrats took the seat for granted!

IMO the thread has ALL been about the Massachusetts election,however it also gave an insight as to why people vote the way they do.{be it rational or not}

Religion also plays a part because NOBODY would get a seat in the USA if they declared themselves to be atheist!

rgrds

galwaydude

The democrats have themselves to blame for loosing the seat in MA. They had a poor candidate in Martha Coakley. Some of the stuff she stood for would make your skin crawl. She proceeded to run the same negative blame campaign as the republicans did when obama got in. Been a resident of MA i am glad that a level headed person like Scott Brown got in. He ran a good clean campaign.

I would consider myself a democrat if i was legally allowed to vote.

It is indeed in kick in the arse for abama and his administration who have alot of work to do to convince the ordinary folk here in america that they can move forward.

rightwingdub

galwaydude wrote: »

The democrats have themselves to blame for loosing the seat in MA. They had a poor candidate in Martha Coakley. Some of the stuff she stood for would make your skin crawl. She proceeded to run the same negative blame campaign as the republicans did when obama got in. Been a resident of MA i am glad that a level headed person like Scott Brown got in. He ran a good clean campaign.

I would consider myself a democrat if i was legally allowed to vote.

It is indeed in kick in the arse for abama and his administration who have alot of work to do to convince the ordinary folk here in america that they can move forward.

Brown represents the sensible moderate wing of the Republican party and the Republican party need to return to their pragmatic pre Reagan centrist roots if they are to have a chance of beating Obama in 2012, I consider myself a supporter of the moderate wing of the Republican party (small in number these days). On Coakley she was a dreadful candidate and to lose a senate seat to the GOP in a democratic stronghold is simply inexcusable.

I think Obama will get reelected in 2012 for a number of reasons:

1) The republicans are a mess at the moment dominated by far righ religious loonies.
2) The economy is likely to have recovered, expectaions amongst the American electorate are very low at the moment and if there are more jobs created by 2012 then Obama will win especially if the GOP choose a raging lunatic like Sarah Palin.
3) The Republicans (well the vast majority) fail to realise that 2012 will be very different from 1980, they need to have an IKe Eisenhower pragmatic style candidate who will win over moderate America once again not someone like Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee.

Manic Moran

3) The Republicans (well the vast majority) fail to realise that 2012 will be very different from 1980, they need to have an IKe Eisenhower pragmatic style candidate who will win over moderate America once again not someone like Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee

Sadly, I'm inclined to think this is a very prescient statement.

NTM

Lockstep

KOTJ here, sorry about the delay, got fed up waiting for my account to be fixed. I know it's going off topic but I do find this area fascinating; mods split it off maybe?

Manic Moran wrote: »

On the other hand, this whole 'turn the other cheek' business is not followed in any country that I'm aware of. By the strict interpretation, that would mean that our police forces should just identify and then the government publicly forgive all malfeasants. It's an argument in favour of the 'anti-vigilante' interpretation.

Indeed but it clearly goes against the "Eye for an eye" of the Old Testament. It seems to be an achknowledgement of violence begetting violence. Christianity has no problems with authority punishing transgressors; Luther's idea was that in a nation of Christians, turning the other cheek is acceptable, as it is the perfect and spiritual reaction. However, given the imperfections in society, secular law (a sword) needed to be swung for society. Not to hurt people but to help them, as a CHristian enforcing secular law did it for the benefits of everyone.
Catholics are similar enough, recognising the need for a temporal authority, rather than vigilanee justice.

Manic Moran wrote: »

You don't think that if he had an automatic aversion to swords, he might have suggested to his friend that really it's something he shouldn't have with him at some point earlier in their relationship? It's not as if he likely didn't notice it before. Bear in mind that if having the swords is supposed to be part of the Luke plan of their looking like criminals, it's probably fair to say that the chap who lopped off the soldier's ear seems to have rather missed that fundamental point of the memo.

No, I think that this is Jesus fulfilling the prophect and acting out the role of a criminal. Two swords for twelve apostles is hardly enough for self defence and must have been symbolic.
The man who chopped off the ear did indeed miss the memo; he wasn't an apostle and was immedediately admonished by Jesus;

Matthew 26 wrote:

50Jesus replied, "Friend, do what you came for."URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25-28&version=NIV#fen-NIV-24102e"]e[/URL Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

While self defence is clearly supported in Catholicism, it preaches proportionality. While bearing arms is not prohibited, their sale and production(Catechism 2316). It seems to be referring to them in an international context rather than private citizenry though. It does condone self defence by any means necessary or justify gun ownership.

Again, the Bible needs to read in a modern context. Catholicism previosuly supported the Death Penalty whereas nowadays;

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities that the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent"" The end quote comes from Evangelium Vitae 56 written by Pope John Paul II.

Manic Moran wrote: »

A common reading of that passage is basically "Don't resort to the sword unless you have to." Living by the sword is a choice you make. Reacting with the sword is another matter. Even God's representative on Earth (i.e. Pope John Paul II) has signed off on killing people when necessary.
NTM

The question is; when do you "have to" resort to the sword?
I believe you will find that JPII was extremely anti-death penalty. The above quote shows that. If you mean "killing in self defence", then yes, that is justified. It does not justify owning guns or the death penalty.

Manic Moran

Out of interest, why lump 'owning guns' in with the death penalty, which is more retributional, and not as 'self defence'? After all, a firearm is a perfectly suitable tool for the latter.

NTM

Lockstep

Sorry about the late reply; just had my account reactivated.

I was lumping in owning guns as that is the nearest modern equivalient to owning swords (as in the Bible verse you quoted)