The tax bill: What happened to family values and pro-life principles?

[guillaumeb]

From the opinion article:

Abraham Lincoln said, “If you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”
Sure enough, now that Republicans are in power with majorities in both chambers of Congress, the cabinet and the presidency, the true character of the GOP and its leaders is increasingly clear...........

Republican politicians have chosen greed, racism and hypocrisy rather than “family values” and “pro-life” principles we’ve been hearing about for years.

To read more:

http://religionnews.com/2017/12/01/the-tax-bill-what-happened-to-family-values-and-pro-life-principles/

As some GOP politicians admitted, the donor class spoke, or threatened, if you prefer, to stop donating money to their favorite GOP politicians if their was no huge tax cut bill passed. And the GOP, putting cash above country, obliged with a huge gift to the 1% and a huge slap for the bottom 90%.

[MFM008]

1. Down the crapper

........

[guillaumeb]

2. Money and morality are synonymous for the GOP. eom

[trotsky]

3. Simple.

You just redefine the words to your liking.

You do it all the time, g-man. You can't deny others that right.

[guillaumeb]

7. Simple indeed.

[Act_of_Reparation]

4. Maybe family values and pro-life principals are metaphors.

Maybe they aren't supposed to be taken literally.

[Angry Dragon]

5. very good response............I saw what you did there

[Voltaire2]

6. you need to read up on the prosperity gospel variation on christian ideology

And don't assume that this outlook is new, it has deep Calvinist roots.

[guillaumeb]

8. I am aware of it. eom

[Voltaire2]

9. well then you should be aware that there is nothing "unchristian" about what the GOP is doing.

You might not agree with their particular brand of christianity, but it has a long history and is as valid as any other.

[guillaumeb]

10. I never used the word "unChristian". What I DID say was:

As some GOP politicians admitted, the donor class spoke, or threatened, if you prefer, to stop donating money to their favorite GOP politicians if their was no huge tax cut bill passed. And the GOP, putting cash above country, obliged with a huge gift to the 1% and a huge slap for the bottom 90%.

I looked for the word unchristian and could not find it.

[marylandblue]

11. This where you usually get confusing

The implication is that this behavior is unchristian. Now it's possible you didn't mean it that way, so then someone asks you, "Do consider this behavior to be unchristian?" Then instead of answering "yes" or "no" you find a million ways to avoid answering. But maybe you'll surprise us and answer that question now.

[Voltaire2]

12. Otherwise why would this have been posted in the religion group?

[guillaumeb]

13. Perhaps voltaire should have been specific,

instead of phrasing it as it was phrased.

[trotsky]

14. Then answer my question.

Do you consider the GOP's behavior to be un-Christian?

[guillaumeb]

15. You never actually asked that question.

Or any other in this particular thread.

But to answer your question, now that it has been asked, I consider this type of behavior to be unchristian by my perception of the message of Jesus.

[trotsky]

17. I never claimed to.

I only asked it just now.

So I'm not sure what the point of your reframing was. But whatever.

Thank you for your answer that confirms their behavior IS Christian. Their interpretation is just as valid as yours, and you don't get to define the religion for anyone else.

[guillaumeb]

18. You misframed once again.

You said:

Thank you for your answer that confirms their behavior IS Christian. Their interpretation is just as valid as yours, and you don't get to define the religion for anyone else.

Given that I have never attempted to define Christianity except for myself, you are once again attempting to claim that I have done so. And, interestingly enough, you never actually cite any particular posts of mine that would support your charge.

So speaking of reframing, your response is an excellent example of the tactic.

[trotsky]

20. It's only reframing if you are saying my statement is incorrect.

Is my conclusion incorrect? Is the GOP's interpretation of Christianity less valid than yours?

THIS IS GONNA BE AWESOME.

Please proceed.

[guillaumeb]

21. My response went to your attempt at misframing.

And your refusal, or inability, to sustain your claim.

Prove your claim.

[trotsky]

22. Gladly!

You: "I consider this type of behavior to be unchristian by my perception of the message of Jesus."

Since you have in the past admitted you can only define Christianity for yourself, and no one else, this statement confirms that you believe the GOP's behavior is Christian by their perception of the message of Jesus, again BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DEFINE IT FOR THEM.

They say it's Christian for them, end of story.

[guillaumeb]

23. #17

Your actual post:

Thank you for your answer that confirms their behavior IS Christian. Their interpretation is just as valid as yours, and you don't get to define the religion for anyone else.

I bolded the relevant portion.

Given that I have never claimed to define what is Christianity, except for myself, there is no reason to include the bolded portion in your response.

But you have in the past insisted that I am claiming to define Christianity for others, so including the bolded portion supports your earlier mis-framing and makes it look like you are correcting me or catching me in a misstatement.

[trotsky]

24. Ah but I *have* caught you.

You are trying, oh so hard, to have this both ways. But you understand that you can't, and so you squirm, exactly as you are doing now. Cue the McDonald's jingle, cuz I'm lovin' it.

[guillaumeb]

25. Okay, have it your way if it pleases you so much.

You are convinced that you have caught me, so in your reality, you have caught me.

Congratulations on your catch.

[trotsky]

31. Oh yeah!

[marylandblue]

27. I'd give this one to guillameb

He said he believes it's unchristian. That should be good enough, since he didn't try to evade the simple question. He just adding his usual quirk that his definitions are for him only. That's a separate issue.

[guillaumeb]

30. Thank you. oem

[trotsky]

32. Oh yeah but here's the funny part:

He also believes that they aren't following the true message of Jesus. But he can't define Christianity for anyone else. He *knows* they're wrong, but he's made it so he can't actually say it. Truthfully I just like watching him squirm thanks to the pickle he put himself in.

[guillaumeb]

33. Once again, you have demonstrated that you insist on defining

what I believe. Congratulations on exemplifying what you claim to oppose.

[trotsky]

34. Thank you!

You could deal me the ultimate humiliation by explaining exactly what it is you DO believe.

I bet you can't.

[guillaumeb]

35. No, I will simply recognize, as you apparently do,

that you are attempting to define what others believe so that you can actually argue against yourself.

[trotsky]

37. I knew I'd win that bet. n/t

[marylandblue]

36. He is kind of funny like that

It's like a caricature of the moral relativism that atheists are often charged with.

[trotsky]

38. Hadn't thought of it like that, but you're right! n/t

[marylandblue]

16. Perhaps you should just answer questions that are asked

Rather than worry about other people's phraseology.

[guillaumeb]

19. Perhaps people should ask the question instead of attempting to score points.

Agreed?

[marylandblue]

26. I see you answered the question, so, yeah, thanks

[left-of-center2012]

28. They sold their souls to Wall Street

[guillaumeb]

29. I heard, and at this point I have no proof,

but I heard that the asking price was 30 pieces of silver per soul.