Pope warns against undermining U.N.- nice speech

Thats not the point i wanted to make and you know it north, but i see where it could be miscontrued as me aupporting it. I shopuld have worded it better and no im not weasling out of anything. What i meant to say is that the pope also knows the USA and a few other countries have way too much power over the UN decisions.
Hows that?
Is that clear enough.

The point is everyone else here knew what iw as focusing on yet you and stox kept insisting that i supported the full view. I have never weasled out of anything and i see no reason to start using deception. Like RP who is a great role model i choose to state the facts.

The biggest fact here is there are only a few countries basically controlling the UN who choose to follow the UN's mandates when it best serves its governments policies. Our government being one example in that lie of a war we started in IRAQ

 

You know, I do have to say - between being called a "psychotic class A nutjob" by Guerilla, further stating my "only purpose is to 'harass' and 'twist' the views of [himself] others," and, after the fact, hearing from you, Guerilla, and at least one other, a mere "you know what I meant" in reply, I have to admit I am getting a bit sick of certain folks writing one thing and then denying what they wrote when called on to deal squarely with their position.

The very title of your thread is POPE WARNS AGAINST UNDERMINING U.N.. Was there something else you meant beside, POPE WARNS AGAINST UNDERMINING U.N.?

I'm going to ask a direct question:

Right or wrong?

 

As i said about 4 times now i supported his view that there is too much power in the un concentrated in governments that support lies of wars. Just because i stated the whole article or part of the article didnt mean that i supported both points. As im trying to point out for the 5th time i supported this view only.
This view only
lol

 

Utterly inconceivable that you would make the attempt, since you very clearly wrote:

These are your words, and your quote of the Pope's words. You chose the words to write, and to include, and no one else posted this in your stead. And now you completely reverse yourself in the face of the obvious disconnect between your original post and RP's platform.

And some folks have the temerity to say:

I absolutely, wholly, dispute this is the point you were trying to make, since what you wrote is contradictory to what you are now saying.

I am not building up a post count - if I stop at 4000+, I'd be quite content - I am calling into question your inconsistency, as the idea of globalism is central to the political debate respecting your candidate, and my beliefs, for one, in the benefit, even requirement, of international cooperation and agency in the modern world.

What, exactly, was the Pope "right on" about, then? Implying the U.S. f&^ked this one up, the Iraq War? This is the limit of your applauding the Pope, here, when you wrote:

If so, then why did you praise this quote from the Pope - which literally states a strong position of support for the U.N., as well as interventionism, another position anathema to RP?

 

Yeah, really the best thing you can do is disengage, because the stalker is relentless in his attacks.

I, as many others I am sure, understand what you meant.

Btw, I'm not catholic, but have to say, I really like Benedict thus far. He's been on the right side of several issues in my opinion.

 

Your right, i guess i should blame myself for answering him back lol. Yea i liked what benedict also had to say ... so far. I just hope he keeps an open dialect and doesnt pass judgment on other religions and i will be very satisfied.

 

Yes, yes, stalker, psychotic, nut job, etc. If your manner and methods are illustrative, it apparently provides some real comfort to the two of you to giggle together when questions prove too difficult to answer, in good faith.

Glad to see the folks who most loudly proclaim "principle over compromise" are also, it seems to me, among the most vociferous in calling a mayday of "oh, crap - I've got a serious consistency problem here....bail, bail! Insult, insult!" whenever convenient.

Well done, lads. You've done your candidate proud.

 

NPT's keen logical mind is like a sharp battlesword, it cuts everyone without compassion.

Sometimes, i think it turns back and cuts NPT himself.

 

Actually, Lightless, I prefer to aim for the Sword of Fudo-Myoo. On myself, on others.

At any rate, I do grow really sick of people saying something, then running when the literal something is mirrored back. In this case, an RP supporter applauded the Pope over his support for U.N. aims and missions. It raises a "huh?" from this poster. If you, too, have a problem with the question, perhaps you could say why.

 

Some people are inconsistent in their views and self contradicting. Sometimes we eat our cake while having it. Merely human ......

Sometimes people don't know what they are standing for ........

Does supporting RP mean that you aren't entitled to air and support your personal opinions and viewpoints?

 

Of course. Please let me know if I have ever said otherwise.

Just as I am free to ask how one can support RP and the Pope's comments when the two are diametrically opposed.

It's even possible to discuss these issues without turning to the compost heap, naming others "psychotic, class A Nutjobs whose only purpose on the forum is to harass, harass, harass."

It's even possible to defend one's candidate with tact, respect, good faith - all the usuals.

Did you have a substantive contribution here, Lightless?

 

Like the Zebra has black and white stripes both on it's body, some of us can support diametrically opposed things. It just is .....

Certainly it's possible. But some people just want to air their opinion, and are not looking for a discussion.
Strange things happen when you give people the things they aren't looking for.

Just a few random thoughts that's all. Observations and thoughts on human behaviour.

 

Lightless, I will not engage with you in discussing my motives for posting on this forum. If you care to spend your time making the attempt to divine my intents as to why and how I engage with others here, I'm sorry to say, this is really not your concern and your continuing to do so, over discussing the merits of threads is your problem, not mine. You may want to contact Guerilla for some tips on how to paint my presence here, as he's worked fairly hard at it:

 

Well, yes. Guilty is charged. I am interested in learning about people and their motivations and their patterns of thought. As a dabbler in human psychology.

And you are a quite interesting subject
No, it's not a case of big brother watching you and your every move.

And if you somehow felt that way, i am in no way looking to undermine you either.

 

Lightless, I'm endlessly curious about human motives and inner life too, brother (or sister - sorry, don't know that you've disclosed your gender). In addition to being a tactical defense and martial arts instructor, I was an actor for much of my adult life and a writer now, and our species consumes me; if I could die with one accolade, it would be for someone to inscribe "humanist" on my humble flagstone.

I just suppose, particularly given the kinds of comments you see above, it gets old to deal with motives or attributions of "inner character" over what is actually being discussed. Also, particularly, when many of the folks (I am not including you here) such as you see above regularly scream it is everyone else who is avoiding issues, etc.

It's also a useless thing to do on the web, or e-mail, or any virtual realm, to divine intents, as the plethora of obvious misreads followed by "oh, sorry, thought you meant..." attest. Here, by way of example, is my pal Guerilla again, who has decided the exchange of words on the forum warrants a test of adolescent-styled manhood in an after-school fight, so there, and there.

(Which I find incredibly naive, reminiscent of 5th grade, since as anyone who does come from the street knows, it is hard enough to know whether the other guy at the end of surly glass of beer is air, or trained and experienced substance, until the reality meets the moment and truth is told. I don't play games with fighting over pride; I have rarely wupped ass, but when I have, it has been for good and necessary cause, and words on DP don't quite measure up to wasting my time stomping someone's ass to pulp. So, for the record, dear DP community, despite Guerilla's stamped-feet request, no, I won't be PM'ing my home address to him so he can be fly out to be owned in the real as well as the virtual world.).

My point, in other words, man can one get it wrong when reading the character of another on the web. Anyway - cheers.

 

Yes indeed. Cheers to you too.

P.S I bet your biography will make an interesting read.

 

I liken my biography so far to pieces of colored glass. Each one holds some light and personal interest, so I do want to give it attention, but joining them together in a narrative is a bit of a climb. Bit of a wanderer, to put it mildly, across many lives in one life.

From my experience, anyone's biography would make an interesting read. I am always fascinated to discover the surprises in people that belie first impressions.

 

I have to agree with NPT on his analysis.

Frankly, when I read Pingpong's explanation, I though Pingpong miswrote what he said in stating that the Pope might consider the UN as a lesser of 2 evils. I would have thought Pingpong himself considered the UN the lesser of 2 evils with regard to current world conditions and no UN at all.

Exactly what would the Pope compare the UN to within Catholic perspective that makes it a lesser of 2 evils. The Catholic perspective has no opinion on the existance of governments, nations, or a world body representing many nations, as far as I know.

I can see where the former pope could look at birth control versus the threat of massive death from HIV and consider the effort to limit death through the usage of birth control/condoms as a logical lesser of 2 evils choice within Catholic perspective. Saving lots of lives in the face of an enormous tragedy certainly outweighs the usage of birth control/condoms in my eyes also.

But clearly the existance of the UN and the perspective of RP are in stark contrast. And within that regard I have seen nothing that reflects RP looking at current issues and considering aspects of the UN as ever being a "lesser of 2 evils".

He is adament in wanting the US out of the UN.

 

Is it a requirement of someone who supports a candidate to support his platform 100%? Or is it rational to expect that person to support positions 100% of the time?

Is the Pope's position compatible with Ron Paul's? No more than PingPong's catholicism is compatible with Ron Paul's protestant beliefs.

You either get it, or you don't. I think Ping gets it.

 

Of course not. And all of this would have long ago been cleared up, if Ping believed this way, and as Guerilla is now, after the fact, attempting to portray, by:

And a gentlemanly, "ah, thanks for clearing it up - respect your position" would have been the reply.

But Ping isn't saying this, and neither did Guerilla.

Both maintain there is no disconnect between Ping's original post and its statements, which at least as I and several others read them, are statements in support of the U.N., and his support for RP. Both have attributed my asking after this as some kind of "stalker" behavior by a "psychotic" member, to use Guerilla's term for this poster.

And I, and others, have to conclude that this is an impossible disconnect, on this issue, as the two are mutually exclusive.

Hence, the questions asked.