QueenZone discussion #787664

<font color=lime>KillerKing840 wrote: link link link The Dark Side is powerful...

<font color=lime>KillerKing840 wrote: link link

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: link ...one more reason why I am vehemently against virtually everything the catholic church stands for. Discuss.

freddieistheloveofmylife_89 wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: link ...one more reason why I am vehemently against virtually everything the catholic church stands for. Discuss.

What do you really know about the Catholic church? Are you Catholic? Or do you just get your knowledge from the media puts out? It is ignorance to judge a group of over a billion people on the acts of a few. This kind of shit happens in every religion, and every group; like abusive parents for instance, yet the Catholic church is the only one to be showcased by the media. They are sick, sick men, there is no doubting that, but we are not all like that. Some of us don't even like the Pope that much. People like me. Besides, who cares if you don't approve of our religion? (Our- mine and a billion of my brothers and sisters.) We humans, and we mess up. Just like everybody else.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: link ...one more reason why I am vehemently against virtually everything the catholic church stands for. Discuss.

<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: link ...one more reason why I am vehemently against virtually everything the catholic church stands for. Discuss.

Wait 20 years, and the same stories will surface regarding protestants.

SONIA DORIS<br><font size=1>The Cranky wrote:

<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: link ...one more reason why I am vehemently against virtually everything the catholic church stands for. Discuss.

Wait 20 years, and the same stories will surface regarding protestants.

and not only...

<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: link ...one more reason why I am vehemently against virtually everything the catholic church stands for. Discuss.

Wait 20 years, and the same stories will surface regarding protestants.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: link ...one more reason why I am vehemently against virtually everything the catholic church stands for. Discuss.

Wait 20 years, and the same stories will surface regarding protestants.

It's not a matter of religion... Pedophiles come on all creeds... Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Atheists, you name it.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: link ...one more reason why I am vehemently against virtually everything the catholic church stands for. Discuss.

Wait 20 years, and the same stories will surface regarding protestants.

It's not a matter of religion... Pedophiles come on all creeds... Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Atheists, you name it.

freddieistheloveofmylife_89 wrote: What do you really know about the Catholic church? Are you Catholic? Or do you just get your knowledge from the media puts out? It is ignorance to judge a group of over a billion people on the acts of a few.

<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote: Yes, but it's a tad difficult for an atheist to rape children systematically and have them shut up due to indoctrination and dogma, saying the priest is right, and you shut the fuck up about what happens within the tightly-shut community, isn't it?

Mr.Jingles wrote: Who needs the Catholic church to fight AIDS in Africa? That would be like expecting Paris Hilton to help fight poverty.

<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote: Who needs the Catholic church to fight AIDS in Africa? That would be like expecting Paris Hilton to help fight poverty.

The problem is that millions of Africans are devout Catholics; they will listen to Ratzi the Nazi regardless of what he says.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote: Who needs the Catholic church to fight AIDS in Africa? That would be like expecting Paris Hilton to help fight poverty.

The problem is that millions of Africans are devout Catholics; they will listen to Ratzi the Nazi regardless of what he says.

Once again, that's a load of bullshit to justify your point of view, Caspar. First of all, I come from a country where 95% of the people are Catholic, and probably less than 5% of those people agree completely agree with what the Catholic church says. My grandmother happens to be the most devout Catholic person I know in my family. She goes to church every single Sunday, and prays the rosary all the time. Yet, she agrees with the right to use euthanasia and most of the time she votes for moderate liberals. When the stories of child abuse by priests came on the news, she agreed that if proven guilty they should be prosecuted like anybody else, and the church shouldn't cover up any evidence. She also agrees that a lot of people twist religion in order to push their own agenda. So you see, Caspar. Even Catholics are not as narrow minded as you think they are. I suggest you get your facts straight before making accusations based on generalizations.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: a pope decided that would be a good idea, and I don't think the pope has a hotline to God.

<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: a pope decided that would be a good idea, and I don't think the pope has a hotline to God.

One slight problem: in the gospels, Jesus told Peter he'd get 'the keys to the kingdom of heaven', and that whatever Peter would make law on earth, God would make law in heaven. Thus, the pope decides, God has to follow.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Every time this happens I can't help but think that maybe if they let the priest marry this wouldn't be such a big deal. Granted, with pedophiles it wouldn't do much good to let them marry, but one does wonder how many turn to pedophilia after years of sexual repression.

Not letting them marry is a load of crap anyway...a pope decided that would be a good idea, and I don't think the pope has a hotline to God. That's why marriage was ordained...for those not strong enough to remain celibate.

And then, after all of these pedophile cases, their anti-gay policies and forcing men to remain celibate (because heaven forbid women could preach) they wonder why their numbers are dropping....DUH!

That all true, but only if you accept everything you are force fed. Let's face the facts here. The Bible was put together (at least the stuff relating to Jesus) hundreds of years after his death. Sure they had criteria for what you had to do to get into the book, but people set those criteria, and since people are fallible than the method they used was fallible. You can't build a castle on a foundation of sand. The pope is also a man, and therefore fallible.

In the very earliest church, there wans't a pope at all. The only head of the church was God, and there was only a Bishope of Rome, just like there were Bishops of other major cities. The Bishop in Rome came into power and precedence after the EMPORER of the "Holy" Roman Empire decided that it was more convient that way politically.

As for the Pope, his role was established by Paul, who had a mysoginistic attitude towards women and desperately hated the act of sex....thus the not allowing priests to marry.

If you want some real, empirical evidence of what the early Church and the office of the Pope was like, Read "The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason".

<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote: Who needs the Catholic church to fight AIDS in Africa? That would be like expecting Paris Hilton to help fight poverty.

The problem is that millions of Africans are devout Catholics; they will listen to Ratzi the Nazi regardless of what he says.

Once again, that's a load of bullshit to justify your point of view, Caspar. First of all, I come from a country where 95% of the people are Catholic, and probably less than 5% of those people agree completely agree with what the Catholic church says. My grandmother happens to be the most devout Catholic person I know in my family. She goes to church every single Sunday, and prays the rosary all the time. Yet, she agrees with the right to use euthanasia and most of the time she votes for moderate liberals. When the stories of child abuse by priests came on the news, she agreed that if proven guilty they should be prosecuted like anybody else, and the church shouldn't cover up any evidence. She also agrees that a lot of people twist religion in order to push their own agenda. So you see, Caspar. Even Catholics are not as narrow minded as you think they are. I suggest you get your facts straight before making accusations based on generalizations.

I have a mother who comes from Africa and experienced this first-hand. Whoops. I think I'm qualified. Religion is a very important aspect of life there, and especially amongst the poor, a large majority, almost all of them black and poorly educated. The only things they hear of the world beyond the borders of their community comes from the priest, who echoes Rome. Of course there are exceptions, but few and far between.

<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote: One slight problem: in the gospels, Jesus told Peter he'd get 'the keys to the kingdom of heaven', and that whatever Peter would make law on earth, God would make law in heaven.

Farlander wrote: If we raised our children to be good Catholics, to live lives of love and charity, not to be selfish, and to explore fully the will of God in their lives, we would have plenty of priests.

The Church has no right to ordain women. This is not a law that can be changed; it is a matter of the nature of the sacrament of Holy Orders.

If the Catholic Church is not of divine origin, then what does it matter whether or not they have married priests or anything else? The whole thing is worthless in that case, so why waste time discussing how to fix it?

Paul McCartney Junior wrote: You know what my favorite source of stories about sex and violence is? The old testament.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

Paul McCartney Junior wrote: You know what my favorite source of stories about sex and violence is? The old testament.

Haha, yeah... in Genesis, Jacob is what we would call in modern terms a "slut". He knocks up four or five women in two pages.

So you're saying if everyone is indoctrinated with your beliefs which include discrediting relativism and free choice, then we'd all be so much better off?

In other words, you're saying there's no alternative theology or philosophy can possibly match or better the catholic ones? That's just plain ignorance of the world around you.

Here's the short of it: if we raise our children without monotheistic religion, then they will grow up to be emotionally and spiritually self-sufficient, rather than feeling the need to rely on an unearthly deity. They will grow up to seek justice and do their best to solve the problems of the world all on their own, like adults, without the need of a parent-like being in the sky.

And for the record, this world does not need "charity" as you suggested. Charity is like a band-aid; it runs out. Justice, on the other hand, is long-term solution to global issues. This should be fairly common knowledge by now.

As for the "will of God"... I've really had enough of people who use the word "God" to describe something or someone that is an absolute, as if we are required to act according to such a will of a such being. The idea of God is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. Until this God you speak of is proven to be an absolute, then you people have no business cramming it down anyone's throat. It's a philosophy, and your philosophy, not mine.

That's only if you choose to believe they are orders. One possible alternative is to consider the possibility that these may not be laws. You and your church are choosing to treat men different than women. Nobody has forced you.

That is exactly the reason to discuss. It is a very valid discussion in this day and age. Today's world questions the validity of the church. Day after day, the world of rationality is winning people from the church. If one is aware of modern scholarship, i

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote: One slight problem: in the gospels, Jesus told Peter he'd get 'the keys to the kingdom of heaven', and that whatever Peter would make law on earth, God would make law in heaven.

And this is all based on the wrong meaning of the word "heaven".

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Time to drop this debate, I think. You can't have a logical debate with people who are brainwashed into not accepting logic

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Time to drop this debate, I think. You can't have a logical debate with people who are brainwashed into not accepting logic

While Farlander is a very good and tactful communicator, I just don't see eye to eye with him 90% of the time. It's impossible to debate a topic with someone when both parties have a completely different starting point. CMU, check your email!

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Checked my e-mail. Nothing there. Did you send me something? Try the cmuhistorygirl@queenzone.com one if you did.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: There is no obligation to A) rescue a person whom a crime is being committed against, or B) notify the authorities upon witnessing or hearing of a crime that has been committed. There is absolutely nothing disgusting about the actions of the bishop, only that of the priest. To think otherwise is ignorant. As to the intitial content of this thread, there is nothing unusual about the Catholic Church forgiving someone who has committed a wrong. They are not playing "favorites" with their clergy. To forgive is a much more mature thing to do than to blindly dispense one's own view of justice. It's the local authorities job to deal with "crime and punishment," not the Catholic Church's.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: There is no obligation to A) rescue a person whom a crime is being committed against, or B) notify the authorities upon witnessing or hearing of a crime that has been committed. There is absolutely nothing disgusting about the actions of the bishop, only that of the priest. To think otherwise is ignorant. As to the intitial content of this thread, there is nothing unusual about the Catholic Church forgiving someone who has committed a wrong. They are not playing "favorites" with their clergy. To forgive is a much more mature thing to do than to blindly dispense one's own view of justice. It's the local authorities job to deal with "crime and punishment," not the Catholic Church's.

For once, I completely disagree with you. Sexually abusing children is a crime, and anyone who does it should be punished. There is no gray area. If a friend of yours was raping children, I'd like to think you'd report them to the police. If priests are horny because their job requires them to be celibate, then they should quit and enter any other profession which doesn't disallow them to have sex with anyone within legal limits.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: There is no obligation to A) rescue a person whom a crime is being committed against, or B) notify the authorities upon witnessing or hearing of a crime that has been committed. There is absolutely nothing disgusting about the actions of the bishop, only that of the priest. To think otherwise is ignorant. As to the intitial content of this thread, there is nothing unusual about the Catholic Church forgiving someone who has committed a wrong. They are not playing "favorites" with their clergy. To forgive is a much more mature thing to do than to blindly dispense one's own view of justice. It's the local authorities job to deal with "crime and punishment," not the Catholic Church's.

For once, I completely disagree with you. Sexually abusing children is a crime, and anyone who does it should be punished. There is no gray area. If a friend of yours was raping children, I'd like to think you'd report them to the police. If priests are horny because their job requires them to be celibate, then they should quit and enter any other profession which doesn't disallow them to have sex with anyone within legal limits.

I agree with you so far as "sexually abusing children is a crime" and "anyone who does it should be punished." This is a terrible predatory crime that is wholly inexcusable. They should be punished terribly, but they should only be punished by the law, which exists to A) protect our rights (those of the children), and B) dispense justice (to punish the criminal priests). It would be morally correct to report a child molester to the authorities, but it would be morally repugnant to mandate it by law, as a clear violation of our negative liberties. There are also many psychological factors that go into reporting someone to the authorities. To knowingly place someone you know and care for into a situation where they will be punished is very hard to do, no matter what they have done. All in all, I would never dare to criticize someone for not reporting a crime. However, if they were to actively engage in covering it up, then they definitely deserve whatever criticism (and punishment) they receive. Remember, the perpetrators in this situation are the priests and only the priests. Those who cover up the evidence, while a secondary crime in nature to the priests', are also worthy of blame. However, to censure the entire organization for lack of punishment is wrong, especially when forgiveness and non-punishment is a strongly-held tenet of this organization. If you should censure anyone, you should the judicial authorities that do not more strongly enforce the law, as it is their, and ONLY THEIR, responsibility. Or criticize the law for being less harsh. Ultimately, punishment is under the complete authority of the law. Do not get me wrong, your disgust in the situation is not a bad thing, and any morally correct person would feel this way. But there are just some technicalities that I cannot agree with.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: There is no obligation to A) rescue a person whom a crime is being committed against, or B) notify the authorities upon witnessing or hearing of a crime that has been committed. There is absolutely nothing disgusting about the actions of the bishop, only that of the priest. To think otherwise is ignorant. As to the intitial content of this thread, there is nothing unusual about the Catholic Church forgiving someone who has committed a wrong. They are not playing "favorites" with their clergy. To forgive is a much more mature thing to do than to blindly dispense one's own view of justice. It's the local authorities job to deal with "crime and punishment," not the Catholic Church's.

For once, I completely disagree with you. Sexually abusing children is a crime, and anyone who does it should be punished. There is no gray area. If a friend of yours was raping children, I'd like to think you'd report them to the police. If priests are horny because their job requires them to be celibate, then they should quit and enter any other profession which doesn't disallow them to have sex with anyone within legal limits.

I agree with you so far as "sexually abusing children is a crime" and "anyone who does it should be punished." This is a terrible predatory crime that is wholly inexcusable. They should be punished terribly, but they should only be punished by the law, which exists to A) protect our rights (those of the children), and B) dispense justice (to punish the criminal priests). It would be morally correct to report a child molester to the authorities, but it would be morally repugnant to mandate it by law, as a clear violation of our negative liberties. There are also many psychological factors that go into reporting someone to the authorities. To knowingly place someone you know and care for into a situation where they will be punished is very hard to do, no matter what they have done. All in all, I would never dare to criticize someone for not reporting a crime. However, if they were to actively engage in covering it up, then they definitely deserve whatever criticism (and punishment) they receive. Remember, the perpetrators in this situation are the priests and only the priests. Those who cover up the evidence, while a secondary crime in nature to the priests', are also worthy of blame. However, to censure the entire organization for lack of punishment is wrong, especially when forgiveness and non-punishment is a strongly-held tenet of this organization. If you should censure anyone, you should the judicial authorities that do not more strongly enforce the law, as it is their, and ONLY THEIR, responsibility. Or criticize the law for being less harsh. Ultimately, punishment is under the complete authority of the law. Do not get me wrong, your disgust in the situation is not a bad thing, and any morally correct person would feel this way. But there are just some technicalities that I cannot agree with.

You are missing the point here, MusicMan. The Bishop also committed a crime. There are 4 sectors of society in the US who are required to report even suspicions of child abuse (sexual or otherwise) to the authorities the MINUTE the suspicions arise. These sectors are:
1) Educators (teachers, school counselors and administrators)
2) Medical Personelle (doctors, nurses, lab techs, paramedics, etc.)
3) Clergy (priests, nuns, monks, bisops, pastors, etc.)
4) Police and law enforcement (police, judges, lawyers, etc)
This law exists to try and remove the child from harm's way as soon as possible. For example, my mom is a nurse

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Thanks for the confirmation, Lisser. I was hoping someone else would know about that law, so I couldn't be accused to making it up (since I don't actually know the name of the law). I wasn't trying to be a witch to anyone, just educating others to the fact that both the priest and bishop broke the law.

The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote: I think what they should really do is revise the vatican law about priests not marrying. While this is a conjecture, in protestant churches, the pastors are allowed to marry and I (personally) havent heard a case from one. I do admit that I could be radically misinformed there but I think it was in Sound Of Music where it was said "Love between a man and woman is holy too"

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote: I think what they should really do is revise the vatican law about priests not marrying. While this is a conjecture, in protestant churches, the pastors are allowed to marry and I (personally) havent heard a case from one. I do admit that I could be radically misinformed there but I think it was in Sound Of Music where it was said "Love between a man and woman is holy too"

That was actually discussed earlier in the thread. I totally agree with you here. It's just another way the Catholic Church treats women as second class citizens.

The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote: I think what they should really do is revise the vatican law about priests not marrying. While this is a conjecture, in protestant churches, the pastors are allowed to marry and I (personally) havent heard a case from one. I do admit that I could be radically misinformed there but I think it was in Sound Of Music where it was said "Love between a man and woman is holy too"

That was actually discussed earlier in the thread. I totally agree with you here. It's just another way the Catholic Church treats women as second class citizens.

But its not fair to judge every priest by the actions of few; Ive been to several churches and the priests I know are decent people and they drink beer and watch football like every other guy in the church. Dont get me wrong, I in no way condone child molesters, I think they should be shot; but we shouldnt let this develop into a stereotype because then we're just as bad as saying black people steal electronics or Queen fans are queers

The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote: Touching on what Music Man said, christianity is all about forgiveness If these pedophile priests get convicted (and they had better), they should be able to pay their debt to society, probably go through the sacraments again and if the pope or higher cardinal persay can absolve them, they should be able to be refrocked

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote: Touching on what Music Man said, christianity is all about forgiveness If these pedophile priests get convicted (and they had better), they should be able to pay their debt to society, probably go through the sacraments again and if the pope or higher cardinal persay can absolve them, they should be able to be refrocked

Are you kidding? That's like letting pedophile teachers go back into a kindergarden classroom after a while! Pedophelia is a disease, and it has one of the highest recidivism rates of all crimes. Even pedophiles will admit they can't be cured...they just control the urge. There is a vast difference between Forgiving the person and making it easier for them to be tempted to do it again. Forgive them, that's fine, they should be forgiven. But for heaven's sake....Don't let them be alone around kids again!!! If you do, it should be on your concious that you allowed another kid to be molested.

The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote: Touching on what Music Man said, christianity is all about forgiveness If these pedophile priests get convicted (and they had better), they should be able to pay their debt to society, probably go through the sacraments again and if the pope or higher cardinal persay can absolve them, they should be able to be refrocked

Are you kidding? That's like letting pedophile teachers go back into a kindergarden classroom after a while! Pedophelia is a disease, and it has one of the highest recidivism rates of all crimes. Even pedophiles will admit they can't be cured...they just control the urge. There is a vast difference between Forgiving the person and making it easier for them to be tempted to do it again. Forgive them, that's fine, they should be forgiven. But for heaven's sake....Don't let them be alone around kids again!!! If you do, it should be on your concious that you allowed another kid to be molested.

Sorry, I should've said rather than implied that they would have jail time and therapy

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote: Touching on what Music Man said, christianity is all about forgiveness If these pedophile priests get convicted (and they had better), they should be able to pay their debt to society, probably go through the sacraments again and if the pope or higher cardinal persay can absolve them, they should be able to be refrocked

Are you kidding? That's like letting pedophile teachers go back into a kindergarden classroom after a while! Pedophelia is a disease, and it has one of the highest recidivism rates of all crimes. Even pedophiles will admit they can't be cured...they just control the urge. There is a vast difference between Forgiving the person and making it easier for them to be tempted to do it again. Forgive them, that's fine, they should be forgiven. But for heaven's sake....Don't let them be alone around kids again!!! If you do, it should be on your concious that you allowed another kid to be molested.

Sorry, I should've said rather than implied that they would have jail time and therapy

Nah, I got your point. Jail time and therepy definatly, but you can't "cure" pedophelia any more than you can "cure" homosexuality....no amount of jail or therepy can do that. All you can do is control the urge, and when one is fighting a battle like that it's better to keep them away from the temptation to loose control. You wouldn't offer a beer to a recovering alcoholic, would you? Same principal applies. No offense intended.

The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote: plus the church would claim its rightful spot as the moral leaders of the world

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote: plus the church would claim its rightful spot as the moral leaders of the world

Anyone in their right mind knows that'll never happen. Far too much of the seccular world disagrees with the church on most issues. And thank goodness for that.

The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote: plus the church would claim its rightful spot as the moral leaders of the world

Anyone in their right mind knows that'll never happen. Far too much of the seccular world disagrees with the church on most issues. And thank goodness for that.

I do agree with being secular but think, if someone running for congress or president would say "Yeah, Im egnostic(sp) at best, I really dont believe in anything" They would never get elected

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote: plus the church would claim its rightful spot as the moral leaders of the world

Anyone in their right mind knows that'll never happen. Far too much of the seccular world disagrees with the church on most issues. And thank goodness for that.

I do agree with being secular but think, if someone running for congress or president would say "Yeah, Im egnostic(sp) at best, I really dont believe in anything" They would never get elected

It's spelled agnostic, and what you said is not necessarily true. While he was not elected to Congress or Presidency, former governor Jesse Ventura has always been an athiest.

The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote: He's a wrestler, it was like when Hogan tried to get the democratic nomination and the whole "Jessi the Mind Ventura" thing isnt nearly as good as his old one

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote: He's a wrestler, it was like when Hogan tried to get the democratic nomination and the whole "Jessi the Mind Ventura" thing isnt nearly as good as his old one

And Ronald Reagan was an actor. Are you saying that if you had a previous career in show business that you are unqualified as a politician? Politics isn't just for lawyers and businessmen. Ventura, despite being controversial and outspoken in his views (something we desperately need in politics) has maintained some of the highest approval ratings for a governor in United States history. This, even in spite of his small margin of victory for the governorship. He has very definite and reasonable political convictions that he isn't afraid to communicate to the public. I don't know about you, but I think this is the kind of thing that we need in politics.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote: He's a wrestler, it was like when Hogan tried to get the democratic nomination and the whole "Jessi the Mind Ventura" thing isnt nearly as good as his old one

And Ronald Reagan was an actor. Are you saying that if you had a previous career in show business that you are unqualified as a politician? Politics isn't just for lawyers and businessmen. Ventura, despite being controversial and outspoken in his views (something we desperately need in politics) has maintained some of the highest approval ratings for a governor in United States history. This, even in spite of his small margin of victory for the governorship. He has very definite and reasonable political convictions that he isn't afraid to communicate to the public. I don't know about you, but I think this is the kind of thing that we need in politics.

Again, excellent point MusicMan. Unfortunatly that's the reason he won't succeed in politics. The status quo is too ingrained in the whole system....everytime someone good for it actually tries to change it they are run out of the capital by the old conventionalists. My bet it, especially running as an independent, he wouldn't even make it past the primaries to get a party nomination as a Democrat or Republican, and no independent has even garnered enough votes to carry a single state in a national election. Sad, but true. He would make a cool President, though.

The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote: He's a wrestler, it was like when Hogan tried to get the democratic nomination and the whole "Jessi the Mind Ventura" thing isnt nearly as good as his old one

And Ronald Reagan was an actor. Are you saying that if you had a previous career in show business that you are unqualified as a politician? Politics isn't just for lawyers and businessmen. Ventura, despite being controversial and outspoken in his views (something we desperately need in politics) has maintained some of the highest approval ratings for a governor in United States history. This, even in spite of his small margin of victory for the governorship. He has very definite and reasonable political convictions that he isn't afraid to communicate to the public. I don't know about you, but I think this is the kind of thing that we need in politics.

Again, excellent point MusicMan. Unfortunatly that's the reason he won't succeed in politics. The status quo is too ingrained in the whole system....everytime someone good for it actually tries to change it they are run out of the capital by the old conventionalists. My bet it, especially running as an independent, he wouldn't even make it past the primaries to get a party nomination as a Democrat or Republican, and no independent has even garnered enough votes to carry a single state in a national election. Sad, but true. He would make a cool President, though.

I hope you dont mean Hogan, WCW and Hogan Knows Best are proof that he should not be trusted with money Interesting path this conversation has taken btw