Printable View
EDIT-Here is ann article on it- http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i..._opponent.html
Remember when he lost the race in February? Well, there was a recall vote today and he won, according to a Facebook status I saw.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.n...65301129_o.jpg
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i..._chairw_1.html
Awesome news!
Great news.
Groovy
Wow, great news. You're quick too... I was wondering how I hadn't heard about this yet and then found out it just happened.
In case anyone doesn't remember, Oregon was one of the state's where they shut down the convention early when they found out they were losing.
Our people were still able to vote a majority of Ron Paul supporters as delegates to the RNC though, and Oregon was one of the state's to put Ron's name in for nomination.
So we already had a pretty good presence in the party, and now we have the Chair too. :toady:
I read Art's book. He is probably more liberty-oriented, more like Ron Paul, than anyone else in politics we talk about on these forums.
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sola_Fide
http://www.artforcongress.com/update...mon-sense-2012
thats excellent
Great that he is running the ORGOP then. Tough I doubt he is as liberty oriented as the elected anarchist we talk about ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sola_Fide
How's that guy doing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith and stuff
You do know that Art is a creationist and is discredited as a scientist. I don't know why, but i think they will use this against rand. Nevermind, he'll make Oregon awesome.
Please link or explain how he is "discredited as a scientist". I will wait for you to post and answer...and you better back up your claim right now or it is going to be you who is discredited.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePenguinLibertarian
Darwinian evolution isn't scientific either, so what's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePenguinLibertarian
Discredited by who? Maddow?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sola_Fide
I agree, but the Roman Catholic church-state endorses evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by eduardo89
http://www.artforcongress.com/issues/national-defense
Art or someone representing Art agreed with a commenter who stated support for pulling out of international alliances... aside from Israel.
I'm not really sure how steeped Art is in the philosophy of non-aggression, as opposed to (mostly) falling on the correct side of an issue due to possessing a modicum of common sense. A Gary Johnson, of sorts, with obviously different value systems. Which is nonetheless a vast improvement over essentially everyone else in the Republican party on the national level.
If my fiancee and I decide to leave California for Oregon, I suppose this would be an added bonus.
No, it doesn't, but it does not reject the possibility of evolutionary creationism. The Church cannot make infallible pronouncements on anything but Revelation, faith and morals. That said, Darwinist evolution has been categorically denounced as incompatible with Christianity by the Church:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sola_Fide
Quote:
All men have descended from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all mankind. Catholics may not, therefore, believe in "polygenism", the scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans (that there were many Adams and Eves).
...
Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion (polygenism) can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.
Venerable Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis
The Church condemns any version of evolution which omits the Creator, which reduces humans to mere animals, which rejects original sin, or which claims that we are descended from multiple humans and not just Adam and Eve.Quote:
Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.
Blessed Pope John Paul II
Any scientific theory regarding human development must conform to the following beliefs which a Catholic must accept:
The First Vatican Council in 1869 when addressing science and evolution pronounced infallibly:Quote:
All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God.
God was moved by His Goodness to create the world.
The world was created for the Glorification of God.
The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation.
God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity.
God has created a good world.
The world had a beginning in time.
God alone created the world.
God keeps all created things in existence.
God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created.
So no, the Church does not endorse Darwin but leaves open the possibility of theistic evolution/evolutionary creationism which is not incompatible with Scripture.Quote:
On God the creator of all things:
If anyone denies the one true God, creator and lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.
If anyone is so bold as to assert that there exists nothing besides matter: let him be anathema.
If anyone says that the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same: let him be anathema.
If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally, that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self-determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals: let him be anathema.
If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.
nothing, just a paranoid concern. I recently binged on a bunch of political stuff, and "denialism" has become a small but increasingly powerful smear.Quote:
Originally Posted by eduardo89
Which one? There are several in NH alone. 2 of them have been talked about here several times last year and this year. My guess is you are thinking of NH State Rep Tim O'Flaherty. He is doing great. He is the highest rated Democrat on the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance 2013 Liberty Rating. He was rated 8th best out of 400 state reps and higher than all of both the Republican leadership and Democratic leadership in the House. Even the Republican House Alliance (the constititionalish conservative group) gave him a 75.8%. That's well above what most Republicans got but only the 2nd highest rating by a Democrat as another got a 87.5%.Quote:
Originally Posted by sgt150
I'm excited to learn how Art helps bring the ORGOP in a liberty direction. I think there might be some good things possible in OR if the GOPers would just run candidates in western OR that are far left on social issues and pro-liberty on economic issues. Stuff like marijuana legalization, an income tax cut for the poor and middle class, lower pay for legislators and gambling deregulation.
I agree, that's the way to sell it here. I think that anti-war, anti-wall street bailout, pro marijuana (at least medical), lower tax, cut waste/balance budget, pro-civil liberties, State's rights type Republicans would do well. The message of not letting people 3,000 miles away in Washington overturn decisions made by Oregonians would be popular.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith and stuff
And for as liberal as Oregon is... outside of the Portland area Republicans actually do well. The State House is split 50/50, and the last election for Governor was 49.29% to 47.77%.
So with the right candidates that will now actually get support from the ORGOP it should be possible to win here.
Good for Art! Thanks for the post OP.
Looks like the libs are foaming at the mouth over his win in comment sections. When you're catching flak you know you're over the target!
Art needs to get Rand out there for a fundraiser asap. Ron endorsed Art and they are friends.
Yeah, I was just talking about western OR. Liberal city after liberal city. The House is 34 to 26 Democrat. You are still thinking about the 2010 numbers. Or maybe thinking ahead to what you want in 2014 :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackie Moon
Ha, you're right... I guess I'm still stuck in 2012 campaign mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith and stuff
I do have hope for 2014 though, and adding Art as Chair really helps. I know that he knows Ron and was endorsed by him in his House runs... I wonder if Art can get him or Rand to come visit and hold a fundraiser for the ORGOP.
As usual, you are wrong. The Catholic Catechism # 337 says:Quote:
Originally Posted by eduardo89
This is wrong because no where in the Scripture is it explained that the work of creation is to be understood as symbolic. God gave the six literal days as a pattern for the Jews to follow (resting on the seventh). Saying the genesis account is only "symbolic" leaves the door open for millions of years and leaves the door open for Darwinism.Quote:
God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity, and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creatorsymbolically as a succession of six days of divine 'work,'concluded by the 'rest' of the seventh day.
Then it goes on to say:
So it even connects this unbiblical idea that Genesis is symbolic with our very salvation. You MUST believe in evolution and millions of years according to Rome because the subject of Rome's view of creation is "truth revealed by God for our salvation".Quote:
On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to 'recognize the inner nature, the value, and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God.
Rome is Satan's perfect counterfeit to the true gospel in every way. It uses Christian sounding words while it denies the fundamental truths of Christianity. This issue of creation is no different.
That the Genesis creation narrative is symbolic has been believed since the early days of the Church. Biblical literalism is another faulty Protestant innovation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sola_Fide
Quote:
Originally Posted by Origen of Alexandria
Many Church Fathers do not agree with the literal interpretation, and it really doesn't matter, it does not change the story nor does it force one to believe in evolution. Your exigent literalism limits God to man-perceived time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyprian
St. Augustine, perhaps the greatest theologian to have live (along with St. Thomas Aquinas), also commented on the "days" in Genesis:Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Augustine
I trust St. Augustine over Sola_Fide and his three pound brain's interpretation of Scripture.Quote:
But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!
Actually you must not believe in evolution or millions of years. One can certainly believe in a literal 7-day creation and be completely in line with Catholic doctrine. But let's not forget the fact "that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8; Psalm 90:4), that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Genesis 1:3, 16), and that Adam was told he would die the same "day" as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (genesis 2:17, 5:5).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sola_Fide
As St. Justin Martyr put it:
So again, we see another Church Father not agreeing with your personal interpretation. I trust him more than your little brain.Quote:
"For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years [Gen. 5:5]. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression ‘The day of the Lord is a thousand years’ [Ps. 90:4] is connected with this subject" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 81 [A.D. 155]).
Here is St. Augustine again:
So then, we have Church Fathers, including the most important of them all disagreeing with your literalist interpretation. Did some Church Fathers think it literally meant 7 days of 24 hours? Yes, but they did not call the ones who did not heretics nor was there a great controversy about this.Quote:
Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them
Since you're quoting from the Catechism, lets also point out that the Church does not believe the natural sciences can explain everything, particularly the creation.Quote:
284 The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called "God"? And if the world does come from God's wisdom and goodness, why is there evil? Where does it come from? Who is responsible for it? Is there any liberation from it?
While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.
Blah blah blah. You can keep believing your man-made religion which is direct opposition to Scripture, the Church Fathers, and the 2000 year witness of the Church.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sola_Fide
Wait! Isn't he part of the generation that some can't wait to die off so that the younger generation can fix everything? :p
Yes, he is part of a generation which:Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyEagle
a) by and large holds extremely unfortunate views, and
b) is too old for those views to change in any significant way on any significant scale.
The older generation hates Ron Paul; they are by far the most anti-Ron Paul demographic. The older generation consumes the most mainstream media. The older generation loves the military. The older generation will continue state-worshiping until the day they die.
Of course, this in no way impugns Art Robinson. He is an outlier, as are we all.
There are way more of us than you think....Quote:
Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener