What Are Your Thoughts On This Meme?

[Nihil Obstat]

Not sure what decent means to you. To me I am just talking about normal people who try to do good. I do not expect a decent person to be perfect, though I do think decent people do - in their own way - pursue perfection. We are to hope and encourage decent people to allow "their own way" of pursuing perfection to conform more and more closely with Christ's way.

[Era Might]

8 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Not sure what decent means to you. To me I am just talking about normal people who try to do good. I do not expect a decent person to be perfect, though I do think decent people do - in their own way - pursue perfection. We are to hope and encourage decent people to allow "their own way" of pursuing perfection to conform more and more closely with Christ's way.

Fair enough, but decent people can be found everywhere, in Tehran, in Bagdad, in Damascus, in New York, etc. The problem with viewing politicians as "decent people" is that they are not bidding for power in order to become head of a monastery, but to wield a global army, a global economy, a vast system of laws and resources, etc. Ben Carson, I'm sure, is a nice guy, but that's pretty irrelevant when he becomes the figurehead of global power. And even privately, being "decent" is always relative. I don't think Christ ever went around telling people how decent they are...whenever people thought they were good, he confounded them. And whenever they looked at others as evil, he turned it around on the "good" ones. For me, looking at ISIS, I think we would all agree they're a monstrosity...but I think the problem is that in recognizing that fact, we then think we are the "good" ones, which allows us (and I mean as a society) to sweep our own demons and violence and sins under the rug, to unite around this "evil" group. That's what politicians know wins power, creating a unifying ideology in the moment, and that always takes the shape of a specific "bad guy"...but I don't think the world really works with "good guys" and "bad guys"...there's good and bad everywhere...politicians have to become storytellers, turning complex and gray processes and interests and problems into a narrative that will play on people's fears and desires and win power.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Era Might

[Nihil Obstat]

9 minutes ago, Era Might said:

Fair enough, but decent people can be found everywhere, in Tehran, in Bagdad, in Damascus, in New York, etc. The problem with viewing politicians as "decent people" is that they are not bidding for power in order to become head of a monastery, but to wield a global army, a global economy, a vast system of laws and resources, etc. Ben Carson, I'm sure, is a nice guy, but that's pretty irrelevant when he becomes the figurehead of global power. And even privately, being "decent" is always relative. I don't think Christ ever went around telling people how decent they are...whenever people thought they were good, he confounded them. And whenever they looked at others as evil, he turned it around on the "good" ones. For me, looking at ISIS, I think we would all agree they're a monstrosity...but I think the problem is that in recognizing that fact, we then think we are the "good" ones, which allows us (and I mean as a society) to sweep our own demons and violence and sins under the rug, to unite around this "evil" group. That's what politicians know wins power, creating a unifying ideology in the moment, and that always takes the shape of a specific "bad guy"...but I don't think the world really works with "good guys" and "bad guys"...there's good and bad everywhere...politicians have to become storytellers, turning complex and gray processes and interests and problems into a narrative that will play on people's fears and desires and win power.

Absolutely. But the choice we have is to work with this current system or to change it. I am not the biggest fan of democracy, so you will not hear me complain about wanting to change it entirely. But like it or not, the State has the right to rule, and we have an obligation to obey just governments. Like I said, you could do worse than some of the Republican candidates. You could do better too, certainly, but I doubt your current system allows it.

So, you can be as pragmatic or as idealistic as you like. But at the end of the day, right here and right now a choice is going to be made which is going to have practical consequences, some of which have serious moral implications. There are many different ways to address and respond to it. But it seems to me that your response comes off as Calvinist: everyone is evil and worthless anyway, so there is no possible way that any of these politicians can govern in conformity with God's will. I do not think any of them are perfect, but there is practical good that can be taken from the current situation. Granted it is not going to be easy, but I think you know that already.

[Era Might]

1 minute ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Absolutely. But the choice we have is to work with this current system or to change it. I am not the biggest fan of democracy, so you will not hear me complain about wanting to change it entirely. But like it or not, the State has the right to rule, and we have an obligation to obey just governments. Like I said, you could do worse than some of the Republican candidates. You could do better too, certainly, but I doubt your current system allows it.

So, you can be as pragmatic or as idealistic as you like. But at the end of the day, right here and right now a choice is going to be made which is going to have practical consequences, some of which have serious moral implications. There are many different ways to address and respond to it. But it seems to me that your response comes off as Calvinist: everyone is evil and worthless anyway, so there is no possible way that any of these politicians can govern in conformity with God's will. I do not think any of them are perfect, but there is practical good that can be taken from the current situation. Granted it is not going to be easy, but I think you know that already.

Well, I'd say I'm the opposite of Calvinist, I'm a materialist  In other words, I think material reality creates ideas, not the other way around. It's not that I think everyone is evil and can't do anything good, but that I think these politicians are products of the material reality they seek to lead. And I think the same thing of ISIS and Islamic governments. I think religion for a politician is just a way of selling reality to the masses. It's in the interests of ISIS to be Muslim in a Muslim world where they are trying to establish power as a marginal group. It's in the interests of, say, Donald Trump to be a capitalist in a capitalist world where he can benefit. It's in the material interests of, say, a Ben Carson to believe in a vaguely American Christianity which reinforces American material reality. That doesn't mean they're insincere...just the opposite, and this what makes the powerful dangerous, when they really think that their ideology is synonomous with reality...it's synonomous, maybe, with their reality, but there's a wide world out there with different realities and different ideologies to fit those realities. The only way to change ideas, IMO, is to change material reality. That's what the US has tried to do in the Middle East, reshape the material reality to make the favorable conditions for the people to adopt the ideology that fits America's reality...but that hasn't gone so well.

[Nihil Obstat]

1 minute ago, Era Might said:

Well, I'd say I'm the opposite of Calvinist, I'm a materialist  In other words, I think material reality creates ideas, not the other way around. It's not that I think everyone is evil and can't do anything good, but that I think these politicians are products of the material reality they seek to lead. And I think the same thing of ISIS and Islamic governments. I think religion for a politician is just a way of selling reality to the masses. It's in the interests of ISIS to be Muslim in a Muslim world where they are trying to establish power as a marginal group. It's in the interests of, say, Donald Trump to be a capitalist in a capitalist world where he can benefit. It's in the material interests of, say, a Ben Carson to believe in a vaguely American Christianity which reinforces American material reality. That doesn't mean they're insincere...just the opposite, and this what makes the powerful dangerous, when they really think that their ideology is synonomous with reality...it's synonomous, maybe, with their reality, but there's a wide world out there with different realities and different ideologies to fit those realities. The only way to change ideas, IMO, is to change material reality. That's what the US has tried to do in the Middle East, reshape the material reality to make the favorable conditions for the people to adopt the ideology that fits America's reality...but that hasn't gone so well.

But some material realities are objectively better than others. Therefore, even granting that all politicians are selling a specific material reality, some of those politicians will be objectively better than other politicians. But at the end of the day, as Catholics we also have to accept that there is one single superior material reality, which is the social reign of Christ the King. And that is our yardstick for assessing the relative benefits of this or that political strategy.

If you would like to be cynical then - and I am trying not to be lately - it does not really matter what material reality produces or is being sold by a particular politician. It only matters if our reality, in its extant spheres of influence, comes more or less into conformity with the Kingship of Christ. 

[Era Might]

10 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

But some material realities are objectively better than others. Therefore, even granting that all politicians are selling a specific material reality, some of those politicians will be objectively better than other politicians. But at the end of the day, as Catholics we also have to accept that there is one single superior material reality, which is the social reign of Christ the King. And that is our yardstick for assessing the relative benefits of this or that political strategy.

If you would like to be cynical then - and I am trying not to be lately - it does not really matter what material reality produces or is being sold by a particular politician. It only matters if our reality, in its extant spheres of influence, comes more or less into conformity with the Kingship of Christ. 

I would disagree with that idea that "some material realities are objectively better than others." That's a perfect illustration of ideology...who is it better for? The Romans would have said the destruction of their empire was the "worst" of possibilities, but worst for who? For the Romans, of course, lol. History went on, new material realities emerged, new ideologies emerged with those material realities.

I definitely agree with you that cynicism accomplishes nothing. I don't think we should be cynical, just that we recognize cui bono, who benefits? We're all serving someone else's interests, and that includes our politicians. I think my biggest concern is just for us to be aware that it's in the interests of the politicians for us to buy a certain story, a certain narrative, because if they can sell us on a narrative, they can sell us on them being the ones to fit the narrative. Advertisers do it every day. I think what's more important, ultimately, than questioning the politician, is to question the narrative...if we do that, then I think we can really think democratically, because we will be taking our own material reality seriously, and not trying to fit our reality into a politician's reality.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Era Might

[Gabriela]

[Nihil Obstat]

13 minutes ago, Era Might said:

I would disagree with that idea that "some material realities are objectively better than others." That's a perfect illustration of ideology...who is it better for? The Romans would have said the destruction of their empire was the "worst" of possibilities, but worst for who? For the Romans, of course, lol. History went on, new material realities emerged, new ideologies emerged with those material realities.

I definitely agree with you that cynicism accomplishes nothing. I don't think we should be cynical, just that we recognize cui bono, who benefits? We're all serving someone else's interests, and that includes our politicians. I think my biggest concern is just for us to be aware that it's in the interests of the politicians for us to buy a certain story, a certain narrative, because if they can sell us on a narrative, they can sell us on them being the ones to fit the narrative. Advertisers do it every day. I think what's more important, ultimately, than questioning the politician, is to question the narrative...if we do that, then I think we can really think democratically, because we will be taking our own material reality seriously, and not trying to fit our reality into a politician's reality.

What, who benefits when Christ is King, and truly recognized as such? You know the answer to that. 

[Era Might]

7 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

What, who benefits when Christ is King, and truly recognized as such? You know the answer to that. 

I think it is blasphemous (and ideological, in the very specific sense of the word) to imagine Christ as a king of any society, as though Christ were here to maintain social structures (which, history is pretty clear, always change). He himself said that his kingdom is not of this world. I guess we could imagine some kind of messianic society where Christ reigns, but that's exactly what the Jews expected of the Messiah, and they found only a Nazarene on a Cross.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Era Might

[Nihil Obstat]

5 minutes ago, Era Might said:

I think it is blasphemous (and ideological, in the very specific sense of the word) to imagine Christ as a king of any society, as though Christ were here to maintain social structures (which, history is pretty clear, always change). He himself said that his kingdom is not of this world. I guess we could imagine some kind of messianic society where Christ reigns, but that's exactly what the Jews expected of the Messiah, and they found only a Nazarene on a Cross.

Pope Pius XI would probably resent your implication of blasphemy.

12. It was surely right, then, in view of the common teaching of the sacred books, that the Catholic Church, which is the kingdom of Christ on earth, destined to be spread among all men and all nations, should with every token of veneration salute her Author and Founder in her annual liturgy as King and Lord, and as King of Kings. And, in fact, she used these titles, giving expression with wonderful variety of language to one and the same concept, both in ancient psalmody and in the Sacramentaries. She uses them daily now in the prayers publicly offered to God, and in offering the Immaculate Victim. The perfect harmony of the Eastern liturgies with our own in this continual praise of Christ the King shows once more the truth of the axiom: Legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi. The rule of faith is indicated by the law of our worship.

15. This kingdom is spiritual and is concerned with spiritual things. That this is so the above quotations from Scripture amply prove, and Christ by his own action confirms it. On many occasions, when the Jews and even the Apostles wrongly supposed that the Messiah would restore the liberties and the kingdom of Israel, he repelled and denied such a suggestion. When the populace thronged around him in admiration and would have acclaimed him King, he shrank from the honor and sought safety in flight. Before the Roman magistrate he declared that his kingdom was not of this world. The gospels present this kingdom as one which men prepare to enter by penance, and cannot actually enter except by faith and by baptism, which, though an external rite, signifies and produces an interior regeneration. This kingdom is opposed to none other than to that of Satan and to the power of darkness. It demands of its subjects a spirit of detachment from riches and earthly things, and a spirit of gentleness. They must hunger and thirst after justice, and more than this, they must deny themselves and carry the cross.

16. Christ as our Redeemer purchased the Church at the price of his own blood; as priest he offered himself, and continues to offer himself as a victim for our sins. Is it not evident, then, that his kingly dignity partakes in a manner of both these offices?

17. It would be a grave error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to him by the Father, all things are in his power. Nevertheless, during his life on earth he refrained from the exercise of such authority, and although he himself disdained to possess or to care for earthly goods, he did not, nor does he today, interfere with those who possess them. Non eripit mortalia qui regna dat caelestia.[27]

18. Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: "His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ."[28] Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ. In him is the salvation of the individual, in him is the salvation of society. "Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved."[29] He is the author of happiness and true prosperity for every man and for every nation. "For a nation is happy when its citizens are happy. What else is a nation but a number of men living in concord?"[30] If, therefore, the rulers of nations wish to preserve their authority, to promote and increase the prosperity of their countries, they will not neglect the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ. What We said at the beginning of Our Pontificate concerning the decline of public authority, and the lack of respect for the same, is equally true at the present day. "With God and Jesus Christ," we said, "excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation."[31]

19. When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony. Our Lord's regal office invests the human authority of princes and rulers with a religious significance; it ennobles the citizen's duty of obedience. It is for this reason that St. Paul, while bidding wives revere Christ in their husbands, and slaves respect Christ in their masters, warns them to give obedience to them not as men, but as the vicegerents of Christ; for it is not meet that men redeemed by Christ should serve their fellow-men. "You are bought with a price; be not made the bond-slaves of men."[32] If princes and magistrates duly elected are filled with the persuasion that they rule, not by their own right, but by the mandate and in the place of the Divine King, they will exercise their authority piously and wisely, and they will make laws and administer them, having in view the common good and also the human dignity of their subjects. The result will be a stable peace and tranquillity, for there will be no longer any cause of discontent. Men will see in their king or in their rulers men like themselves, perhaps unworthy or open to criticism, but they will not on that account refuse obedience if they see reflected in them the authority of Christ God and Man. Peace and harmony, too, will result; for with the spread and the universal extent of the kingdom of Christ men will become more and more conscious of the link that binds them together, and thus many conflicts will be either prevented entirely or at least their bitterness will be diminished.

[Era Might]

Just now, Nihil Obstat said:

Pope Pius XI would probably resent your implication of blasphemy.

12. It was surely right, then, in view of the common teaching of the sacred books, that the Catholic Church, which is the kingdom of Christ on earth, destined to be spread among all men and all nations, should with every token of veneration salute her Author and Founder in her annual liturgy as King and Lord, and as King of Kings. And, in fact, she used these titles, giving expression with wonderful variety of language to one and the same concept, both in ancient psalmody and in the Sacramentaries. She uses them daily now in the prayers publicly offered to God, and in offering the Immaculate Victim. The perfect harmony of the Eastern liturgies with our own in this continual praise of Christ the King shows once more the truth of the axiom: Legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi. The rule of faith is indicated by the law of our worship.

A great passage, for a different reason..."legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi" strikes me as a perfectly materialist view of reality!

But in the interests of keeping Phatmass Catholic, I'll not go into a whole critique of the idea of Christ the King of a society.

[Nihil Obstat]

We have two hypothetical societies, identical in every way except that in Society A abortion is illegal and socially unacceptable, and in Society B it is both legal and considered unremarkable. Which material reality is superior?
There is no amount of existential obfuscationism that can possibly change that answer, if we are committed to Catholic principles. Recognition of the sanctity of life is an unavoidable consequence of recognition of the social authority of Christ and His Church. And in some sense I would agree that the opposite is true, at least implicitly: without a recognition of Christ's authority, recognition of the sanctity of life is not possible. Implicitly, mind you.

[Era Might]

45 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

We have two hypothetical societies, identical in every way except that in Society A abortion is illegal and socially unacceptable, and in Society B it is both legal and considered unremarkable. Which material reality is superior?
There is no amount of existential obfuscationism that can possibly change that answer, if we are committed to Catholic principles. Recognition of the sanctity of life is an unavoidable consequence of recognition of the social authority of Christ and His Church. And in some sense I would agree that the opposite is true, at least implicitly: without a recognition of Christ's authority, recognition of the sanctity of life is not possible. Implicitly, mind you.

The hypothetical assumes that laws are "reality"...even from a New Testament perspective, I would argue that law is nothing except a witness to sin and subjection. And the hypothetical is also idealist, assuming that people have abortions or don't have abortions because it is legal or illegal...just the opposite, law is inherenthly repressive...its function is to prevent virtue, which is always a free act...it would be like a husband locking his wife in a dungeon and imagining that's why she's virtuous, or that she's virtuous at all. The lawmaker claims the freedom of the individual for himself, and that's where ideology comes in...once people exist through laws or any social control, ideology is concocted to make sure they always submit to whoever wields the structure. The pharisees were the keepers of the holy, which is precisely why they could never recognize the Messiah in their midst...to recognize the Messiah would topple their social control which depended on the coming of the Messiah. Their benefit was in waiting for the Messiah, not recognizing him...the law was everything for them.

[Nihil Obstat]

8 minutes ago, Era Might said:

The hypothetical assumes that laws are "reality"...even from a New Testament perspective, I would argue that law is nothing except a witness to sin and subjection. And the hypothetical is also idealist, assuming that people have abortions or don't have abortions because it is legal or illegal...just the opposite, law is inherenthly repressive...its function is to prevent virtue, which is always a free act...it would be like a husband locking his wife in a dungeon and imagining that's why she's virtuous, or that she's virtuous at all. The lawmaker claims the freedom of the individual for himself, and that's where ideology comes in...once people exist through laws or any social control, ideology is concocted to make sure they always submit to whoever wields the structure. The pharisees were the keepers of the holy, which is precisely why they could never recognize the Messiah in their midst...to recognize the Messiah would topple their social control which depended on the coming of the Messiah. Their benefit was in waiting for the Messiah, not recognizing him...the law was everything for them.

I do not think you will find any support in Catholic social teaching for this notion. The exact opposite in fact. Obedience to just law is true freedom.

[Era Might]

1 minute ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I do not think you will find any support in Catholic social teaching for this notion. The exact opposite in fact. Obedience to just law is true freedom.

The truly free man has no need for laws. It would be farcical to take pleasure in virtue because one has obeyed a law. The pleasure in virtue is precisely in being free to act otherwise. Law's only function is to regulate communal behavior, that is, to create a material reality that benefits communal objectives, regardless of the individual's virtue or lack of virtue. Law is inherently repressive.

[Nihil Obstat]

8. Foremost in this office comes the natural law, which is written and engraved in the mind of every man; and this is nothing but our reason, commanding us to do right and forbidding sin. Nevertheless, all prescriptions of human reason can have force of law only inasmuch as they are the voice and the interpreters of some higher power on which our reason and liberty necessarily depend. For, since the force of law consists in the imposing of obligations and the granting of rights, authority is the one and only foundation of all law - the power, that is, of fixing duties and defining rights, as also of assigning the necessary sanctions of reward and chastisement to each and all of its commands. But all this, clearly, cannot be found in man, if, as his own supreme legislator, he is to be the rule of his own actions. It follows, therefore, that the law of nature is the same thing as the eternal law, implanted in rational creatures, and inclining them to their right action and end; and can be nothing else but the eternal reason of God, the Creator and Ruler of all the world. To this rule of action and restraint of evil God has vouchsafed to give special and most suitable aids for strengthening and ordering the human will. The first and most excellent of these is the power of His divine grace, whereby the mind can be enlightened and the will wholesomely invigorated and moved to the constant pursuit of moral good, so that the use of our inborn liberty becomes at once less difficult and less dangerous. Not that the divine assistance hinders in any way the free movement of our will; just the contrary, for grace works inwardly in man and in harmony with his natural inclinations, since it flows from the very Creator of his mind and will, by whom all things are moved in conformity with their nature. As the Angelic Doctor points out, it is because divine grace comes from the Author of nature that it is so admirably adapted to be the safeguard of all natures, and to maintain the character, efficiency, and operations of each.

9. What has been said of the liberty of individuals is no less applicable to them when considered as bound together in civil society. For, what reason and the natural law do for individuals, that human law, promulgated for their good, does for the citizens of States. Of the laws enacted by men, some are concerned with what is good or bad by its very nature; and they command men to follow after what is right and to shun what is wrong, adding at the same time a suitable sanction. But such laws by no means derive their origin from civil society, because, just as civil society did not create human nature, so neither can it be said to be the author of the good which befits human nature, or of the evil which is contrary to it. Laws come before men live together in society, and have their origin in the natural, and consequently in the eternal, law. The precepts, therefore, of the natural law, contained bodily in the laws of men, have not merely the force of human law, but they possess that higher and more august sanction which belongs to the law of nature and the eternal law. And within the sphere of this kind of laws the duty of the civil legislator is, mainly, to keep the community in obedience by the adoption of a common discipline and by putting restraint upon refractory and viciously inclined men, so that, deterred from evil, they may turn to what is good, or at any rate may avoid causing trouble and disturbance to the State. Now, there are other enactments of the civil authority, which do not follow directly, but somewhat remotely, from the natural law, and decide many points which the law of nature treats only in a general and indefinite way. For instance, though nature commands all to contribute to the public peace and prosperity, whatever belongs to the manner, and circumstances, and conditions under which such service is to be rendered must be determined by the wisdom of men and not by nature herself. It is in the constitution of these particular rules of life, suggested by reason and prudence, and put forth by competent authority, that human law, properly so called, consists, binding all citizens to work together for the attainment of the common end proposed to the community, and forbidding them to depart from this end, and, in so far as human law is in conformity with the dictates of nature, leading to what is good, and deterring from evil.

10. From this it is manifest that the eternal law of God is the sole standard and rule of human liberty, not only in each individual man, but also in the community and civil society which men constitute when united. Therefore, the true liberty of human society does not consist in every man doing what he pleases, for this would simply end in turmoil and confusion, and bring on the overthrow of the State; but rather in this, that through the injunctions of the civil law all may more easily conform to the prescriptions of the eternal law. Likewise, the liberty of those who are in authority does not consist in the power to lay unreasonable and capricious commands upon their subjects, which would equally be criminal and would lead to the ruin of the commonwealth; but the binding force of human laws is in this, that they are to be regarded as applications of the eternal law, and incapable of sanctioning anything which is not contained in the eternal law, as in the principle of all law. Thus, St. Augustine most wisely says: "I think that you can see, at the same time, that there is nothing just and lawful in that temporal law, unless what men have gathered from this eternal law."(5) If, then, by anyone in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law, as being no rule of justice, but certain to lead men away from that good which is the very end of civil society.

11. Therefore, the nature of human liberty, however it be considered, whether in individuals or in society, whether in those who command or in those who obey, supposes the necessity of obedience to some supreme and eternal law, which is no other than the authority of God, commanding good and forbidding evil. And, so far from this most just authority of God over men diminishing, or even destroying their liberty, it protects and perfects it, for the real perfection of all creatures is found in the prosecution and attainment of their respective ends; but the supreme end to which human liberty must aspire is God.

[vee]

My thoughts on that meme?  I dont care about it, I like this one better.

[Gabriela]

1 hour ago, vee said:

My thoughts on that meme?  I dont care about it, I like this one better.

I believe that is a carpet, not a rug. But hey, common mistake.

[Not The Philosopher]

Having "Meme" and "Thought" in the same sentence is like trying to divide by zero.

[Socrates]

11 hours ago, Josh said:

. . .

I think it's just as silly and idiotic as most political internet "memes."

 

Some doofus who wants you to vote Democrat stuck some pictures and words together incoherently and posted it on teh interwebz.  So what exactly is it that you think worthy of discussion?