New Peart Interview

[Lerxster]

This is a very enjoyable interview to read. It's always cool to hear what Neil is up to and what he's thinking.

[GeminiRising79]

[An Enemy Without]

QUOTE (Amy Farrah Fowler @ Aug 14 2012, 08:16 AM)

QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ Aug 14 2012, 08:54 AM) Okay, I'll bite. I think it's hypocrisy for democrat Christians because forced charity is no longer charity. Jesus espoused charity. Not forced charity. Republicans just don't want to force people into helping others because it means more when it is voluntary. Marry me? I'll think about it.

[Gompers]

QUOTE (Amy Farrah Fowler @ Aug 14 2012, 09:16 AM)

QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ Aug 14 2012, 08:54 AM) Okay, I'll bite. I think it's hypocrisy for democrat Christians because forced charity is no longer charity. Jesus espoused charity. Not forced charity. Republicans just don't want to force people into helping others because it means more when it is voluntary. Marry me? Now there is a very good example of charity on Amy's part.

[ThinkingBig]

Improvised drum solo... interesting idea.

 

I miss the syncopated cow bells from the 1980s.

[Pound of Obscure]

QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ Aug 14 2012, 07:54 AM)

Okay, I'll bite. I think it's hypocrisy for democrat Christians because forced charity is no longer charity. Jesus espoused charity. Not forced charity. Republicans just don't want to force people into helping others because it means more when it is voluntary.

To expand on that, the government confiscating your hard-earned money and then doling it out as it sees fit is not charity at all.

 

There is no comparison between charity and taxation. None. No need to even get in to the other aspect of government doing things with your money that you don't support.

 

Blowing off one's duty to charity, if one assumes that requisite, by saying, 'Well, I pay taxes, so that's my charity", is absurd. They are not the same.

 

It seems clear that Neil's understanding of Christianity and Republicans is somewhat limited.

[metaldad]

QUOTE (Sheldon Cooper @ Aug 14 2012, 01:22 AM)

But Neil never had a wrong thought in his life, so...

Did ya see the youtube vid of him walking on water ?

[An Enemy Without]

QUOTE (metaldad @ Aug 14 2012, 12:31 PM)

QUOTE (Sheldon Cooper @ Aug 14 2012, 01:22 AM) But Neil never had a wrong thought in his life, so... Did ya see the youtube vid of him walking on water ?

[An Enemy Without]

QUOTE (Gompers @ Aug 14 2012, 10:45 AM)

QUOTE (Amy Farrah Fowler @ Aug 14 2012, 09:16 AM) QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ Aug 14 2012, 08:54 AM) Okay, I'll bite. I think it's hypocrisy for democrat Christians because forced charity is no longer charity. Jesus espoused charity. Not forced charity. Republicans just don't want to force people into helping others because it means more when it is voluntary. Marry me? Now there is a very good example of charity on Amy's part. Except what you didn't see was the person who forced her to type this, therefore not charity.

[Amy Farrah Fowler]

QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ Aug 14 2012, 01:45 PM)

QUOTE (Gompers @ Aug 14 2012, 10:45 AM) QUOTE (Amy Farrah Fowler @ Aug 14 2012, 09:16 AM) QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ Aug 14 2012, 08:54 AM) Okay, I'll bite. I think it's hypocrisy for democrat Christians because forced charity is no longer charity. Jesus espoused charity. Not forced charity. Republicans just don't want to force people into helping others because it means more when it is voluntary. Marry me? Now there is a very good example of charity on Amy's part. Except what you didn't see was the person who forced her to type this, therefore not charity.

[ThinkingBig]

QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ Aug 14 2012, 07:54 AM)

Okay, I'll bite. I think it's hypocrisy for democrat Christians because forced charity is no longer charity. Jesus espoused charity. Not forced charity. Republicans just don't want to force people into helping others because it means more when it is voluntary.

I'm confused, paying for the roads and bridges we drive on is "forced" charity? And paying for the military, that's charity?

 

And if I own a very prosperous business and the new bridge brings more people to the public street outside my business, I benefit the most from the bridge, so I'm fine paying more taxes.

 

It's hard for the more extreme conservatives to understand this, but although you may never need medicaid or unemployment benefits, it's more than just the moral character of our country that you pay for-- helping people during an economic downturn makes good fiscal sense.

 

 

 

[GeminiRising79]

Its good to let extreme sides battle each other since we often eventually arrive at something close to the middle after all's said and done.

[Snowman]

Well spent 15 minutes.

[An Enemy Without]

QUOTE (ThinkingBig @ Aug 14 2012, 12:56 PM)

QUOTE (An Enemy Without @ Aug 14 2012, 07:54 AM) Okay, I'll bite. I think it's hypocrisy for democrat Christians because forced charity is no longer charity. Jesus espoused charity. Not forced charity. Republicans just don't want to force people into helping others because it means more when it is voluntary. I'm confused, paying for the roads and bridges we drive on is "forced" charity? And paying for the military, that's charity?   And if I own a very prosperous business and the new bridge brings more people to the public street outside my business, I benefit the most from the bridge, so I'm fine paying more taxes.   It's hard for the more extreme conservatives to understand this, but although you may never need medicaid or unemployment benefits, it's more than just the moral character of our country that you pay for-- helping people during an economic downturn makes good fiscal sense. I don't understand why the "roads and bridges" argument has come up every time I discuss this. It doesn't even make sense as an example in the context of what Neil is implying. What we are talking about is handouts to the poor, not paying for the military.   I don't have a lot of time so I'll just post something I read over at CP.   QUOTE As an atheist and Libertarian, I don't really have a horse in this race. I'm neither Republican nor Christian. But I think Neil's statement was pretty dumb. First of all, there is an entire spectrum of Republicans, many of whom support safety nets for the poor. For instance, George Bush passed one of the largest increases in entitlement spending with his Medicare prescription drug coverage. So Neil is generalizing, steretyping, in order to make his simplistic and inaccurate point. Secondly, there are even more interpretations of Christianity than there are versions of Republicans. Which version is Neil talking about? Well, his own, of course--which is a critical and unsympathetic interpretation, and therefore stresses those points which make it easier to criticize and find fault (nothing wrong with that, I do it too, but it leads to simplifications similar to the Republican stereotyping mentioned above). Thirdly, Jesus was not talking about political structures or economic systems. All this talk about capitalism vs Marxism or even Rep vs Dem misses the point. It misapplies Jesus's teachings into spheres of human activity which aren't religious. It's like asking what kind of computer would Jesus use, Apple or PC? It's moronic to apply his teachings into areas which he had no intention of applying them himself, and then pretending to speak for Jesus in this area. Religion is a personal choice, dealing with one's personal actions. Neil has no idea what individual Republicans do in their personal lives, how much they give to charity, etc. There is absolutely no basis to judge them in the absence of this information. They can hold a particular philosophy about how the government should be ran (for instance, no welfare, no helping the poor), and then act in a completely different in their own personal lives (for instance, giving to charity or volunteering at soup kitchens).  What Neil is expressing here is his own bias and bitterness directed at a particular political philosophy, and choosing a completely unrelated aspect of people's private, personal lives in order to construct a malicious, nonsensical ad hominem attack against them. I expected more from Neil, honestly.  Dems are no more generous or loving because they want to take someone else's money to help the poor. That's not generosity. It's easy to spend someone else's money and pat yourself on the back as being generous. I think a better measure of one's generousity is what they're doing personally with their own money and their own time in their private lives. If God exists and Jesus was real, I seriously doubt Jesus is going to come back and reward those who spent the most of someone else's money.

[LedRush]

QUOTE (Sheldon Cooper @ Aug 14 2012, 01:18 AM)

QUOTE (theredtamasrule @ Aug 13 2012, 09:41 PM) QUOTE (They Bow Defeated @ Aug 13 2012, 07:48 PM) A realization I had lately: it is impossible to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and be a Republican. Go Neil! Yeah! f**k christian republicans! Liars!   The other thread got moved already. Won't belong for this one. Is "moved" a euphemism for "deleted"? If not, where was it moved?

[Principled Man]

I don't think anyone should make a big deal about Neil's political opinions. He's entitled to his opinions, and he's also entitled to be mistaken about a few things. Each and every one of us could be convicted of being "wrong" about certain political issues or parties. If Neil's opinion of the Republican Party is a little off-target, then so what?

 

Who among us is 100% accurate in our opinions of the DEM's and REP's? NO ONE - that's who.

 

[circumstantial tree]

I'm at the point that if you've read one interview with Neil, you've read them all. Very repetitive material.

[Amy Farrah Fowler]

QUOTE (Workaholic Man @ Aug 14 2012, 03:29 PM)

I don't think anyone should make a big deal about Neil's political opinions. He's entitled to his opinions, and he's also entitled to be mistaken about a few things. Each and every one of us could be convicted of being "wrong" about certain political issues or parties. If Neil's opinion of the Republican Party is a little off-target, then so what? Who among us is 100% accurate in our opinions of the DEM's and REP's? NO ONE - that's who.

 

This is precisely why I wish folks we look up to would just do what they do best and not polarize themselves while discussing their product.

[Principled Man]

QUOTE (Amy Farrah Fowler @ Aug 14 2012, 02:37 PM)

QUOTE (Workaholic Man @ Aug 14 2012, 03:29 PM) I don't think anyone should make a big deal about Neil's political opinions.  He's entitled to his opinions, and he's also entitled to be mistaken about a few things.  Each and every one of us could be convicted of being "wrong" about certain political issues or parties.  If Neil's opinion of the Republican Party is a little off-target, then so what?  Who among us is 100% accurate in our opinions of the DEM's and REP's?  NO ONE - that's who.          This is precisely why I wish folks we look up to would just do what they do best and not polarize themselves while discussing their product.   Perhaps the problem is partly us. We are the ones who put rock stars, actors, and pro athletes on pedestals. As a result, when those stars speak their minds, we magnify their opinions and overreact - in both positive and negative directions.   99% of us don't get to voice our political opinions to the world via mass media. The 1% that does always seems to get slammed for it. Such is the price of fame......

[canadianice]

QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Aug 14 2012, 02:35 PM)

I'm at the point that if you've read one interview with Neil, you've read them all. Very repetitive material.

I agree, just keep your cake hole shut and play the drums.

[metaldad]

QUOTE (canadianice @ Aug 14 2012, 02:50 PM)

QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Aug 14 2012, 02:35 PM) I'm at the point that if you've read one interview with Neil, you've read them all. Very repetitive material. I agree, just keep your cake hole shut and play the drums. Amen

[Sin City]

Two words. First amendment.

[Lerxster]

QUOTE (metaldad @ Aug 14 2012, 02:54 PM)

QUOTE (canadianice @ Aug 14 2012, 02:50 PM) QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Aug 14 2012, 02:35 PM) I'm at the point that if you've read one interview with Neil, you've read them all. Very repetitive material. I agree, just keep your cake hole shut and play the drums. Amen Disagree with all above posters.

[Amy Farrah Fowler]

First amendment - gives us equal right to moan, groan and complain in rebuttal.

 

We get it.

[metaldad]

QUOTE (Lerxster @ Aug 14 2012, 03:04 PM)

QUOTE (metaldad @ Aug 14 2012, 02:54 PM) QUOTE (canadianice @ Aug 14 2012, 02:50 PM) QUOTE (circumstantial tree @ Aug 14 2012, 02:35 PM) I'm at the point that if you've read one interview with Neil, you've read them all. Very repetitive material. I agree, just keep your cake hole shut and play the drums. Amen Disagree with all above posters. But yeah, he should just shut up and play