Guest bengalrick Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 [quote name='Jamie_B' date='Apr 19 2005, 10:16 PM']I think he means in the church meaning rather than politics....meaning there are conservative and liberal views on faith. [right][post="78306"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] yes.... thank you... but i was talking about the media too.. how is "well, they elected him... but since he is so old, he will die soon, and maybe we'll get a more liberal pope next time" not a spin of the media? they elected him b/c he is very much like the last pope, so maybe they want the same policies... you watch the news today... this media is going to be pissed and spinning their stupid shit all day... if you don't believe me, just watch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest #22 Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 you can [i]see[/i] anything you want, that does not mean it is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 true, true... back at you man... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 here is what i was talking about: [url="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006582"]opinion journal[/url] [quote]The great surprise of yesterday's papal election is that the new pope is no surprise. As the long-time Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was the best-known figure at the Vatican apart from John Paul II himself. In American political terms, his elevation to the papacy is much like a highly visible vice president replacing a president. Clearly, the conclave that elected him wanted continuity rather than change. That is the only surprise.[/quote] translation: shit... we wanted change [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/20/opinion/20novak.html"]nytimes.com[/url] title: [i]Rome's Radical Conservative[/i] [quote]Cardinal Ratzinger's selection as pope, however, has been less heartily welcomed by many commentators (LIBERALS!!) in Europe and the United States, who have quickly characterized him as an "authoritarian," a "watchdog" and, most peculiarly, a "neoconservative."[/quote] [url="http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/44884.htm"]nypost.com[/url] [quote]By the way the American press has treated the man over the last 20 years, you'd have thought the sun would have turned black at the announcement and the earth trembled in horror. "God's rottweiler," "the panzer cardinal," "the pope's hitman"  these are only a few of the names he's been called since 1981, when John Paul II appointed him to head the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the office in Rome that evaluates the orthodoxy of new Catholic writings and practices.[/quote] to be honest, i thought it would be worse, but give it a couple of days i guess... i'm glad that i'm not hearing "he was a nazi" from these commentators, b/c he (like BB said earlier) didn't have much of a choice in that matter, and most say that no evidence points anywhere, except he was against nazi german ideas... but when someone says "they elected him b/c he will die soon and this is to honor John Paul II"... he was elected b/c he is the best man for the job and has extreme respect from the other cardinals, they are dead wrong imo... i heard someone say yesterday that they hoped for a pope that is (paraphrasing) "more open to writings of the bible"... the beliefs of catholics shouldn't change b/c of public opinion... it is what it is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nati Ice Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 dude... that first article is an opinion that second article is nothing but facts (nazi ties?) that third article is about peoples opinions im sorry my friend but i see nothing in those 3 articles, 2 are either opinions or talking about peoples opinions, and the other one is just how i already described it i guess u can see what u want to see but i guess ill just go turn on fox news and listen to how crazy those silly democrats are, and how the "liberal media" is destroying our nation, etc., etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 [quote name='Nati Ice' date='Apr 20 2005, 11:52 AM']dude... that first article is an opinion that second article is nothing but facts (nazi ties?) that third article is about peoples opinions im sorry my friend but i see nothing in those 3 articles, 2 are either opinions or talking about peoples opinions, and the other one is just how i already described it i guess u can see what u want to see but i guess ill just go turn on fox news and listen to how crazy those silly democrats are, and how the "liberal media" is destroying our nation, etc., etc. [right][post="78520"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] what is your problem w/ fox? they show BOTH sides of the issues... if you don't believe it, then you don't ever watch it... sorry your so closed minded... like i said, i expected worse, but your right, these articles aren't that bad... opinions are just that, but i was pointing out what is too come... if you just read the second title, what conclussion would you come to nati? "Rome's Radical Conservative"... they sound scared, if you ask me... i will shut up about this, b/c 1. i'm not catholic 2. it doesn't matter what i say, you and others have their mind made up (not on this topic necessarily) i guess my ultimate point is: another lost election for liberals/progressives... and they're pissed!! [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] couldn't help myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jza10304 Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='Apr 20 2005, 01:05 PM']what is your problem w/ fox? they show BOTH sides of the issues... if you don't believe it, then you don't ever watch it... sorry your so closed minded... like i said, i expected worse, but your right, these articles aren't that bad... opinions are just that, but i was pointing out what is too come... if you just read the second title, what conclussion would you come to nati? "Rome's Radical Conservative"... they sound scared, if you ask me... i will shut up about this, b/c 1. i'm not catholic 2. it doesn't matter what i say, you and others have their mind made up (not on this topic necessarily) i guess my ultimate point is: another lost election for liberals/progressives... and they're pissed!! [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] couldn't help myself [right][post="78527"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] I don't know why liberals, or anyone else, gives a shit about the pope. He is an old man in a dress. One day he was a Cardinal (maybe one day he'll get traded and become a Saint), and the next day he is the "leader" of the Catholic church with a direct line to God. Does this make sense to anyone who thinks rationally? At least the Buddhist's came up with an elaborate reincarnation story as to why their leader is the true leader. They are also much less pushy with their beliefs and actually respect diversity and tolerance. I could care less if Gandhi or Atila the Hun becomes pope, much less expecting anything other than a conservative European pope. Pope has no bearing on my life, I will not alter myself from one day to the next because there is a "liberal" pope. Instead of living in those extravagant palaces and wearing such nice jewelry, why don't they really give themselves to God and use that money to feed the hungry or needy. I guess they need that money to pay off people in the scandals they cover up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 [quote name='jza10304' date='Apr 20 2005, 02:42 PM']I don't know why liberals, or anyone else, gives a shit about the pope. He is an old man in a dress. One day he was a Cardinal (maybe one day he'll get traded and become a Saint), and the next day he is the "leader" of the Catholic church with a direct line to God. Does this make sense to anyone who thinks rationally? At least the Buddhist's came up with an elaborate reincarnation story as to why their leader is the true leader. They are also much less pushy with their beliefs and actually respect diversity and tolerance. I could care less if Gandhi or Atila the Hun becomes pope, much less expecting anything other than a conservative European pope. Pope has no bearing on my life, I will not alter myself from one day to the next because there is a "liberal" pope. Instead of living in those extravagant palaces and wearing such nice jewelry, why don't they really give themselves to God and use that money to feed the hungry or needy. I guess they need that money to pay off people in the scandals they cover up. [right][post="78646"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] i actually agree w/ everything here... but to answer the question "what does it matter", as far as who is pope... i don't know your religious background offhand, but reguardless, there are millions of people that follow the words of the pope... alot could change w/ a different voice speaking... good post either way though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nati Ice Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='Apr 20 2005, 12:05 PM']what is your problem w/ fox? they show BOTH sides of the issues... if you don't believe it, then you don't ever watch it... sorry your so closed minded... like i said, i expected worse, but your right, these articles aren't that bad... opinions are just that, but i was pointing out what is too come... if you just read the second title, what conclussion would you come to nati? "Rome's Radical Conservative"... they sound scared, if you ask me... i will shut up about this, b/c 1. i'm not catholic 2. it doesn't matter what i say, you and others have their mind made up (not on this topic necessarily) i guess my ultimate point is: another lost election for liberals/progressives... and they're pissed!! [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] couldn't help myself [right][post="78527"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] all fox does is spread propaganda (right wing propaganda), i watch it for entertainment and the laugh factor, i get my news from the nyt, bbc, and random local news channels, i dont attribute any of my beliefs to either party and i believe that the "liberal media" is actually quite conservative, when was the last time you saw anything relatively liberal/indecent (outside of politicians) over the air or on basic cable without repercussions? i believe that most anchors that try to present the info without spin are actually slightly liberal, ill give u that much, but they put little spin condemning the right. basically, the right controls the gov't at the present and the media is always against whichever party is in gov't control, was against clinton and is against bush (remember how clinton was a draft dodger for going to college but bush is a hero for going to the natl guard, give me a break), even tho the house has been controlled by the right for how long...? the fact of the matter is that there is always goin to be spin, even if the majority of it is unintentional, but u act like there is some big hollywood conspiracy against the right, i thought that type of thought was only for the irrational-left? fox is the far and obvious right wing media outlet, if you dont believe that then u are obviously a member of the extreme right and/or crazy, ill just assume u are both, like what was said earlier, you see what u want to see, you are obviously looking for every example of proof to discount the "liberal media," now this obviously exists but is completely overexaggerated and goes without an equal and opposite comparison any station that needs to claim it is "fair and balanced" on average every 30 seconds is propaganda my friend, not the hitler type but it definitely falls into the general definition of the word, what show has a liberal representative on fox? hannity/colmes(sp?)? to each his own but to be honest with you i have no reason to go against u when i probably have voted for more republicans than democrats, i dont like either party and believe that they both have there fair share of crazies, the only difference is the right gets more airtime, i wouldnt shed a tear if both sides extremests all perished back to the subject... i dont give 2 shits about who is elected pope, a liberal pope is still conservative and the pope does not directly affect me since im not catholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 [quote name='Nati Ice' date='Apr 20 2005, 04:33 PM']all fox does is spread propaganda (right wing propaganda), i watch it for entertainment and the laugh factor, i get my news from the nyt, bbc, and random local news channels, i dont attribute any of my beliefs to either party and i believe that the "liberal media" is actually quite conservative, when was the last time you saw anything relatively liberal/indecent (outside of politicians) over the air or on basic cable without repercussions? i believe that most anchors that try to present the info without spin are actually slightly liberal, ill give u that much, but they put little spin condemning the right. basically, the right controls the gov't at the present and the media is always against whichever party is in gov't control, was against clinton and is against bush (remember how clinton was a draft dodger for going to college but bush is a hero for going to the natl guard, give me a break), even tho the house has been controlled by the right for how long...? the fact of the matter is that there is always goin to be spin, even if the majority of it is unintentional, but u act like there is some big hollywood conspiracy against the right, i thought that type of thought was only for the irrational-left? fox is the far and obvious right wing media outlet, if you dont believe that then u are obviously a member of the extreme right and/or crazy, ill just assume u are both, like what was said earlier, you see what u want to see, you are obviously looking for every example of proof to discount the "liberal media," now this obviously exists but is completely overexaggerated and goes without an equal and opposite comparison any station that needs to claim it is "fair and balanced" on average every 30 seconds is propaganda my friend, not the hitler type but it definitely falls into the general definition of the word, what show has a liberal representative on fox? hannity/colmes(sp?)? to each his own but to be honest with you i have no reason to go against u when i probably have voted for more republicans than democrats, i dont like either party and believe that they both have there fair share of crazies, the only difference is the right gets more airtime, i wouldnt shed a tear if both sides extremests all perished back to the subject... i dont give 2 shits about who is elected pope, a liberal pope is still conservative and the pope does not directly affect me since im not catholic [right][post="78689"][/post][/right][/quote] i'll address most of what you wrote... first off, there is a huge bias in hollywood, but i'm not a conspiracy theorists, so i don't call it a conspiracy... but they are obviously not in lockstep w/ the majority of america.. fox is slanted slightly to the right... both sides are ALWAYS presented (hence the fair and balanced slogan) but the commentators tend to be more conservative... i'll give you that... CNN is somewhat biased. period. notice the ratings.. CBS is extremely biased most other "mainstream media" outlets lean to the left, besides talk radio which is extreme right... extremeism is what gives BOTH parties a bad name... i would be happier w/ the NYT, Washington post, if they admitted they were liberal... opionon peices are one thing (as we saw on my earlier post ) but if you are supposed to report news, leave out your opinion... i even heard clinton say that he never had it as hard as bush does (media wise) but i can't seem to find the quote... it was just said less than a week ago... besides the monica thing, clinton had it pretty easy in the media... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jza10304 Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 [quote name='Nati Ice' date='Apr 20 2005, 05:33 PM']back to the subject... i dont give 2 shits about who is elected pope, a liberal pope is still conservative and the pope does not directly affect me since im not catholic [right][post="78689"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] I was raised Catholic and say fuck the pope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nati Ice Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 show me how the nyt is biased to either side, outside of the opinion articles and other bs that o'reilly has been running recently cnn is no more biased than fox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nati Ice Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 [quote name='jza10304' date='Apr 20 2005, 04:58 PM']I was raised Catholic and say fuck the pope. [right][post="78699"][/post][/right][/quote] and how exactly does that work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bengal_Smoov Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 Why did they name a 78 year old Pope, they're going to have to this all over again. Did anyone this guy was a Nazi? How in the world is the guy who is supposed to represent God on earth going to be a former Nazi? I'm I the only one who thinks that might be a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nati Ice Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 he is viewed as a "transitional pope" he is not a nazi, he had no choice, either do what they say or die, seems like a pretty easy choice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 [b]Take the Nigerian Cardinal who understands the 3rd world and the steps needed to curtail poverty = Nope Take a Latin American Pope to boost numbers and represent the area of the World that has the Most Catholics = Nah (he's a little too brown) [color="red"]Take the half dying Ex Hitler Youth German Neo Fascist who makes Rush Limbaugh look like a Liberal = PERFECT [/color] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/30.gif[/img] [/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted April 21, 2005 Report Share Posted April 21, 2005 [url="http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/20/mary.underpass.ap/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/20/mary.unde...s.ap/index.html[/url] [i][color="purple"]"Never Underestimate the Power of Dumb people in Large Groups" [/color][/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest steggyD Posted April 21, 2005 Report Share Posted April 21, 2005 Wow, crazy!!! I was around Times Square at the time that the pope was about to be announced. I saw people, many, many people gathered in groups staring up at the buildings. I'm thinking, wow, maybe some famous rock star is nearby. I cross the street to see what they are staring at. There's a freaking television on the building with the news break that the new pope is about to be announced. I'm in shock! I didn't know it meant that much to so many people. I'm a simple Kentucky boy I guess. Southern Baptists don't have any popes, just rattle snakes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.