Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Pope ManiaFollow

#1 Sep 22 2015 at 2:18 PM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
The Pope is now on US soil and I figure he needs his own thread.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#2 Sep 22 2015 at 2:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Is he here? Is he here?

I bet he's Anonymous Guest #30

Listening to non-Catholic talk radio folks speak about the Pope and Papal visit has been amusing.

Edited, Sep 22nd 2015 3:22pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Sep 22 2015 at 2:49 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
@GovMikeHuckabee wrote:
@POTUS show of disrespect for @Pontifex is a new low for an admin that will go down as most anti-Christian in American history #PopeInUS
Considering Thomas Jefferson vocally loathed orthodox Christianity, I'm going with him. Then again, accuracy certainly isn't necessary for religious or election year rhetoric.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 Sep 22 2015 at 4:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
My understanding, based on what the radio has taught me, is that Obama plans to convince the Pope to use his pontiff powers to spearhead a radical leftist agenda, and Obama's master plan to make this happen is to insult the shit out of the man by literally heaving homosexuals and aborted fetuses at him.

It all makes sense when AM radio explains it to you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Sep 22 2015 at 4:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
But how is Obama going to convert the Pope to Islam in a week?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#6 Sep 22 2015 at 4:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
With gay people, naturally.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#7 Sep 22 2015 at 4:34 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
What exactly did Obama do to the Pope? Did he bow too far, or not far enough, when he met him on the tarmac?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#8 Sep 22 2015 at 5:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Out of 15,000 people at a planned reception for the Pope on the White House south lawn, there's a couple pro-gay rights or transgendered rights people. Apparently, it's incredibly important that the Pope not insulted by the sight of these people and that they not be allowed near his Holiness. Those of you who read the Gospels (that's all of you, right? Good) will remember when Jesus shunned the prostitutes, adulterers, tax collectors and lepers or the times when he told the Canaanite or Samaritan women to fuck off and leave him alone. The Pontiff should not have to bear exposure to these people and only those pure in the eyes of God should be allowed the privilege of seeing the Vicar of Christ in person.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Sep 22 2015 at 5:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Something tells me the Pope is a lot less stressed by the presence of LGBT people than the pundits on the right are on his presumed behalf.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#10 Sep 22 2015 at 6:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Samira wrote:
Something tells me the Pope is a lot less stressed by the presence of LGBT people than the pundits on the right are on his presumed behalf


It's not about stress, but that (apparently, based on the very very brief bits I've read on this), his advance team specifically objected to these people being invited, and Obama decided to invite them anyway. I'm sure it's not a huge deal for the Pope, but it's more of a hospitality thing. You're holding an event specifically for a guest, you usually defer to them in terms of who is invited. The larger point being made on the right is that there's a clear pattern of liberals doing this sort of thing. As long as liberals make a huge deal about "OMG! The pope spoke to a gay/bi/trans/whatever person, so I guess he's ok with that!", you're going to get conservatives making a huge deal about liberals deliberately inviting gay/bi/trans/whatever people to an event that the pope (or any person heavily associated with religion) is involved in.

Surely you can see how some of this is about pushing the situation. I'm sure that in any crowd of 15k people, there are going to be a mix of all sorts of different people. And yes, some of them will be gay/bi/trans/whatever. But he (his people anyway) made a point of inviting these people and telling everyone "we're inviting these people to meet the pope", presumably specifically to get a reaction, so that you all could point to the reaction. It's fabricated, and I don't blame the Pope's people for objecting to such silliness.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#11 Sep 22 2015 at 6:13 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Not that I don't believe you, gbaji, but could you cite a (real) source showing that the pope's people said "no gehys, plox"?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#12 Sep 22 2015 at 6:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's not about stress, but that (apparently, based on the very very brief bits I've read on this), his advance team specifically objected to these people being invited, and Obama decided to invite them anyway.

Nah. There was one report the WSJ ran of one guy from the Vatican (the usual unnamed "senior official") bitching about it and everyone else ran with it as a story. The Vatican itself issued no statements about it (account owned by press guy from the Holy See).

I wouldn't be surprised or doubt that you could find someone unhappy with it in the Vatican -- the Vatican is full of conservative traditionalists. That doesn't mean that they reflect the actual opinion of the Holy See. But, you know, "Vatican mad at Obama because gays!" makes for too juicy a story to pass up.

Edited, Sep 22nd 2015 7:21pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Sep 22 2015 at 6:24 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Let gbaji do his own homework, Jophiel!!Smiley: mad
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#14 Sep 22 2015 at 6:28 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
Something tells me the Pope is a lot less stressed by the presence of LGBT people than the pundits on the right are on his presumed behalf


It's not about stress, but that (apparently, based on the very very brief bits I've read on this), his advance team specifically objected to these people being invited, and Obama decided to invite them anyway. I'm sure it's not a huge deal for the Pope, but it's more of a hospitality thing. You're holding an event specifically for a guest, you usually defer to them in terms of who is invited. The larger point being made on the right is that there's a clear pattern of liberals doing this sort of thing. As long as liberals make a huge deal about "OMG! The pope spoke to a ***/bi/trans/whatever person, so I guess he's ok with that!", you're going to get conservatives making a huge deal about liberals deliberately inviting ***/bi/trans/whatever people to an event that the pope (or any person heavily associated with religion) is involved in.

Surely you can see how some of this is about pushing the situation. I'm sure that in any crowd of 15k people, there are going to be a mix of all sorts of different people. And yes, some of them will be ***/bi/trans/whatever. But he (his people anyway) made a point of inviting these people and telling everyone "we're inviting these people to meet the pope", presumably specifically to get a reaction, so that you all could point to the reaction. It's fabricated, and I don't blame the Pope's people for objecting to such silliness.

You should probably try getting your news from somewhere.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#15 Sep 22 2015 at 6:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I actually had no idea who was going to be among the 15,000 attendees before the right wing started collectively losing their shit over 0.008% of them.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 Sep 22 2015 at 6:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Well, the collective loss of ***** is what punditry is all about.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#17 Sep 22 2015 at 8:04 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Considering Thomas Jefferson vocally loathed orthodox Christianity, I'm going with him.

Your blind reverence for the Founding Fathers shouldn't have any bearing on current political issues, Reaganite!
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#18 Sep 22 2015 at 8:10 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Also, I love how progressive bloggers think they can/should tell the Pope how he should lead the Catholic church. I'm fairly sure the Holy Father, direct conduit to the Almighty, doesn't read your columns, Matt Yglesias (or whoever).
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#19 Sep 22 2015 at 11:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, when the Pope was selected and had his first couple public addresses, some people were bizarrely optimistic about changes that were never going to happen. The Pope isn't going to start throwing out doctrine and begin appointing female priests or blessing gay marriage or whatever.

Conversely, people on the right who act like the Pope is some leftist maverick who tricked the Holy See are off base as well. The cardinals knew who they were picking when they elected him Pope. He was the second place pick after Benedict the last time around. It's not as though the conclave picks a name out of a hat -- whoever they decide is going to be Pope is someone they know very well and there's really no surprises.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Sep 23 2015 at 12:13 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
You mean whoever God chooses.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#21 Sep 23 2015 at 6:40 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Demea wrote:
Also, I love how progressive bloggers think they can/should tell the Pope how he should lead the Catholic church. I'm fairly sure the Holy Father, direct conduit to the Almighty, doesn't read your columns, Matt Yglesias (or whoever).
You're right. They should just infiltrate the church, assassinate some people and stage a coup. If that doesn't work, they need to bomb some brown people.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#22 Sep 23 2015 at 7:01 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, when the Pope was selected and had his first couple public addresses, some people were bizarrely optimistic about changes that were never going to happen. The Pope isn't going to start throwing out doctrine and begin appointing female priests or blessing gay marriage or whatever.

Conversely, people on the right who act like the Pope is some leftist maverick who tricked the Holy See are off base as well. The cardinals knew who they were picking when they elected him Pope. He was the second place pick after Benedict the last time around. It's not as though the conclave picks a name out of a hat -- whoever they decide is going to be Pope is someone they know very well and there's really no surprises.


I think the problem goes back to the labels used in the US. Pope is not a leftie nor is he a hardcore conservative. It may be hard for some to believe, but papacy came before the US. As such, it is an odd mix of caring for people ( in principle, mostly cuz Jesus did it ), and imposing God's will ( mostly cuz God did it ).

It really is not that simple. But people choose to believe so anyway and try to bend Pope's word to fit their own agenda. But what else is new?

Quite frankly, the crazy polarization we see today is rather recent. I heard some clips from Reagan the other day. For all hails from the Rs, the guy would be tarred and feathered today. Maybe called RINO if he was lucky.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#23 Sep 23 2015 at 7:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kavekkk wrote:
You mean whoever God chooses.

Nah, if that was the case it only only take five minutes to elect a new Pope instead of days. The Conclave spends days in prayer, trying to discern the Holy Spirit and made the best choice, but ultimately their choice:
Pope Benedict XVI wrote:
I would not say [that the Pope is picked by God], in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit's role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.

Benedict then acknowledged that there has been previous bad picks by men over the centuries. Granted, he's talking about the murderers, adulterers, extortioners, etc and not "His view on income inequality is different than mine!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Sep 23 2015 at 7:43 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
It's not as though the conclave picks a name out of a hat --
That'd be absurd. They save the sorting hat for when there's an incident involving a priest and the choir boys.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#25 Sep 23 2015 at 12:22 PM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
Nice to see that the Pope went to St. Matthews. My mother would take us there sometimes on High Holy Days after school, or the Saturdays on the weekends she didn't want to attend mass on Sundays.

Back then she thought it was a sin not to attend mass at least once a week. Towards the end of her life she stop going to mass, as the church and her did not agree on many political issues.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#26 Sep 23 2015 at 1:28 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
I always love the phrase "in the eyes of God", you know, because an omniscient omnipotent being would have a use for eyes.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 230 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (230)