http://www.pewforum.org/2012/11/07/how-the-faithful-voted-2012-preliminary-exit-poll-analysis/#rr
Posted on 11/27/2013 7:05:43 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Radio giant Rush Limbaugh is scorching the leader of the Roman Catholic Church for criticizing unfettered capitalism, saying, “This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope.”
“You know the pope, Pope Francis has issued an official papal proclamation, and it’s sad,” Limbaugh said on his national broadcast Wednesday. “It’s actually unbelievable. It’s sad because this pope makes it very clear he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to capitalism and socialism and so forth.”
“I’m not Catholic,” Limbaugh added, “but up until this I admired the man.”
In the 84-page document titled “Evangelii Gaudium,” which was released Tuesday, Pope Francis called upon politicians to provide “dignified work, education and health care” to all citizens.
“The commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life,” wrote the pope. “Today we also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills.”
Noting that he had visited the Vatican “numerous times,” Limbaugh observed wryly: “Believe me, it wouldn’t exist without tons of money. Somebody has either written this for [the pope] or gotten to him. This is pure Marxism.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
“Have you noticed that those States represented by a stripe are largely in love with Democratic Socialism?”
Until the money runs out.....it gets worse every day
I am seeing this disgusting card played all too often here on FR.
The fact that each of us are individuals and have our own set of experiences, ideas and opinions does not mean we are in disagreement over basic political concepts.
Merely espousing ones contrary belief regarding a particular subject or topic does not justify being labelled as "the enemy."
Personally, and I speak only for myself in this, the use of this tactic is puerile and insulting to the board. All who are regulars know what the basic beliefs are for the board and are here because they agree, either tacitly or openly, with those stated beliefs.
Merely having a contrary opinion over a discussed topic is NOT reason to point curly fingers, accuse of being an 'non-believer' and call for chastisement and being cast out from the "in-crowd."
Enough of this childish behavior. That is a tactic, Alinsky at its finest, used by the left.
Plenty of excellent examples of thoughtful expression of disagreement are on this thread. Accept that we are not robots.
Its a "big tent" with room for many - but it is "our tent" and we all choose to be in it.
.../rant
Agreed. I stopped replying to him/her.
Ummm. I was speaking in spooky Catholic code, to another Catholic (referring to the English translation based not on the damned AP, the protestant, or anti-Catholic interpretation, but upon on a Catholic interpretation with a Western understanding of words, and a proficiency in the Catholic faith). Not all here, with their hair on fire, have both. :)
I was unaware that “trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world” involved a secret Catholic code of linguistics. What DOES it mean, when one uses a Catholic decoder ring? What does “trickle down” mean to Catholic theologians?
It’s a secret, silly.
BTW, Check out Matt Lewis column over on Hotair.com. “WHY POPE FRANCIS COMMENTS ARE GOOD FOR CONSERVATIVES”. Something like that anyway. Thx.
The posting is a ‘synthesis’ of what the pope wrote….Hardly the same as ‘what it really says’
Nope my claim was correct, you are just blowing hot air.
Yet you quote him just like Revolting cat.
Nope. You were wrong. And you’re wrong again.
I liked John Paul and Reagan teaming up to fight communism better than Francis and Obama teaming up to push Obamacare.
I thought the church was supposed to promote private, individual charity, not government-run redistribution.
I definitely don’t think this attitude is new with Francis. There’s a reason Catholics tend to vote Democrat.
exactly
And there’s nothing about capitalism that says you can’t have laws saying people can’t dump chemical and nuclear waste anywhere they want.
What childish behavior? There are such things as trolls, and we tend to flag posters as possible trolls when they say things that are consistent with standard lib talking points. Yes, it can be an Alinskyism to falsely target someone as a troll. But it can also be a valid "immune system" response, if you will pardon the analogy. It really has to be looked at case by case.
In this particular situation, I have seen two behaviors before that I am seeing here:
1. During the Palin near-candidacy, we routinely had some posters deriding Palin supporters as Palin worshippers. This as it turns out was shared by both regulars we can probably trust as non-trolls, but with some others who basically came for the Palin wars and left when they were over. In any event, it was an invalid attack by willful exaggeration, an attempt to invalidate a position by falsely stretching thoughtful support into mindless idolatry. It was designed to act as a conversation stopper, and it was effective.
2. Entirely without basis, Palin's internal motivations were constantly derided as revolving around her need to make money, to sell her persona for profit, thereby discrediting the sincerity or intellectual merit of anything she had to say. The objective, in my estimation, was to separate her from her audience, to deliberately diminish her influence, but with no basis in fact.
So now we have another major influencer of popular thought, Rush, being derided in the same way. We know the Obama administration has an interest in diminishing his influence, and when we see behavior designed to produce that effect, it is reasonable to at least ask whether it is just a random event, or whether it is purposeful.
My own philosophy, which I think was not always in place, is to treat everyone more or less alike, whether I suspect trollery or not. The reasons are threefold. First, as you have rightly pointed out, it is possible for a real troll to accuse a non-troll of being a troll, again for the purpose of discrediting someone who could influence thought in an "undesirable" way.
Second, if someone is using an "attack the messenger" strategy, per Alinsky, that tells me they don't have a substantive basis for the conclusion they are trying to extract. So troll or not, they can be gamed into unflattering self-exposure all day, and the more they fumble about without offering a meaningful response, the worse their position gets. And that's fine with me. So in that sense it doesn't matter if they're a troll or not. And if it doesn't matter, why accuse them of it? But I will call them on a lack of substance, or the use of Alinsky tactics, or whatever can be discerned from the actual facts. That's all I'm interested in.
But third, and most importantly, trolls are real people too. Someone who actually is a troll has much deeper problems than trying to sabotage legitimate political discussion. That level of duplicity and deception is corrosive to a man or woman's very soul. They are much worse off for being a troll that we are for hosting them. They really have my pity. So why should I pick on them for that, especially when I can't be sure? It just makes no sense.
I take it you mean Hong Kong, not Taiwan?
I guess that explains why the Republicans just raised our gas taxes to the highest in the nation.
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/11/07/how-the-faithful-voted-2012-preliminary-exit-poll-analysis/#rr
Guess it is time for me to leave the Catholic Church and look elsewhere. This fish stinks from the head.
I am very disappointed and shocked regarding the Pope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.