Archbishop Dolan blasts anti-Catholicism of New York Times [CWN]

[estesbob]

Hey Bob, keep pullin’ for them Rangers, man! That worked out great for us tonight! Texas BBQ…yee hawwww! :thumbsup:

Scoring 11 runs…awesome

Tim Lincecum…amazing.

Freddie Sanchez…heroic

Wiping the floor with Cliff Lee and sending him off the mound with a 6-run route,

PRICELESS!

Seriously though, the Rangers will not win this series in my humble baseball opinion. But I do think they’ll come back to life, especially in the 3rd and 4th games. Heck, maybe tomorrow night. The media has sucked up to them so much and declared them the champs. ESPN in their typical anti-Giants propaganda has already handed them the trophy so they came out tonight with Cliff Lee thinking it would be a picnic. They’ll come down to earth now that they have to lick their wounds. I think they’ll play a tighter game next time and it’ll be closer. But I like our chances with my boy Cain piching.

I’ve watched Matt Cain pitch at AT&T Park and he’s lights-out with a huge wealth of pitches. He’s a joy to watch…

cheers

This summer I went to a game at Wrigley Field with my son-in-law and daughter. I hate the Cubs but decided to be polite and pull for them but after the 3rd inning I reslized I couldn’t bring myself to do it. I can say the same thing about the Rangers-I really wanted to pull for them but ,again, couldn’t bring myself to do it. Not much fun watching a series where you want both teams to lose-but least neither of Satans teams, the Yankees and the Mets, made it into the series

Hopefully your boy Cain does not use the Barry Bonds method of getting in shape.(I suspect you knew you couldn’t get through the Series without somebody making snarky comments about Barry Bonds!)
.

 

[tomarin]

This summer I went to a game at Wrigley Field with my son-in-law and daughter. I hate the Cubs but decided to be polite and pull for them but after the 3rd inning I reslized I couldn’t bring myself to do it. I can say the same thing about the Rangers-I really wanted to pull for them but ,again, couldn’t bring myself to do it. Not much fun watching a series where you want both teams to lose-but least neither of Satans teams, the Yankees and the Mets, made it into the series.

You sure hate a lot of ball clubs! I reserve all my spleen for one: the Bronx Bombers!

 

[estesbob]

You sure hate a lot of ball clubs! I reserve all my spleen for one: the Bronx Bombers!

I consider every body but the Astros and the Royals to be the enemy. I will have to admit that I’m a fair weather fan where football and basketball are concerned . I am rabid about baseball. I was still glued to the TV every night expecting the Astros to run off a 20 game winning streak and pull the Pennant out as late as 1 September. On the other hand even though I am a Kansas City Chiefs and Houston Rockets fan when they fall far behind I pretty much quit following them.

 

[tomarin]

I consider every body but the Astros and the Royals to be the enemy. I will have to admit that I’m a fair weather fan where football and basketball are concerned . I am rabid about baseball.

Me too. Trying to get into hockey now that it’s getting colder.

 

[Roy5]

A question. How can any perceptive and honest person back the Yankees? That alone makes me question the wisdom and judgements of the Archbishop of New York. Besides, he joins the enemy (NY Times, of course) whose writers cheer the Bronx Bums on. Miserable dictu! (A little Latin for those Catholics who yearn for those ‘good old days’.)

 

[canadianguy1143]

I think not. ** George Bush did not accuse Saddam of developing nuclear weapons**, and from what I’ve read, Iraq didn’t have the capability to develop one.

How could we have taken out Iran? We had no reason to. There wasn’t any causus belli. We hadn’t accused them of being behind 9/11 and they were not Iraq’s ally during the war.

I distinctly remember in the build up to the Iraq War that certain members of the Bush Administration (Cheney and others) mention the possibility of developing nuclear weapons as a means to build up support for the War. In fact many prominent Democrats believed that Saddam had a nuclear program.

georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051114-1.html

Sen. Clinton: “In The Four Years Since The Inspectors, Intelligence Reports Show That Saddam Hussein Has Worked To Rebuild His Chemical And Biological Weapons Stock, His Missile Delivery Capability, And His Nuclear Program. … It Is Clear, However, That If Left Unchecked, Saddam Hussein Will Continue To Increase His Capability To Wage Biological And Chemical Warfare And Will Keep Trying** To Develop Nuclear Weapons.**” (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10288)

Sen. Rockefeller (D-WV): “There Is Unmistakable Evidence That Saddam Hussein Is Working Aggressively To Develop Nuclear Weapons. And Will Likely Have Nuclear Weapons Within The Next Five Years. And Then Could Have It Earlier If He’s Able To Obtain Materials On The Outside Market Which Is Possible. Difficult But Possible.” (Sen. John Rockefeller, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, Pg.S10306)

Sen. Kerry: “According To The CIA’s Report, All U.S. Intelligence Experts Agree That Iraq Is Seeking Nuclear Weapons. There Is Little Question That Saddam Hussein Wants To Develop Nuclear Weapons.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, pp. S10172-10173)​

Whether or not he had a program remains to be seen.

 

[canadianguy1143]

Regarding the World Series, we can’t allow the Giants to win it. If they do, then people in San Francisco will be happy and may decide to elect Nancy Pelosi. WE CAN’T LET THAT HAPPEN!!!

 

[OriginalJS]

Anyone who does not recognize the obvious “'we’ve got you now” type of guttoral, malevolently biased reportage promulgated by the NY Times, must be a sadly indoctrinated member of the psychsocial selective criticism school of reason which deems certain ideologies, ethnicities and religions as being sacrosanct, while allowing for the antipathetic targeting of others, with malice and direct intent to injure.

A media which so openly opposes all things Catholic, and in general, all things Christian, must truly be confident in their control, and in their power. They seem to be historically blind to the inevitable majority backlash. Aggressive anti-Christian media assaults, as most prominently seen in liberal rags such as the NY Times, are shortsighted, and, in fact, dangerous for themselves, as it is historical truth that an oppressed majority always regains eventual power, and if it is sufficiently provoked, and radicalized, can produce very strong reponses.

This radical agenda being so aggressively pursued by a media which seems determined to enjoin a battle for our cultural and religious identity, must be tempered by the more measured among their number. The arrogance of power and wealth should not make these people blind to the risks inherent in acting as surreptitious propagandists that consider the broader majority as a rabble. Such views must be considered irresposible.

To propose that the NY Times and their ilk have no Anti-Catholic (Christian) bias is to admit to a liberal pscychosocial brainwashing that is indeed tragic. There is no longer the vague, or the secretive; we are in the “in your face” phase a of anti-Catholicism in modern American media. It is, sadly, a precurser of dark times ahead. I pray that I am wrong.

We must all pray that those in control of modern media reconsider this belligerent position regarding the Christian majority of the United State of America.

The reason the church is attacked is because it is the leader. Leaders are fair game in America. Walmart and McDonalds are constantly criticized; second runners like Wendys and Target are not. A price of leadership is being subject to criticism and attack.