URGENT: LifeSite is under attack

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F_Marturana . . .
What about the bombers social media accounts?
Click to expand...
Do you mean the possibly attempted bomber who had no detonation device reported but did have “energetic material that could be explosive” and stickers illegally plastered over and covering van windows that would be a proverbial red flag to any passing police vehicles?

So what?

This is a sick man that wanted attention and a place to stay (jail).

And you (not “you” personally but the liberal media) provided him with all the attention he could imagine.

YOU are the one who incited his attention-getting nightmare (not “you” personally but I am directing my comments toward the msm now).
 
No one suggests that… maybe the first time I voted, I was a Democrat as well.
 
Victoria33.

These guys laugh and make fun of Breitbart, LifeSite, etc. and really go wild over Rush.

You don’t have to look far to see that lived out. You can see some of it on this thread.

Rush? They laugh at Rush too. (Rush doesn’t even claim to be a “news source” at least as far as I know).

Answers? (As you asked for??) Not much.

Many of these people fall all over themselves cheer-leading for CNN, etc.

(I know YOU know that Victoria33 [and many others know too] because I have seen your excellent posts and YOU know what is going on. But since “lurkers” read this I will go on as if I were addressing a first-time poster here.)

Here is CNN’s Brooke Baldwin not realizing U.S. Congress has term limits while attempting to bash “Trump”.

(Baldwin didn’t realize members of U.S. Congress have no term limits! Dana Bash almost starts laughing at her own fellow-liberal on TV, and attempts to discreetly correct her.)


There are proverbial mountains of this sort of thing but you never hear a complaint from the liberals about it.

They make excuses about such fails. Or ignore it and pretend it doesn’t exist.

Me? I affirm ALL news outlets are biased and some “news” (a lot of it actually) is now reduced to “info-tainment”.

You won’t see Twitter or Facebook put “Possible Fake News” notices about CNN etc. either or suspend their accounts.

Why?

Because the griping that goes on against Breitbart, etc. is POLITICAL.
And the pom-pom waving FOR CNN, MSNBC, etc. is POLITICAL.
And the ignoring of CNN (etc.) fake news or excuse-making is POLITICAL.

And regarding politics, it all comes down to abortion.

At least that is the way it is today (in my opinion).

Sooner or later it all comes down to the abortion issue.

When you watch for it, you will see it. (I know you see this kind of thing Victoria33 but this really isn’t for you per se.)

Keep up the great work and don’t let liberals get you down with their name-calling and jeering tactics. They don’t have any answers.

It only gives me an excuse to put up MORE Breitbart, LifeSiteNews, FoxNews, etc. as I will not allow them to dictate to me what information I read and/or share.
 
Last edited:
Victoria33 said:
Limbaugh is a great source.

Has always been kind of Catholics besides his brother becoming Catholic.
Click to expand...
Nope. According to Limbaugh, the Pope is a Marxist.

www.nydailynews.com

Rush Limbaugh blasts Pope Francis’ latest statement

Rush Limbaugh is going after Pope Francis just in time for the Christmas season. The outspoken conservative pundit blasted the Pope this week after the pontiff released a new 50,000 word document, …
www.nydailynews.com www.nydailynews.com
 
I think your argument would carry A LOT more weight if you could refrain from pointing to “liberal” sources and asking, “But what about them?!” No matter what other sources do, if source X is being sensationalist, providing faulty information, etc., this kind of “journalism” isn’t justified.
 
Nope. According to Limbaugh, the Pope is a Marxist
Click to expand...
Victoria33 is talking about Limbaugh as a source for news not religion.

And as I said, ALL of these outlets are biased and have mis-information (I am not arguing with your criticism against Limbaugh HERE).

But if you think one inappropriate post from Limbaugh disqualifies him, why not disqualify CNN too and others?

I don’t think this disqualifies ANY of them (even Brooke Baldwin’s ridiculous assertion on CNN).

It just makes me take all this stuff with even more skepticism.

If the New York Times is notoriously poor on getting things correct about the Catholic faith (and they are notoriously poor), WHY would you expect someone like Limbaugh to get things correct?
 
Last edited:
graceppole . . . .
I think your argument would carry A LOT more weight if you could refrain from pointing to “liberal” sources
Click to expand...
No thanks. I am OK with my arguments not “carrying as much weight”.

The people that want to know will know what I am alluding to.

The people that don’t I won’t convince anyway.

I am OK with my arguments just the way they are in that respect. But thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut anyway gracepoole.
 
gracepoole
Victoria33 is talking about Limbaugh as a source for news not religion.
Click to expand...
Please try to focus on what I responded to specifically. Victoria33 said…
Limbaugh is a great source.

Has always been kind of Catholics besides his brother becoming Catholic.
Click to expand...
Yeah but so what?

So Limbaugh gets this wrong.

He still is kind to Catholics overall. (he does not bat .1000)

Look. I have not heard a Rush show in years (I purposefully listened to a segment or two several months ago because someone else here brought him up) and maybe he has changed and is now attacking the authentic Catholic Faith on-air. I don’t know. Sounds like you know more about it than I do.

But when I have heard his shows, he HAS been kind to the Catholic Church.

And I would have no problem listening to MORE of his shows if I had more time for such things or was traveling and got his show on the car radio.

But one comment and writing him off (while ignoring so much else on the liberal networks) seems disingenuous to me.

So if I find an anti-Catholic comment from CNN, are you going to go back and show me all your posts where you have decried CNN?

No. There probably aren’t any.

And in THAT respect it is not a big deal to me.

But it IS inconsistent for you.

And I think it is POLITICS. You may disagree and I am fine with that.
 
So you’re here to preach to others who already agree with your position. Awesome.
Click to expand...
Look gracepoole. This kind of condescension just isn’t going to intimidate me.

If you want to analyze what I said, I am happy to discuss the issues.

If you want to bait me or insult me, I am not going to go along with that.
 
Cathoholic said:
So you’re here to preach to others who already agree with your position. Awesome.
Click to expand...
There’s no attempt at intimidation here: I promise. Instead I’m pointing out that logically, one can easily dismiss any argument that focuses on the tu quoque appeal. You’ve stated that you have no interest in persuading others here. That seems slightly bizarre to me. Why engage in a discussion with those who share dissenting opinions then?
Click to expand...
 
This is the standard we’re using?
Click to expand...
I could ask YOU the same question.

One comment and write him off?

MANY anti-Catholic things in the NY Times and NOT write them off?

Why?

Politics. (At least that is what the actions tell me. Maybe not the words, but the posts.)
 
Last edited:
At least I didn’t base any conclusions on my own limited experiences with the guy.
 
Cathoholic said:
YOU are the one who incited his attention-getting nightmare (not “you” personally but I am directing my comments toward the msm now).
Click to expand...
Right. So it’s all the media’s fault for reporting what is said by the President of the United States.
You’re implying that, therefore, they should NOT report his attacks on the press and on politicians who dare to disagree with him.

Works for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top