What do you think of NPR?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JChapel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RCconvert7 said:
I would challenge you to actually WATCH what happens when “liberals” are on Fox shows. They nearly always capitulate to the “conservative.” That was part of what got Juan Williams fired. While the whole “I’m scared of Muslims when I see one on a plane” was the straw that broke the camel’s back, it was him appearing regularly on Fox with “NPR News Analyst” under his face as if he was speaking with NPR’s voice. If you look at what NPR execs said, you’ll see it was that he regularly violated his contract by appearing on other news organizations (Fox), who used his employment with NPR as “liberal credentials.” When Williams would be led to agree with Bill O’Rilley then, it was presented as the conservatives winning an argument when Williams pretty much agreed with Papa Bear to begin with.

Is NPR “liberal?” I don’t think so. I think NPR is secular, as it should be considering it gets govt. funding. The real issue has to do with where the “center” is. Fox presents its conservative commentators as middle-of-the-roaders who are on the side of most Americans. They then bring on center-right democrats or news analysts (like WIlliams), label them “liberal,” and then celebrate the triumph of their positions when the “liberal” straw man agrees with them. Liberals never appear on Fox. Centrists and center-right democrats appear on Fox and Fox calls them Liberals.

NPR and Fox aren’t comparable, neither are Fox and MSNBC. Neither MSNBC nor NPR are employing actively-campaigning democrats as regular newscasters.
Click to expand...
You have made my point exactly. Thank you.
 
JChapel said:
I suppose the real question here is: Why does the RCC allow for disagreement on capital punishment and war if it takes such a strong stance on protecting life, from conception to natural death?
Click to expand...
The so called seamless garment doctrine is not Church teaching Neither war no capital punishment are intrinsic evils-abortion is
 
estesbob said:
I believe NPR is an a mouthpiece of the political left Why should I or anybody else have to pay for the airing of political views we find specious? If ,as they claim, their public funding is so insinifanct it should be no problem for and others to make it up out of your own pockets
Click to expand...
What is your proof for this, that they are “a mouthpiece of the political left?” If one is on the right, the center looks left. That doesn’t mean that NPR is “the left.” The Left is PETA, the ISO (international socialist organization), The Socialist Party, the US Communist Party. Centrist and center-left democrats are not “the left.” In my humble opinion, of course.

Besides, the Government funds LOTS of things I disagree with (and with which Catholic doctrine also disagrees): unjust wars, the death penalty, a medical system that doesn’t treat everyone equally, extreme tax cuts for the richest 1% of the population, and Planned Parenthood. So… I can whine all I want, but the Republicans are never going to go after any of those things (with the possible exception of PP). Why can’t Dick Chaney and G. W. Bush pay for the Iraq war out of their own pockets?
 
estesbob said:
Heres what the Pope says:

*While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
*

In short it is accurate to say that the Church allows for discussion and disagreement pertaining to capital punishment in general terms
Click to expand...
I notice that you cut out my quote of the Catechism. Yes, of course, in certain circumstances Catholics can legitimately disagree whether a certain situation calls for war or capital punishment. But what they can disagree about is whether the circumstances for just war obtain, or whether a given individual will continue to be a threat to lives if he is not executed. It is not legitimate for Catholics to disagree about whether the just war doctrine should be applied, or whether the permissible grounds for execution that are stated in the Catechism should be the standard.
 
RCconvert7 said:
I would challenge you to actually WATCH what happens when “liberals” are on Fox shows. They nearly always capitulate to the “conservative.” That was part of what got Juan Williams fired. While the whole “I’m scared of Muslims when I see one on a plane” was the straw that broke the camel’s back, it was him appearing regularly on Fox with “NPR News Analyst” under his face as if he was speaking with NPR’s voice. If you look at what NPR execs said, you’ll see it was that he regularly violated his contract by appearing on other news organizations (Fox), who used his employment with NPR as “liberal credentials.” When Williams would be led to agree with Bill O’Rilley then, it was presented as the conservatives winning an argument when Williams pretty much agreed with Papa Bear to begin with.

Is NPR “liberal?” I don’t think so. I think NPR is secular, as it should be considering it gets govt. funding. The real issue has to do with where the “center” is. Fox presents its conservative commentators as middle-of-the-roaders who are on the side of most Americans. They then bring on center-right democrats or news analysts (like WIlliams), label them “liberal,” and then celebrate the triumph of their positions when the “liberal” straw man agrees with them. Liberals never appear on Fox. Centrists and center-right democrats appear on Fox and Fox calls them Liberals.

NPR and Fox aren’t comparable, neither are Fox and MSNBC. Neither MSNBC nor NPR are employing actively-campaigning democrats as regular newscasters.
Click to expand...
Juan Williams is a “Center Right Democrat?” That’s News to me!!!🤷

What would you define as “Liberal?” Noam Chomsky?:confused:

Going by your argument, what would you define Obama as? Moderate?:eek:
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
Going by your argument, what would you define Obama as? Moderate?:eek:
Click to expand...
Some people claim he is. I see him leaning center-left. The fact that he was able to get elected by the American people (most U.S. presidents, historically, have had to be at least somewhat moderate to get the votes necessary for election) and his willingness to try and compromise with conservatives even after the stonewall filibuster resistance and bad press he has gotten (conservatives comparing him to Stalin, some trying to disprove his clearly demonstrated citizenship just to have him impeached) must stand for something.

I mean, I understand what you are saying. From a conservative point of view, and compared to the last thirty years of U.S. presidents (the majority of which were conservative), Obama is pretty liberal. You just have to forget what you’ve been hearing and look globally to see the big picture.
 
JChapel said:
I suppose the real question here is: Why does the RCC allow for disagreement on capital punishment and war if it takes such a strong stance on protecting life, from conception to natural death?
Click to expand...
Because from time to time, it is necessary to defend yourself.

There are some people who commit criminal acts that are so heinous that society cannot protect itself except by executing the criminal. Fr. Benedict Groeschel advocated locking them up in solitary confinement 24/7 … however, total isolation 24/7 is not permitted by the courts. Judges have ruled against that. AND what happens is that during the non-isolation window, they commit murders from prison. After due process and reviews, and as the dead bodies pile up and the criminal charges accumulate, after trial after trial, appeal after appeal, there is no choice but to execute the prisoner. Society is not able to protect itself any other way.

War is a similar issue. If your country is attacked, then you need to fight back to protect yourself from worse harm. There are complications such as treaty obligations.

And if you lose the war, the consequences are devastating.

World War II was a near thing. If the allies had made one more mistake or if the Axis had made one less mistake, WWII could have gone the other way. More and more information is being revealed at how close that war was.

During the “Cold War”, acts of treason gave the Soviet Union the cryptological secrets of the U.S. Navy. As a result they learned the positions of all of our ships at all times for decades. After the fall of the Soviet Union, they said that if there had been World War III, the Soviets would have won. They knew everything because of the treason of the Walker family and others. You can read about it. It was that close. Read “Victory” by Peter Schweizer how Reagan was able to use intensive economic warfare against the vulnerabilities of Communism. But it took every military and intellectual resource we had in an expensive asymmetrical effort. Many people died behind the scenes to contain and defeat the Soviets including in “proxy” wars. Read “Vietnam, the Necessary War” by Michael Lind.

For some examples of what can go wrong and of the evils that face the losers, read “The Black Book of Communism”.

Read up on the Battle of Lepanto. Possibly the largest naval battle in history. Huge number of ships and casualties. Only Divine Intervention prevented the Christian fleet from being destroyed. Catholic Answers has information in the catalog/store about the Battle of Lepanto.

Regrettably, you’re not going to get any of this information from NPR.

Trick question: what do you know about “VENONA”?

It’s important to know. You’re not going to learn much about VENONA from NPR, either. Important. Look it up.
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
Juan Williams is a “Center Right Democrat?” That’s News to me!!!🤷

What would you define as “Liberal?” Noam Chomsky?:confused:

Going by your argument, what would you define Obama as? Moderate?:eek:
Click to expand...
Yeah, I would say that Noam Chomsky accurately represents the “left” in this nation, possibly Greenpeace or PETA

Yes, I would define Obama as a “centerist”. I don’t like “moderate” because I wonder what kind of moderation we’re talking about. Possibly more accurately I’d call his political view “center-left”. The Fox mantra that he is a “socialist” is patently absurd, as his campaign was primarily funded by Wall Street bankers. The fact that the new Health Care bill is not single payer or even contains a “public option” but instead requires all Americans to buy heath care insurance from for-profit insurance corporations is proof enough to me that he is clearly not a socialist, but another political pawn of the rich and powerful.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Because from time to time, it is necessary to defend yourself.
Click to expand...
Let us not forget that John Paul the Great begged G. W. Bush not to invade Iraq, and believed that it did not meet the criteria of a “just war”.

How many children have died in Iraq as a result of the USA’s use of depleted uranium munitions? How many children were aborted in the USA during the Bush era? Do either of those statistics seem “pro life?” I don’t think an individual politician’s position on abortion should even be considered. Before the Obama appointments, 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans (Regan, Bush 1 and Bush 2) claiming to be anti-abortion (I refuse to call warmongers “pro-life”). A disproportionate (to the American population generally) were Catholic. If there was ever a time that Roe v. Wade would be overturned, that was the time for it… And it didn’t happen. That tells me that letting “pro-life” politicians have a pass on things like rights for the working class/poor, death penalty, unjust military actions, use of torture and unconstitutional imprisonments is just plain something I cannot do, because I believe that the anti-abortion position is a convenient wool that they are pulling over the eyes of American Catholics but have no intention of acting upon. Meanwhile, they are walking all over the Church’s teachings on Social Justice.
 
JChapel said:
Lately, I’ve really gotten into listening to NPR. Not only does it seem to be all but devoid of the bias that floods cable TV networks, but it covers the news in a global setting, rather than a strictly national one. I find the non-news-related programming to be both very entertaining and educational. The audio nature of the network allows me to multitask while listening. The only downside that comes to mind is that all of the programming is strictly secular (which isn’t much of a downside, as it allows people of other faiths to enjoy it). Short of perhaps the Colbert Report, I’ve yet to find a compelling alternative.

What are your thoughts on NPR?

–James Chapel
Click to expand...
I remember back during the Iraq Invasion when one of their morning show guys went to Iraq and launched this diatribe against the American military for having “destroyed” the National Museum and not prevented all the looting that had occurred. Several months later it turned out someone had taken the treasures and put them in safe keeping. I never forgave them for that coverage. And they never apologized to the best of my knowledge.

I listen to BBC news throughout the evening on NPR. It’s all very lefty. My real news source is the WSJ which unfailingly gives in depth thoughtful coverage. I’ve given up on cable news.

dj
 
RCconvert7 said:
Let us not forget that John Paul the Great begged G. W. Bush not to invade Iraq, and believed that it did not meet the criteria of a “just war”.

How many children have died in Iraq as a result of the USA’s use of depleted uranium munitions? How many children were aborted in the USA during the Bush era? Do either of those statistics seem “pro life?” I don’t think an individual politician’s position on abortion should even be considered. Before the Obama appointments, 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans (Regan, Bush 1 and Bush 2) claiming to be anti-abortion (I refuse to call warmongers “pro-life”). A disproportionate (to the American population generally) were Catholic. If there was ever a time that Roe v. Wade would be overturned, that was the time for it… And it didn’t happen. That tells me that letting “pro-life” politicians have a pass on things like rights for the working class/poor, death penalty, unjust military actions, use of torture and unconstitutional imprisonments is just plain something I cannot do, because I believe that the anti-abortion position is a convenient wool that they are pulling over the eyes of American Catholics but have no intention of acting upon. Meanwhile, they are walking all over the Church’s teachings on Social Justice.
Click to expand...
Bush had a lot better intelligence data than you.

When outgoing President Bush briefed incoming President-elect Obama on the current crises that the new president would have to deal with, Obama was observed to emerge from the meeting badly shaken.
 
JackQ said:
I notice that you cut out my quote of the Catechism. Yes, of course, in certain circumstances Catholics can legitimately disagree whether a certain situation calls for war or capital punishment. But what they can disagree about is whether the circumstances for just war obtain, or whether a given individual will continue to be a threat to lives if he is not executed. It is not legitimate for Catholics to disagree about whether the just war doctrine should be applied, or whether the permissible grounds for execution that are stated in the Catechism should be the standard.
Click to expand...
you said:
It’s not accurate to say that the Church allows for discussion and disagreement pertaining to capital punishment in general terms
Click to expand...
As the Pope himself pointed out that stament is not correct. He specifically said Catholics can legitimately disagree about the justness of a war or the application of the death penalty.
 
RCconvert7 said:
Let us not forget that John Paul the Great begged G. W. Bush not to invade Iraq, and believed that it did not meet the criteria of a “just war”.
Click to expand...
The church never declare the Iraq war to be unjust
How many children have died in Iraq as a result of the USA’s use of depleted uranium munitions? How many children were aborted in the USA during the Bush era?
Click to expand...
Abortions reached their lowest level since the imposition of Roe V Wade under George Bush.

Your argument was not with us it is with the church. The church says no issue or combination of issues trump abortion. the idea that because you have political differences with the Republican Party it is okay to empower those who aid and abet the slaughter of 1.2 million children a year is specious.
Before the Obama appointments, 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans (Regan, Bush 1 and Bush 2) claiming to be anti-abortion (I refuse to call warmongers “pro-life”). A disproportionate (to the American population generally) were Catholic. If there was ever a time that Roe v. Wade would be overturned, that was the time for it… And it didn’t happen. That tells me that letting “pro-life” politicians have a pass on things like rights for the working class/poor, death penalty, unjust military actions, use of torture and unconstitutional imprisonments is just plain something I cannot do, because I believe that the anti-abortion position is a convenient wool that they are pulling over the eyes of American Catholics but have no intention of acting upon. Meanwhile, they are walking all over the Church’s teachings on Social Justice.
Click to expand...
The Church has specifically said that the laundry list of social issues you have pulled out do not rise the level of abortion. The unborn should not be used as a pawn by the left to try and force their political agenda on the rest of the country.

There are legitimate political differences on how to best care for the poor and defend the country. The church does not endorse the solutions offered by either political party. You cannot, however , paper over the fact that the Democrat party stands in direct opposition to major core moral teachings of the Church on abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia and fetal stem cell research. Voting for a pro-abortion politician who claims he will provide more milk for a baby does little good for a baby who was denied the right to life.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Bush had a lot better intelligence data than you.

When outgoing President Bush briefed incoming President-elect Obama on the current crises that the new president would have to deal with, Obama was observed to emerge from the meeting badly shaken.
Click to expand...
He has also continued to prosecute the wars is in Iran and Afghanistan and contrary to his campaign promises has left Gitmo open. Meanwhile on his third day in office he release public funds to overseas abortion providers that were in the past used for forced sterilizations and abortions. His Democrat allies in Congress in Congress refused an amendment that would have forbid public funds to be used for abortions under the new healthcare plan. But then they should be as no surprise to anybody-he campaigned as the most pro-abortion candidate for president in history,. We got what we voted for-what supporters didn’t count on is we got all this carnage plus absolute incompetence in nearly every other facet of his administration.
 
estesbob said:
The church never declare the Iraq war to be unjust

Abortions reached their lowest level since the imposition of Roe V Wade under George Bush.

Your argument was not with us it is with the church. The church says no issue or combination of issues trump abortion. the idea that because you have political differences with the Republican Party it is okay to empower those who aid and abet the slaughter of 1.2 million children a year is specious.

The Church has specifically said that the laundry list of social issues you have pulled out do not rise the level of abortion. The unborn should not be used as a pawn by the left to try and force their political agenda on the rest of the country.

There are legitimate political differences on how to best care for the poor and defend the country. The church does not endorse the solutions offered by either political party. You cannot, however , paper over the fact that the Democrat party stands in direct opposition to major core moral teachings of the Church on abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia and fetal stem cell research. Voting for a pro-abortion politician who claims he will provide more milk for a baby does little good for a baby who was denied the right to life.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with everything you’ve said here. My disagreement is not with the Church. I’m not saying that those other issues “trump” abortion, what I’m saying is that “pro-life” Republicans cannot be trusted to outlaw abortion, so why do we keep electing them thinking that they will finally get around to doing so? When people have better health care, less poverty, and more hope, they are less likely to choose to abort their baby. Also, while the Church says that it is wrong for a Catholic to vote for a pro-choice candidate because of their stance on abortion, it does not say that one cannot vote for a democrat simply because the party platform is pro-choice, if other issues compel that Catholic to vote for the pro-choice candidate.

Besides, you didn’t even address the real point of what I was saying… Why didn’t Bush defund PP? Why didn’t he encourage legislation to be pushed through that would challenge Roe v. Wade outright?

JP II DID urge G W Bush not to invade Iraq.
 
estesbob said:
He has also continued to prosecute the wars is in Iran and Afghanistan and contrary to his campaign promises has left Gitmo open. Meanwhile on his third day in office he release public funds to overseas abortion providers that were in the past used for forced sterilizations and abortions. His Democrat allies in Congress in Congress refused an amendment that would have forbid public funds to be used for abortions under the new healthcare plan. But then they should be as no surprise to anybody-he campaigned as the most pro-abortion candidate for president in history,. We got what we voted for-what supporters didn’t count on is we got all this carnage plus absolute incompetence in nearly every other facet of his administration.
Click to expand...
Look, I’m not saying I’m a supporter of Obama. He’s a politician, just like any other. He has continued most of the Bush era policies that pissed me off, and increased some of the worst (state’s secrets, unlawful assassinations, both wars, keeping Gitmo open as you mentioned) I’m just trying to point out that we shouldn’t be hooked in by the Republicans just because they claim to be against abortion.
 
RCconvert7 said:
I don’t disagree with everything you’ve said here. My disagreement is not with the Church. I’m not saying that those other issues “trump” abortion, what I’m saying is that “pro-life” Republicans cannot be trusted to outlaw abortion, so why do we keep electing them thinking that they will finally get around to doing so? When people have better health care, less poverty, and more hope, they are less likely to choose to abort their baby. Also, while the Church says that it is wrong for a Catholic to vote for a pro-choice candidate because of their stance on abortion, it does not say that one cannot vote for a democrat simply because the party platform is pro-choice, if other issues compel that Catholic to vote for the pro-choice candidate.

Besides, you didn’t even address the real point of what I was saying… Why didn’t Bush defund PP? Why didn’t he encourage legislation to be pushed through that would challenge Roe v. Wade outright?

JP II DID urge G W Bush not to invade Iraq.
Click to expand...
I often wonder why anybody would even need the church to tell them they can’t vote for pro-abortion politician. Such a person is so morally deficient that they are unfit to lead in any level. the Catholic who supports for abortion politicians seem to have the attitude that since they believe that since Republicans have not done enough to keep the Democrats for allowing our children to be killed it’s okay to vote for those people who have vowed to allow the slaughter of our children.

on a more basic level I disagree that the Democrat solutions to poverty, war,immigration, unemployment, etc. are superior to those proposed by the Republican Party. In my opinion in every case the Democrat solution merely makes the problem worse. Thus we are not faced with voting for a person who has all the right ideas except he supports the slaughter of our children-we’re talking about whether valid political differences on how to best address the issues that face the country could ever allow a Catholic to support a pro-abortion candidate. The answer is no
 
estesbob said:
you said:

As the Pope himself pointed out that stament is not correct. He specifically said Catholics can legitimately disagree about the justness of a war or the application of the death penalty.
Click to expand...
That’s what I just said. And there may be cases hard to decide. But if a criminal clearly will not be a danger to society if he is incarcerated, then it would be disingenuous to say that a Catholic could legitimately call for his execution. Moreover, it is clearly against Catholic teaching to hold that capital punishment is permissible on any grounds other than that the offender in question presents a danger to human life if he is not executed. It is also against Catholic teaching to say that war can ever be justifiable in circumstances where the criteria for a just war are not met.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top