OPEN THREAD — and Go Beavs!!!!!!
23 November 2009 7:15 pm by whitepaw
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac10/post/_/id/5623/oregon-state-wanted-all-or-nothing-game-with-oregon
Big Oregon State fan here… which is really tough as my oldest stepson is a junior at rival Oregon. So the OSU Beavers will play the Oregon Ducks for the PAC 10 title and a visit to the Rose Bowl. Go Beavs! They are the underdogs — but we’ll see. Game is Thursday night, dec. 3rd. Let’s hope it is a good one.
This post was submitted by whitepaw.
No tags for this post.
Oops — sorry Taylor – forgot to tiny url…
I’m loving Chris Matthews tonight. The Bishop is not accustomed to being questioned like this.
I have to agree djjl…Tweety did a good job with the Bishop. This is getting out of hand. I thought we were supposed to be a democracy not a theocracy.
Chris Matthews often drives me crazy – and then he does what he did tonight and I love him for it!!! I say that as a happily practicing Catholic.
I hope the Bishop goes back and does some soul searching himself. If a Catholic politician can’t practice his personal faith AND respect for the United States Constitution, then there can be NO Catholic politicians OR Supreme Court Justices. The implications are significant.
I think Matthews was respectful and absolutely right. My husband I were almost “high five’n.” The right to practice and live MY faith stops at my neighbor’s nose.
Lake Lady
How old is Sam now?
djjl -
Interesting your perspective. I saw it as well and Chris Matthews never gave the guy a chance to speak. When he did I believe that he expressed his gratitude at the ability to talk. That is one thing that drives me insane about CM, he did it in the 90’s on Hardball, and he is still doing it.
So for me here’s the thing – I converted to Catholicism in 2002. No one made me. No one forced me. I happen to agree with the continuum of the life argument. Do I think that my beliefs should be forced on anyone – absolutley not. But there is a distinct difference in speaking out in support of abortion rights and expressing your fundamental disagreement with abortion without interfering with a woman’s right to choose. I think there is a clear AND moral argument to be made there.
It’s my understanding that this came up sometime ago with Patrick Kennedy, so the cynical part of me, wonders why Mr. Kennedy chose to speak of it now. Anything to do with the deal Pelosi made with the Bishops? Don’t know and we will never know.
If Mr. Kennedy has an issue with his church he should seek another. Being Cathlic is challenging at best these days, but I will say after being raised in fundamentalist Christian churches I am at home being Catholic, and trust me, it was a difficult journey.
Since this was declared “open thread”, please allow me to rant a bit about the supposed “liberal slant” to our main-stream-media.
In a word?
Bullshit.
Is the media “biased”? HELL Yes, but if you think it’s in one “political” direction you are truly naive. Their bias is based on one word and only one word; Money. If you want an obvious example of this, just remember the way they nearly pee’d in their pants when they got the opportunity to take John Edwards down (and No – I’m not saying he didn’t deserve it – but they truly LOVED it). Another good example was the comparison between the media’s treatment of Palin’s kids/relatives and Obama’s. The right-wing screamed about how ‘unfair’ it was. Give me a break. Were Obama’s girls unwed and pregnant? Were any of Obama’s in-laws getting arrested for dealing drugs? Did any of Obama’s almost-in-laws call him a liar? Palin’s ‘associates’ were “making news”. Obama’s kids weren’t. It is as cut & dried as that. THERE is your ‘bias’. Does anyone actually believe if one of Obama’s girls was caught smoking a damned cigarette that it would have been ignored ? Get real. The photo would have become an instant historical ‘classic’- and remembered FOREVER.
Does Rupert Murdoch have a political bias? Of course he does. His statements make this more than obvious – HOWEVER, he is more than thrilled he has managed to adopt nearly *everyone* on the extreme Right and make it his own. The fact his ‘network’ now represents 25% of the country makes him HIGH with joy – and he’s laughing all the way to the bank. He’s getting rich by kissing the asses of all the KKK racists and all the ‘Christian’ Right-Wing extremists in this country. If he could just find ANOTHER Glenn Beck, he would give him his own show in a matter of seconds.
But please don’t think this (or MSNBC on the other side) is about politics or political ‘views’. That’s nonsense.
This is about money or ‘profit’.
That’s all ANY of them care about.
Don’t be naive.
MADDOW GREAT- LAWRENCE ODONNEL ON. REMEBER he was chief of staff for the fin cmte. sen brown also on. odonnel thinks the bill is dead. thinks po dead. all of this and we could have passed this with reconcilation months ago. pathetic. oh odonnel reminds us reid is wrong. hcare was debated int he sen in 94. by 100-0 the debate was allowed! then hell broke lose and the bill died.
brown talking right! he says do these 4 senators want to oppose this on the floor and kill history? he is betting no.
kris
I too am a convert to Catholicism from a fundamentalist background. Assembly of God – Jimmy Swaggart preached at my church routinely.
I’m not certain at all that Patrick Kennedy has any problem with his Catholic faith. My guess is he believes in the law and the U S Constitution – along the lines that JFK expressed at the Baptist Convention in him my hometown of Houston when I was a kid.
I don’t think he was offensive to the Bishop – but I am pleased at the courage he showed – I’m certain the Bishop has rarely been challenged. Following Bishop Tobin’s logic – no faithful Catholic can serve politically or judicially.
The SCOTUS is bound to follow the Constitution – the law. I doubt the 5 Catholic Justices are going to be challenged by the Bishop to follow the Church’s teachings as opposed to the US Constitution.
You know the Church has in the historical past approved of abortion in certain situations. I posted a good bit of that here some months ago in a conversation with ogenec – I don’t know how to find it now.
I hate the conversation being framed as pro-abortion. I doubt that anyone is pro – such a devastating personal responsibility and miserable challenge.
I’m not interested in a US version of enforced religious doctrine a’la the Taliban.
I do love your avatar.
pmichael
I agree it’s about money.
Other Catholics questioned Tobin’s stance.
“The simple fact is that most bishops don’t want to deny communion to politicians, and we know for a fact that Pope John Paul II gave communion to pro-choice Italian politicians,” said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. “So the question is, is Bishop Tobin more Catholic than the pope on this?”
“more Catholic”
Now there’s an interesting phrase. How do you become “more” Catholic? I guess you could start by killing all the scientists (Galileo).
Isn’t it interesting that ‘religious’ people have such a deep-seated FEAR and hatred for anyone who “eat from the tree of knowledge” ?
You don’t pmichael. That’s the point. I don’t have a deep seated hear or hatred of knowledge. As you may know, the Catholic Church believes in the truth of evolution.
BTW, neither does my husband who is a scientist.
Oh by the way, in case I forget later – Sarah Palin’s comments about evolution cracked me up – and reminded me of the ‘WatchTower’ Jehovah’s Witness ladies that came to my door a while back. Their current addition was attacking Darwin and ‘evolution’ again.
I simply asked them; “So you don’t believe a fish with gills could develop legs and lungs and then crawl out of the water?”
Just like Sarah Palin the other day, they shook their heads and said, “No way.”
“It’s called a FROG.” I told them –
and shut the door in their face.
djjl, the Catholic “Encyclopedia” is a *wealth* of knowledge (especially if you’ve studied the origins of our alphabet, as I have). The sad thing is – I could read directly from it and the average ‘Catholic’ would declare it unGodly and heretic. “Knowledge” is not exactly high on the church’s list.
But if you REALLY want a good laugh – check your thesaurus for the ‘antonym’ of the word ‘catholic’.
The answer is actually ‘narrow minded’.
I’m dead serious.
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/catholic
pmichael
You had me laughing out loud with he “frog.”
But no, I knew the opposite of “catholic” – since the catholic means all embracing, universal – the opposite would be narrow. I don’t know the Catholics you run into but they are quite different from the ones I attend Mass with. And, remember – I’m in the bible belt.
The problem, imho, with religion in general, is that man (the species not the gender) is fond of trying to put limits on what God can do. God doesn’t need the human species to do any more than to work to create heaven on earth by doing the moral and just thing on earth.
That was the point of what Chris Matthews was saying.
BTW, the information about abortion I had posted previously that accounted the different positions of the Church over the ages came from the Catholic Encyclopedia site.
Gotta go to sleep. I caught my daughter, who lives in Dubai, on line last night and stayed up entirely too late messaging with her. I am pooped
Sweet dreams.
BREAKING: President Barack Obama is expected to address the nation Tuesday, Dec. 1, on his new Afghanistan policy, likely in prime time, officials tell POLITICO.
MCCLATCHY HAS MORE: “President Barack Obama met Monday evening with his national security team to finalize a plan to dispatch some 34,000 additional U.S. troops over the next year to what he’s called “a war of necessity” in Afghanistan, U.S. officials told McClatchy.
“Obama is expected to announce his long-awaited decision on Dec. 1, followed by meetings on Capitol Hill aimed at winning congressional support amid opposition by some Democrats who are worried about the strain on the U.S. Treasury and whether Afghanistan has become a quagmire, the officials said.”
rep obey and others want a war tax implememnted if we are to to spen billions on war. it the responsible thing to do. liberals will resisit this move to boost troops i expect. speaker pelosi said she doesnt have the votes to aprove such an increase. there better be a tax to pay for the war and a sound exit strategy
rep defazio in huffpo urging congress not to fund afghan escalation. he says when did dems become the party of wall st and war?
Let’s be clear; Liberals are not a part of the Left. Everyone right of the Left is a right winger among other things. George W. Obama is a short stride away from stepping off into the abyss and destroying his presidency. If he escaltes the war in Afghanistan by adding even one more soldier he will have made a fatal error from which his presidency will never recover. That’s very sad given how much promise his election brought to the country just one short year ago. The Left opposes war and the Right does not. Peace
Hey all. Loved reading this thread. Glad people are jumping in more to throw the topic wide open.
It’s clear, Imhotep, from what I heard today at the White House, that Obama is going to add troops, but also focused on finishing the job. See quote at the top of current post.
It’s clear, Taylor, that if he adds one single soldier to that war the Left will sit on its hands and its wallets in the 2010 election. Hopefully, he’s ready for the Congress to be handed to the Republican’s because that is what is going to happen. Viewing his performance so far it seems quite clear that that change will not bother him one iota. Peace
Imhotep – now you’re a psychic? There are a LOT of things – even in Afghanistan – coming before the election. Also, your evaluation of ‘one single soldier’ is just plain silly. If there is ANY kind of success there, the party will sing his praises.
And it won’t take much.