Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 495

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

With regards to the Pope, it seems to me that liberals are often derided for being too deferential to Muslim beliefs. But disrespect the Pope and you’re a heathen!

I think liberals tend to differentiate between criticizing people and criticizing beliefs. i.e. they can criticize the Pope as much as they want and they don’t see it as anti-Catholic at all. Criticize Catholic beliefs in a more general sense and that’s anti-Catholic and they try to avoid it. But that ignores beliefs such as Papal infallibility which join the two together. So you either are criticizing beliefs to some degree, or you never bothered to learn much about the beliefs you’re trying to avoid criticizing. With regard to religions with widely decentralized heirarchies, it’s easier to make that liberal distinction. You can criticize Islamic leaders as much as you want because they aren’t ever much more than local clerics anyway–so you often don’t bother to criticize them because who cares and nobody knows who they are anyway.

In completely coincidental news, the reward for information leading to the impeachment and removal of Trump has been increased to $10,025,000.

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

She said “Fight the real enemy!” And no, no one was confused.

um, I think the powers that be at SNL were confused enough that they decided to never let back on SNL again and apologized for her actions. I don’t think they did that because they want to hide child molesters.

They did that because they didn’t want to get any negative attention from people who thought that the pope was above criticism even on a subject as severe as child abuse.

Then I assume you think SNL cowardly.

In that instance, of course.

Ok then.

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

The point is that you think it’s getting worse and worse. Which is funny. Because black people would probably say what is getting worse and worse is the police killing them. But you know, protesting during the anthem is the real problem.

I think both are a problem. Obviously the wrongful killing of African Americans is a more serious problem. This does not mean that people protesting the anthem is not a problem.

It isn’t.

In your opinion.

I hate to sound like someone we all can’t stand, but you’re denying the truth here.

agree to disagree

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

I’d be interested in hearing ric_olie_2’s take on the incident.

He might think that SNL is an inappropriate venue for such a statement. I personally think it’s one of the most beautiful and stunning protests ever done by a musician.

I don’t think I’d call it beautiful.

It was a bold, brave, and beautiful action by a bold, brave, and beautiful woman. She timed and planned it all perfectly so that the producers wouldn’t expect it and would be unable to cut it because it was live, and she pulled out the picture as she sang the final lyric, “Evil”. And who could forget, “Fight the real enemy!” It gives me the chills every time I see it. She was so ahead of her time with it too.

agree to disagree.

I would ask why you object to her but I think that would be a can of worms not worth opening.

Somehow tearing up a pic of the Pope on live tv without any explanation given doesn’t seem like a good way of protesting. It also seems to offensive to Catholics that had nothing to do with the scandal. Do you think it would be ok to protest 911 by tearing up a pic of Muhammad on live tv without giving any explanation?

There was an explanation given.

She took the pic, tore it up, said nothing. That is not an explanation.

She changed the lyrics of the Marley song to refer to child abuse before she tore up the picture.

Do you honestly think people really had an idea why she tore up the pic? There is reason why people disliked her for awhile after that pic and it is not because people approve of the Catholic Church covering for child molesters.

Who cares if it’s offensive?

many people.

Well, I’m sure the victims of the priests that got away with rape and abuse have it a little worse than being offended by an SNL stunt.

I would agree. In fact I would say the victims of the priests have it a lot worse.

So then why dumb down the protest to spare the feelings of people who refuse to believe that the Vatican was capable of such horror?

I don’t know that protesting without tearing up a pic of the Pope means you have to dumb it down.

It would have because her point was that the whole scandal was deeper than just a few evil priests.

I think that point could have been made without doing what she did.

How? By saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, please reflect on the potential guilt of the Holy Father in the cover up of the child sex abuse scandals?”

There are other ways.

She only had a couple seconds after singing her song to do it anyway.

So SNL was the only place one could protest back then?

Of course not but it was the best place for her to bring the most attention to the issue? Are you really implying that SNL is too sacred of a place for protests now?

If the person whose picture you’re tearing up was, at least tacitly, involved in the cover up of the scandals, then you shouldn’t fear offending people that respect him.

We are talking about Religion here, its complicated.

I don’t agree.

well we will just have to disagree then. because I don’t think I have the ability to explain it to you. Perhaps RicOlie_2 could, I don’t know.

Something tells me that he couldn’t, because I don’t believe that simply because other people worship somebody then that means we should turn a blind eye, or even go easier on them when they commit atrocities.

I never said we should turn a blind eye to child abuse.

I know. I wasn’t referring to turning a blind eye to child abuse but rather turning a blind eye to the role that supposedly sacred people played in the child abuse.

I never said we should turn a blind eye to that either.

It certainly seems that way. Shouldn’t anyone who played a role in a child sex abuse coverup be criticized incredibly harshly?

Yes, I suppose.

I don’t understand this “suppose” shit. Why would that require any reluctance?

I would also hope you first find out exactly what role the Pope had in this scandal(what did/didn’t he do, what did he know, when did he know it. Those sorts of things).

I don’t see why it’s okay to talk about how evil people like Trump are when we all know plenty of people worship him, but it’s not okay to do the same to the pope or people in positions like his.

President and Pope are two very different things.

Apparently since one can be criticized more harshly than the other, but why?

They can both be criticized. But one is just the President. The other is to Catholics the successor to Peter the Apostle and is given the Keys of Heaven and the powers of “binding and loosing”. More sensitivity is required when dealing with such an entity.

That’s a copout.

It is?

Of course. He’s holy, so you can’t be quite so hard on him. He’s divine. Fuck that, and fuck him.

*sigh*

*yawn*

I don’t care if you’ve got the keys to heaven if you’re, even just tacitly, permitting what he permitted to happen under his tenure.

Again, I am not saying that the Pope shouldn’t be criticized for his role in the scandal.

You’re just saying that he shouldn’t be criticized too harshly.

nope.

Yes. Tearing up his picture is too harsh for you because of how much he was worshiped. That’s been your point the whole time. I don’t like it when people hold a belief and call it something else.

Why does religion get a pass?

I did not say it gets a pass, I said it was complicated.

Especially when we’re talking about a man that is a religious figure. She didn’t tear up a picture of Jesus Christ or anything like that. I would get people’s complaints a little more if that were the case.

She tore up picture of the guy that Catholics believe is the successor to Peter the Apostle, who Catholics believe “Jesus is said to have given the Keys of Heaven and the powers of “binding and loosing”, naming him as the “rock” upon which the church would be built” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope

I know what they believe about the pope, I’m just saying that I don’t care.

Just because you don’t care about something, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t matter.

You realize that attitudes like this are what allow these things to happen?

wanting people to be respectful of other’s religion allowed children to be molested?

Saying that we can’t harshly criticize the covering up and refusal to report child molesters because the people involved are worshiped is horrifying to me.

When did I say you couldn’t harshly criticize them?

You said that you couldn’t criticize them too harshly so as not to offend devout Catholics.

No, I said you needed to be a little more sensitive about it. But I no problem giving the Pope harsh criticism when it is desearved.

How harsh is it allowed to be?

Pretty harsh, especially considering that we are talking about a child abuse scandal and cover up. But somehow tearing up a pic of the Pope on live TV like that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Replace the word Pope with “person that played a role in covering up the child rape scandal”. That sounds pretty sick doesn’t it? Why is the fact that the man that did something that, had anyone else done it, you’d spare him no vitriol, but because other people in a religion you don’t subscribe to worship him, we have to pussyfoot around the issue?

I don’t see why him being respected as a religious figure makes him special. Does Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church deserve to be handled sensitively? People in his sect have a pretty high opinion of him. What about Jim Bakker, noted conman and religious preacher?

When the churches Fred Phelps and Jim Bakker obtain the status the Catholic Church has, has as many followers as the Catholic Church, has been around as long as the Catholic Church, then get back to me on this.

So you have to be old and have a large following to be immune to harsh criticism? Ok.

Also, if someone is involved in a child sex abuse coverup, why should they be handled sensitively? Joe Paterno was in a similar situation, and people treat football like a religion so should they have been a little less hard on him?

While they may sometimes treat football like a religion, it is not a religion.

It might as well be. Since you’re always talking about differing opinions and agreeing to disagree, you should make some effort to realize that I don’t care at all what someone’s religion is. Their religion will not make me change anything that I would otherwise say, just like their political allegiance wouldn’t make me change anything I’d otherwise say. So when a religious figure does some evil stuff, I’m not going to mince words because other people worship him.

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

She said “Fight the real enemy!” And no, no one was confused.

um, I think the powers that be at SNL were confused enough that they decided to never let back on SNL again and apologized for her actions. I don’t think they did that because they want to hide child molesters.

They did that because they didn’t want to get any negative attention from people who thought that the pope was above criticism even on a subject as severe as child abuse.

Then I assume you think SNL cowardly.

In that instance, of course.

Ok then.

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

The point is that you think it’s getting worse and worse. Which is funny. Because black people would probably say what is getting worse and worse is the police killing them. But you know, protesting during the anthem is the real problem.

I think both are a problem. Obviously the wrongful killing of African Americans is a more serious problem. This does not mean that people protesting the anthem is not a problem.

It isn’t.

In your opinion.

I hate to sound like someone we all can’t stand, but you’re denying the truth here.

agree to disagree

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

I’d be interested in hearing ric_olie_2’s take on the incident.

He might think that SNL is an inappropriate venue for such a statement. I personally think it’s one of the most beautiful and stunning protests ever done by a musician.

I don’t think I’d call it beautiful.

It was a bold, brave, and beautiful action by a bold, brave, and beautiful woman. She timed and planned it all perfectly so that the producers wouldn’t expect it and would be unable to cut it because it was live, and she pulled out the picture as she sang the final lyric, “Evil”. And who could forget, “Fight the real enemy!” It gives me the chills every time I see it. She was so ahead of her time with it too.

agree to disagree.

I would ask why you object to her but I think that would be a can of worms not worth opening.

Somehow tearing up a pic of the Pope on live tv without any explanation given doesn’t seem like a good way of protesting. It also seems to offensive to Catholics that had nothing to do with the scandal. Do you think it would be ok to protest 911 by tearing up a pic of Muhammad on live tv without giving any explanation?

There was an explanation given.

She took the pic, tore it up, said nothing. That is not an explanation.

She changed the lyrics of the Marley song to refer to child abuse before she tore up the picture.

Do you honestly think people really had an idea why she tore up the pic? There is reason why people disliked her for awhile after that pic and it is not because people approve of the Catholic Church covering for child molesters.

Who cares if it’s offensive?

many people.

Well, I’m sure the victims of the priests that got away with rape and abuse have it a little worse than being offended by an SNL stunt.

I would agree. In fact I would say the victims of the priests have it a lot worse.

So then why dumb down the protest to spare the feelings of people who refuse to believe that the Vatican was capable of such horror?

I don’t know that protesting without tearing up a pic of the Pope means you have to dumb it down.

It would have because her point was that the whole scandal was deeper than just a few evil priests.

I think that point could have been made without doing what she did.

How? By saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, please reflect on the potential guilt of the Holy Father in the cover up of the child sex abuse scandals?” She only had a couple seconds after singing her song to do it anyway.

Warbler has demonstrated time after time that he doesn’t understand how protests work.

I thought they worked something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UV1fs8lAbg

But I guess I was wrong.

I’m getting really tired of you revising history to treat MLK like he was some moderate, inoffensive, innocuous protester. He was incredibly controversial. He intentionally stirred up as much trouble as he possibly could. He wanted to offend the people that stood in the way of his goal. That’s why he was so effective for God’s sake!

Your nonsense about the anthem being an inappropriate time or the pope being an inappropriate subject for protest could easily be applied to King at the National Mall. “Our nation’s capital and monuments are no place for a protest, peaceful or otherwise.” It sounds exactly like the same shit you’re saying about the athletes and Sinéad, that the protest is okay but only if it gets no attention and doesn’t do or say anything that might irritate someone.

Anyway, I just wanted to point that out because it’s one of many times that you’ve watered down MLK to support your comments against completely peaceful and harmless protests.

You are putting so many words in my mouth and misunderstanding me so much that it is not worth replying to you.

I didn’t any words in your mouth, but it’s unfortunate that you won’t respond to my comments on MLK. You’ve brought him up as an example of an inoffensive moderate several times and it is kind of irritating.

TV’s Frink said:

Filed under “But Her Corruption!”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/dollar300m-puerto-rico-recovery-contract-awarded-to-tiny-utility-company-linked-to-major-trump-donor

Puerto Rico has agreed to pay a reported $300 million for the restoration of its power grid to a tiny utility company that is primarily financed by a private-equity firm founded and run by a man who contributed large sums of money to President >Trump, an investigation conducted by The Daily Beast has found.

Whitefish Energy Holdings, which had a reported staff of only two full-time employees when Hurricane Maria touched down, appears ill-equipped to handle the daunting task of restoring electricity to Puerto Rico’s more than 3 million residents.

Much larger utilities are more commonly used following natural disasters on the scale of Hurricane Maria, which devastated the island last month.

Obviously the company is small for tax reasons, and they would subcontract out the work. It seems to be a case of a Republican-friendly business owner who had done a similar type of repair work seeing an opportunity and pouncing on it. It’s still highly irregular.

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

In completely coincidental news, the reward for information leading to the impeachment and removal of Trump has been increased to $10,025,000.

😃

darn information that would lead to Trumps impeachment and get me $10,025.000. I wish I had that info.

If I had it, you all could have it for free.

The fact that it took until 2017 for people to realize this en masse shows how the internet age doesn’t mean that predatory or otherwise despicable people will always be exposed. There has been evidence readily available for over a decade that revealed how creepy, adulterous, and slimy he is, but it was still kept under wraps until quite recently.

Warbler is Mormon, not Catholic.

…also, for the record (not that anyone asked) but I’m technically Baptist. Since I’ve mentioned my faith in various threads lately.

Oh wait. I read that wrong then. It’s Darth_Ender who is Mormon. My bad.

It’s…not like the two of you are easy to confuse with each other. I guess I just read ender’s thread title and matched it to your signature for some reason.

I say “technically” because of the manner of affiliation my church has with whatever organization/convention, and the fact that a large number of members of my church did not come from a Baptist background. There are certain baptist doctrines with which I agree, but I also recall my senior pastor going to a Southern Baptist Convention meeting at one point and when he came back he said he’d never make that mistake again.

I did not put any words in your mouth so I’ll go through your accusations point by point and explain why they’re all wrong:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

She said “Fight the real enemy!” And no, no one was confused.

um, I think the powers that be at SNL were confused enough that they decided to never let back on SNL again and apologized for her actions. I don’t think they did that because they want to hide child molesters.

They did that because they didn’t want to get any negative attention from people who thought that the pope was above criticism even on a subject as severe as child abuse.

Then I assume you think SNL cowardly.

In that instance, of course.

Ok then.

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

The point is that you think it’s getting worse and worse. Which is funny. Because black people would probably say what is getting worse and worse is the police killing them. But you know, protesting during the anthem is the real problem.

I think both are a problem. Obviously the wrongful killing of African Americans is a more serious problem. This does not mean that people protesting the anthem is not a problem.

It isn’t.

In your opinion.

I hate to sound like someone we all can’t stand, but you’re denying the truth here.

agree to disagree

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

I’d be interested in hearing ric_olie_2’s take on the incident.

He might think that SNL is an inappropriate venue for such a statement. I personally think it’s one of the most beautiful and stunning protests ever done by a musician.

I don’t think I’d call it beautiful.

It was a bold, brave, and beautiful action by a bold, brave, and beautiful woman. She timed and planned it all perfectly so that the producers wouldn’t expect it and would be unable to cut it because it was live, and she pulled out the picture as she sang the final lyric, “Evil”. And who could forget, “Fight the real enemy!” It gives me the chills every time I see it. She was so ahead of her time with it too.

agree to disagree.

I would ask why you object to her but I think that would be a can of worms not worth opening.

Somehow tearing up a pic of the Pope on live tv without any explanation given doesn’t seem like a good way of protesting. It also seems to offensive to Catholics that had nothing to do with the scandal. Do you think it would be ok to protest 911 by tearing up a pic of Muhammad on live tv without giving any explanation?

There was an explanation given.

She took the pic, tore it up, said nothing. That is not an explanation.

She changed the lyrics of the Marley song to refer to child abuse before she tore up the picture.

Do you honestly think people really had an idea why she tore up the pic? There is reason why people disliked her for awhile after that pic and it is not because people approve of the Catholic Church covering for child molesters.

Who cares if it’s offensive?

many people.

Well, I’m sure the victims of the priests that got away with rape and abuse have it a little worse than being offended by an SNL stunt.

I would agree. In fact I would say the victims of the priests have it a lot worse.

So then why dumb down the protest to spare the feelings of people who refuse to believe that the Vatican was capable of such horror?

I don’t know that protesting without tearing up a pic of the Pope means you have to dumb it down.

It would have because her point was that the whole scandal was deeper than just a few evil priests.

I think that point could have been made without doing what she did.

How? By saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, please reflect on the potential guilt of the Holy Father in the cover up of the child sex abuse scandals?”

There are other ways.

She only had a couple seconds after singing her song to do it anyway.

So SNL was the only place one could protest back then?

Of course not but it was the best place for her to bring the most attention to the issue? Are you really implying that SNL is too sacred of a place for protests now?

If the person whose picture you’re tearing up was, at least tacitly, involved in the cover up of the scandals, then you shouldn’t fear offending people that respect him.

We are talking about Religion here, its complicated.

I don’t agree.

well we will just have to disagree then. because I don’t think I have the ability to explain it to you. Perhaps RicOlie_2 could, I don’t know.

Something tells me that he couldn’t, because I don’t believe that simply because other people worship somebody then that means we should turn a blind eye, or even go easier on them when they commit atrocities.

I never said we should turn a blind eye to child abuse.

I know. I wasn’t referring to turning a blind eye to child abuse but rather turning a blind eye to the role that supposedly sacred people played in the child abuse.

I never said we should turn a blind eye to that either.

It certainly seems that way. Shouldn’t anyone who played a role in a child sex abuse coverup be criticized incredibly harshly?

Yes, I suppose.

I don’t understand this “suppose” shit. Why would that require any reluctance?

I would also hope you first find out exactly what role the Pope had in this scandal(what did/didn’t he do, what did he know, when did he know it. Those sorts of things).

I don’t see why it’s okay to talk about how evil people like Trump are when we all know plenty of people worship him, but it’s not okay to do the same to the pope or people in positions like his.

President and Pope are two very different things.

Apparently since one can be criticized more harshly than the other, but why?

They can both be criticized. But one is just the President. The other is to Catholics the successor to Peter the Apostle and is given the Keys of Heaven and the powers of “binding and loosing”. More sensitivity is required when dealing with such an entity.

That’s a copout.

It is?

Of course. He’s holy, so you can’t be quite so hard on him. He’s divine. Fuck that, and fuck him.

*sigh*

*yawn*

I don’t care if you’ve got the keys to heaven if you’re, even just tacitly, permitting what he permitted to happen under his tenure.

Again, I am not saying that the Pope shouldn’t be criticized for his role in the scandal.

You’re just saying that he shouldn’t be criticized too harshly.

nope.

Yes. Tearing up his picture is too harsh for you because of how much he was worshiped. That’s been your point the whole time. I don’t like it when people hold a belief and call it something else.

Why does religion get a pass?

I did not say it gets a pass, I said it was complicated.

Especially when we’re talking about a man that is a religious figure. She didn’t tear up a picture of Jesus Christ or anything like that. I would get people’s complaints a little more if that were the case.

She tore up picture of the guy that Catholics believe is the successor to Peter the Apostle, who Catholics believe “Jesus is said to have given the Keys of Heaven and the powers of “binding and loosing”, naming him as the “rock” upon which the church would be built” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope

I know what they believe about the pope, I’m just saying that I don’t care.

Just because you don’t care about something, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t matter.

You realize that attitudes like this are what allow these things to happen?

wanting people to be respectful of other’s religion allowed children to be molested?

Saying that we can’t harshly criticize the covering up and refusal to report child molesters because the people involved are worshiped is horrifying to me.

When did I say you couldn’t harshly criticize them?

You said that you couldn’t criticize them too harshly so as not to offend devout Catholics.

No, I said you needed to be a little more sensitive about it. But I no problem giving the Pope harsh criticism when it is desearved.

How harsh is it allowed to be?

Pretty harsh, especially considering that we are talking about a child abuse scandal and cover up. But somehow tearing up a pic of the Pope on live TV like that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Replace the word Pope with “person that played a role in covering up the child rape scandal”. That sounds pretty sick doesn’t it? Why is the fact that the man that did something that, had anyone else done it, you’d spare him no vitriol, but because other people in a religion you don’t subscribe to worship him, we have to pussyfoot around the issue?

I don’t see why him being respected as a religious figure makes him special. Does Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church deserve to be handled sensitively? People in his sect have a pretty high opinion of him. What about Jim Bakker, noted conman and religious preacher?

When the churches Fred Phelps and Jim Bakker obtain the status the Catholic Church has, has as many followers as the Catholic Church, has been around as long as the Catholic Church, then get back to me on this.

So you have to be old and have a large following to be immune to harsh criticism? Ok.

Also, if someone is involved in a child sex abuse coverup, why should they be handled sensitively? Joe Paterno was in a similar situation, and people treat football like a religion so should they have been a little less hard on him?

While they may sometimes treat football like a religion, it is not a religion.

It might as well be. Since you’re always talking about differing opinions and agreeing to disagree, you should make some effort to realize that I don’t care at all what someone’s religion is. Their religion will not make me change anything that I would otherwise say, just like their political allegiance wouldn’t make me change anything I’d otherwise say. So when a religious figure does some evil stuff, I’m not going to mince words because other people worship him.

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

She said “Fight the real enemy!” And no, no one was confused.

um, I think the powers that be at SNL were confused enough that they decided to never let back on SNL again and apologized for her actions. I don’t think they did that because they want to hide child molesters.

They did that because they didn’t want to get any negative attention from people who thought that the pope was above criticism even on a subject as severe as child abuse.

Then I assume you think SNL cowardly.

In that instance, of course.

Ok then.

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

The point is that you think it’s getting worse and worse. Which is funny. Because black people would probably say what is getting worse and worse is the police killing them. But you know, protesting during the anthem is the real problem.

I think both are a problem. Obviously the wrongful killing of African Americans is a more serious problem. This does not mean that people protesting the anthem is not a problem.

It isn’t.

In your opinion.

I hate to sound like someone we all can’t stand, but you’re denying the truth here.

agree to disagree

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

I’d be interested in hearing ric_olie_2’s take on the incident.

He might think that SNL is an inappropriate venue for such a statement. I personally think it’s one of the most beautiful and stunning protests ever done by a musician.

I don’t think I’d call it beautiful.

It was a bold, brave, and beautiful action by a bold, brave, and beautiful woman. She timed and planned it all perfectly so that the producers wouldn’t expect it and would be unable to cut it because it was live, and she pulled out the picture as she sang the final lyric, “Evil”. And who could forget, “Fight the real enemy!” It gives me the chills every time I see it. She was so ahead of her time with it too.

agree to disagree.

I would ask why you object to her but I think that would be a can of worms not worth opening.

Somehow tearing up a pic of the Pope on live tv without any explanation given doesn’t seem like a good way of protesting. It also seems to offensive to Catholics that had nothing to do with the scandal. Do you think it would be ok to protest 911 by tearing up a pic of Muhammad on live tv without giving any explanation?

There was an explanation given.

She took the pic, tore it up, said nothing. That is not an explanation.

She changed the lyrics of the Marley song to refer to child abuse before she tore up the picture.

Do you honestly think people really had an idea why she tore up the pic? There is reason why people disliked her for awhile after that pic and it is not because people approve of the Catholic Church covering for child molesters.

Who cares if it’s offensive?

many people.

Well, I’m sure the victims of the priests that got away with rape and abuse have it a little worse than being offended by an SNL stunt.

I would agree. In fact I would say the victims of the priests have it a lot worse.

So then why dumb down the protest to spare the feelings of people who refuse to believe that the Vatican was capable of such horror?

I don’t know that protesting without tearing up a pic of the Pope means you have to dumb it down.

It would have because her point was that the whole scandal was deeper than just a few evil priests.

I think that point could have been made without doing what she did.

How? By saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, please reflect on the potential guilt of the Holy Father in the cover up of the child sex abuse scandals?” She only had a couple seconds after singing her song to do it anyway.

Warbler has demonstrated time after time that he doesn’t understand how protests work.

I thought they worked something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UV1fs8lAbg

But I guess I was wrong.

I’m getting really tired of you revising history to treat MLK like he was some moderate, inoffensive, innocuous protester. He was incredibly controversial. He intentionally stirred up as much trouble as he possibly could. He wanted to offend the people that stood in the way of his goal. That’s why he was so effective for God’s sake!

Your nonsense about the anthem being an inappropriate time or the pope being an inappropriate subject for protest could easily be applied to King at the National Mall. “Our nation’s capital and monuments are no place for a protest, peaceful or otherwise.” It sounds exactly like the same shit you’re saying about the athletes and Sinéad, that the protest is okay but only if it gets no attention and doesn’t do or say anything that might irritate someone.

Anyway, I just wanted to point that out because it’s one of many times that you’ve watered down MLK to support your comments against completely peaceful and harmless protests.

You are putting so many words in my mouth and misunderstanding me so much that it is not worth replying to you.

I didn’t any words in your mouth,

Lets see about that:

moviefreakedmind said:

Again, I am not saying that the Pope shouldn’t be criticized for his role in the scandal.

You’re just saying that he shouldn’t be criticized too harshly.

putting words in my mouth.

No, I inferred that based on your posts. You saying that his picture shouldn’t be torn up on television presumably comes from you thinking it too harsh a statement to be made on a worshiped figure.

Yes. Tearing up his picture is too harsh for you because of how much he was worshiped. That’s been your point the whole time. I don’t like it when people hold a belief and call it something else.

putting words in my mouth, and I am not Catholic and I don’t worship the Pope.

I know, I never said you were. I don’t know why you would think that I meant that based on my post. I said that you thought it was wrong, or “too harsh” as I put it, because he was worshiped.

So you have to be old and have a large following to be immune to harsh criticism? Ok.

putting words in my mouth. The Pope is not immune to harsh criticism. I have made that clear, yet you act otherwise.

He’s immune to criticism delivered in a manner as harsh as tearing up his picture. Why are you denying that this has been your point all along?

or the pope being an inappropriate subject for protest

putting words in my mouth. I never said that.

I don’t know what my full sentence was, but again, you have said that the manner in which that subject (the pope) was protested was inappropriate. Basically the same thing.

Despite what you think of me, I do not think it is always wrong to criticize or protest the Pope. I just objected one type of protest. That is all. Yet you’ve a read that to mean I don’t think the Pope should get any criticize for his role in the child molestation scandal or that he is somehow immune. That couldn’t be further from the truth. You may not realize but somewhere in one of threats in this forum, I argued that Pope Benedict XVI should resign, that it would be in the best interest of the Catholic Church. Does that sound like something someone would say when they think the Pope is immune from criticism?

but it’s unfortunate that you won’t respond to my comments on MLK. You’ve brought him up as an example of an inoffensive moderate several times and it is kind of irritating.

I brought him up, because I think he is a great example of how to protest things, peacefully. As far as I know, the only ones MLK irritated were the racists, I mind them being irritated at all. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong about that. I don’t know why my bringing him up irritates you.

No that’s not true at all. He angered a lot of people other than southern racists. Complacent people that may not have been racist were frustrated that he was unnecessarily, in their minds, causing trouble by marching and rallying. They thought that was too over the top. Kennedy and Johnson, the men responsible for legislatively giving black people civil rights were also extremely angered by him for not being willing to tone it down and work on their timeline. It irritates me that you bring him up as an inoffensive moderate. He wasn’t; he was a radical and should be remembered and appreciated as such. Ironically, his protests weren’t exactly peaceful. He and his marchers were, but he intentionally marched at times and places in order to provoke violence from racist counter-protesters because that was the best way to reveal to the world and the powers-that-be that action on civil rights needed to be taken. You also keep emphasizing that he was peaceful as though that somehow condemns other protesters, when Sinéad and the athletes were peaceful too.

One of my many faults is that I can rarely accept that I’m just wasting my time.

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I did not put any words in your mouth so I’ll go through your accusations point by point and explain why they’re all wrong:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

She said “Fight the real enemy!” And no, no one was confused.

um, I think the powers that be at SNL were confused enough that they decided to never let back on SNL again and apologized for her actions. I don’t think they did that because they want to hide child molesters.

They did that because they didn’t want to get any negative attention from people who thought that the pope was above criticism even on a subject as severe as child abuse.

Then I assume you think SNL cowardly.

In that instance, of course.

Ok then.

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

The point is that you think it’s getting worse and worse. Which is funny. Because black people would probably say what is getting worse and worse is the police killing them. But you know, protesting during the anthem is the real problem.

I think both are a problem. Obviously the wrongful killing of African Americans is a more serious problem. This does not mean that people protesting the anthem is not a problem.

It isn’t.

In your opinion.

I hate to sound like someone we all can’t stand, but you’re denying the truth here.

agree to disagree

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

I’d be interested in hearing ric_olie_2’s take on the incident.

He might think that SNL is an inappropriate venue for such a statement. I personally think it’s one of the most beautiful and stunning protests ever done by a musician.

I don’t think I’d call it beautiful.

It was a bold, brave, and beautiful action by a bold, brave, and beautiful woman. She timed and planned it all perfectly so that the producers wouldn’t expect it and would be unable to cut it because it was live, and she pulled out the picture as she sang the final lyric, “Evil”. And who could forget, “Fight the real enemy!” It gives me the chills every time I see it. She was so ahead of her time with it too.

agree to disagree.

I would ask why you object to her but I think that would be a can of worms not worth opening.

Somehow tearing up a pic of the Pope on live tv without any explanation given doesn’t seem like a good way of protesting. It also seems to offensive to Catholics that had nothing to do with the scandal. Do you think it would be ok to protest 911 by tearing up a pic of Muhammad on live tv without giving any explanation?

There was an explanation given.

She took the pic, tore it up, said nothing. That is not an explanation.

She changed the lyrics of the Marley song to refer to child abuse before she tore up the picture.

Do you honestly think people really had an idea why she tore up the pic? There is reason why people disliked her for awhile after that pic and it is not because people approve of the Catholic Church covering for child molesters.

Who cares if it’s offensive?

many people.

Well, I’m sure the victims of the priests that got away with rape and abuse have it a little worse than being offended by an SNL stunt.

I would agree. In fact I would say the victims of the priests have it a lot worse.

So then why dumb down the protest to spare the feelings of people who refuse to believe that the Vatican was capable of such horror?

I don’t know that protesting without tearing up a pic of the Pope means you have to dumb it down.

It would have because her point was that the whole scandal was deeper than just a few evil priests.

I think that point could have been made without doing what she did.

How? By saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, please reflect on the potential guilt of the Holy Father in the cover up of the child sex abuse scandals?”

There are other ways.

She only had a couple seconds after singing her song to do it anyway.

So SNL was the only place one could protest back then?

Of course not but it was the best place for her to bring the most attention to the issue? Are you really implying that SNL is too sacred of a place for protests now?

If the person whose picture you’re tearing up was, at least tacitly, involved in the cover up of the scandals, then you shouldn’t fear offending people that respect him.

We are talking about Religion here, its complicated.

I don’t agree.

well we will just have to disagree then. because I don’t think I have the ability to explain it to you. Perhaps RicOlie_2 could, I don’t know.

Something tells me that he couldn’t, because I don’t believe that simply because other people worship somebody then that means we should turn a blind eye, or even go easier on them when they commit atrocities.

I never said we should turn a blind eye to child abuse.

I know. I wasn’t referring to turning a blind eye to child abuse but rather turning a blind eye to the role that supposedly sacred people played in the child abuse.

I never said we should turn a blind eye to that either.

It certainly seems that way. Shouldn’t anyone who played a role in a child sex abuse coverup be criticized incredibly harshly?

Yes, I suppose.

I don’t understand this “suppose” shit. Why would that require any reluctance?

I would also hope you first find out exactly what role the Pope had in this scandal(what did/didn’t he do, what did he know, when did he know it. Those sorts of things).

I don’t see why it’s okay to talk about how evil people like Trump are when we all know plenty of people worship him, but it’s not okay to do the same to the pope or people in positions like his.

President and Pope are two very different things.

Apparently since one can be criticized more harshly than the other, but why?

They can both be criticized. But one is just the President. The other is to Catholics the successor to Peter the Apostle and is given the Keys of Heaven and the powers of “binding and loosing”. More sensitivity is required when dealing with such an entity.

That’s a copout.

It is?

Of course. He’s holy, so you can’t be quite so hard on him. He’s divine. Fuck that, and fuck him.

*sigh*

*yawn*

I don’t care if you’ve got the keys to heaven if you’re, even just tacitly, permitting what he permitted to happen under his tenure.

Again, I am not saying that the Pope shouldn’t be criticized for his role in the scandal.

You’re just saying that he shouldn’t be criticized too harshly.

nope.

Yes. Tearing up his picture is too harsh for you because of how much he was worshiped. That’s been your point the whole time. I don’t like it when people hold a belief and call it something else.

Why does religion get a pass?

I did not say it gets a pass, I said it was complicated.

Especially when we’re talking about a man that is a religious figure. She didn’t tear up a picture of Jesus Christ or anything like that. I would get people’s complaints a little more if that were the case.

She tore up picture of the guy that Catholics believe is the successor to Peter the Apostle, who Catholics believe “Jesus is said to have given the Keys of Heaven and the powers of “binding and loosing”, naming him as the “rock” upon which the church would be built” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope

I know what they believe about the pope, I’m just saying that I don’t care.

Just because you don’t care about something, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t matter.

You realize that attitudes like this are what allow these things to happen?

wanting people to be respectful of other’s religion allowed children to be molested?

Saying that we can’t harshly criticize the covering up and refusal to report child molesters because the people involved are worshiped is horrifying to me.

When did I say you couldn’t harshly criticize them?

You said that you couldn’t criticize them too harshly so as not to offend devout Catholics.

No, I said you needed to be a little more sensitive about it. But I no problem giving the Pope harsh criticism when it is desearved.

How harsh is it allowed to be?

Pretty harsh, especially considering that we are talking about a child abuse scandal and cover up. But somehow tearing up a pic of the Pope on live TV like that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Replace the word Pope with “person that played a role in covering up the child rape scandal”. That sounds pretty sick doesn’t it? Why is the fact that the man that did something that, had anyone else done it, you’d spare him no vitriol, but because other people in a religion you don’t subscribe to worship him, we have to pussyfoot around the issue?

I don’t see why him being respected as a religious figure makes him special. Does Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church deserve to be handled sensitively? People in his sect have a pretty high opinion of him. What about Jim Bakker, noted conman and religious preacher?

When the churches Fred Phelps and Jim Bakker obtain the status the Catholic Church has, has as many followers as the Catholic Church, has been around as long as the Catholic Church, then get back to me on this.

So you have to be old and have a large following to be immune to harsh criticism? Ok.

Also, if someone is involved in a child sex abuse coverup, why should they be handled sensitively? Joe Paterno was in a similar situation, and people treat football like a religion so should they have been a little less hard on him?

While they may sometimes treat football like a religion, it is not a religion.

It might as well be. Since you’re always talking about differing opinions and agreeing to disagree, you should make some effort to realize that I don’t care at all what someone’s religion is. Their religion will not make me change anything that I would otherwise say, just like their political allegiance wouldn’t make me change anything I’d otherwise say. So when a religious figure does some evil stuff, I’m not going to mince words because other people worship him.

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

She said “Fight the real enemy!” And no, no one was confused.

um, I think the powers that be at SNL were confused enough that they decided to never let back on SNL again and apologized for her actions. I don’t think they did that because they want to hide child molesters.

They did that because they didn’t want to get any negative attention from people who thought that the pope was above criticism even on a subject as severe as child abuse.

Then I assume you think SNL cowardly.

In that instance, of course.

Ok then.

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

The point is that you think it’s getting worse and worse. Which is funny. Because black people would probably say what is getting worse and worse is the police killing them. But you know, protesting during the anthem is the real problem.

I think both are a problem. Obviously the wrongful killing of African Americans is a more serious problem. This does not mean that people protesting the anthem is not a problem.

It isn’t.

In your opinion.

I hate to sound like someone we all can’t stand, but you’re denying the truth here.

agree to disagree

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

I’d be interested in hearing ric_olie_2’s take on the incident.

He might think that SNL is an inappropriate venue for such a statement. I personally think it’s one of the most beautiful and stunning protests ever done by a musician.

I don’t think I’d call it beautiful.

It was a bold, brave, and beautiful action by a bold, brave, and beautiful woman. She timed and planned it all perfectly so that the producers wouldn’t expect it and would be unable to cut it because it was live, and she pulled out the picture as she sang the final lyric, “Evil”. And who could forget, “Fight the real enemy!” It gives me the chills every time I see it. She was so ahead of her time with it too.

agree to disagree.

I would ask why you object to her but I think that would be a can of worms not worth opening.

Somehow tearing up a pic of the Pope on live tv without any explanation given doesn’t seem like a good way of protesting. It also seems to offensive to Catholics that had nothing to do with the scandal. Do you think it would be ok to protest 911 by tearing up a pic of Muhammad on live tv without giving any explanation?

There was an explanation given.

She took the pic, tore it up, said nothing. That is not an explanation.

She changed the lyrics of the Marley song to refer to child abuse before she tore up the picture.

Do you honestly think people really had an idea why she tore up the pic? There is reason why people disliked her for awhile after that pic and it is not because people approve of the Catholic Church covering for child molesters.

Who cares if it’s offensive?

many people.

Well, I’m sure the victims of the priests that got away with rape and abuse have it a little worse than being offended by an SNL stunt.

I would agree. In fact I would say the victims of the priests have it a lot worse.

So then why dumb down the protest to spare the feelings of people who refuse to believe that the Vatican was capable of such horror?

I don’t know that protesting without tearing up a pic of the Pope means you have to dumb it down.

It would have because her point was that the whole scandal was deeper than just a few evil priests.

I think that point could have been made without doing what she did.

How? By saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, please reflect on the potential guilt of the Holy Father in the cover up of the child sex abuse scandals?” She only had a couple seconds after singing her song to do it anyway.

Warbler has demonstrated time after time that he doesn’t understand how protests work.

I thought they worked something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UV1fs8lAbg

But I guess I was wrong.

I’m getting really tired of you revising history to treat MLK like he was some moderate, inoffensive, innocuous protester. He was incredibly controversial. He intentionally stirred up as much trouble as he possibly could. He wanted to offend the people that stood in the way of his goal. That’s why he was so effective for God’s sake!

Your nonsense about the anthem being an inappropriate time or the pope being an inappropriate subject for protest could easily be applied to King at the National Mall. “Our nation’s capital and monuments are no place for a protest, peaceful or otherwise.” It sounds exactly like the same shit you’re saying about the athletes and Sinéad, that the protest is okay but only if it gets no attention and doesn’t do or say anything that might irritate someone.

Anyway, I just wanted to point that out because it’s one of many times that you’ve watered down MLK to support your comments against completely peaceful and harmless protests.

You are putting so many words in my mouth and misunderstanding me so much that it is not worth replying to you.

I didn’t any words in your mouth,

Lets see about that:

moviefreakedmind said:

Again, I am not saying that the Pope shouldn’t be criticized for his role in the scandal.

You’re just saying that he shouldn’t be criticized too harshly.

putting words in my mouth.

No, I inferred that based on your posts. You saying that his picture shouldn’t be torn up on television presumably comes from you thinking it too harsh a statement to be made on a worshiped figure.

Yes. Tearing up his picture is too harsh for you because of how much he was worshiped. That’s been your point the whole time. I don’t like it when people hold a belief and call it something else.

putting words in my mouth, and I am not Catholic and I don’t worship the Pope.

I know, I never said you were. I don’t know why you would think that I meant that based on my post. I said that you thought it was wrong, or “too harsh” as I put it, because he was worshiped.

So you have to be old and have a large following to be immune to harsh criticism? Ok.

putting words in my mouth. The Pope is not immune to harsh criticism. I have made that clear, yet you act otherwise.

He’s immune to criticism delivered in a manner as harsh as tearing up his picture. Why are you denying that this has been your point all along?

or the pope being an inappropriate subject for protest

putting words in my mouth. I never said that.

I don’t know what my full sentence was, but again, you have said that the manner in which that subject (the pope) was protested was inappropriate. Basically the same thing.

Look, I will say it one last time: I am no problem with people harshly criticizing the Pope for his role in the child abuse scandal. I just objected to one type of protest that is all. If you can’t understand that, too bad.

He can be harshly criticized, just not as harshly as tearing up his picture. I get it.

but it’s unfortunate that you won’t respond to my comments on MLK. You’ve brought him up as an example of an inoffensive moderate several times and it is kind of irritating.

I brought him up, because I think he is a great example of how to protest things, peacefully. As far as I know, the only ones MLK irritated were the racists, I mind them being irritated at all. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong about that. I don’t know why my bringing him up irritates you.

No that’s not true at all. He angered a lot of people other than southern racists. Complacent people that may not have been racist were frustrated that he was unnecessarily, in their minds, causing trouble by marching and rallying. They thought that was too over the top.

First time I’ve ever heard his protests described as over the top.

For the time they were.

It irritates me that you bring him up as an inoffensive moderate. He wasn’t;

I never described him as an inoffensive moderate.

It’s implied in your posts that he was a better protester because he was less offensive.

he was a radical and should be remembered and appreciated as such.

Perhaps for his time he was. But I don’t think it anyone today (other than real racists) would think it radical to protest the kind of racism that existed back then.

Things that were radically and successfully progressive are radically viewed as offensive fifty years later. Hell, that’s why 25 years later pretty much everybody is willing to at least cut Sinéad some slack because we all know that she was right.

Ironically, his protests weren’t exactly peaceful. He and his marchers were, but he intentionally marched at times and places in order to provoke violence from racist counter-protesters because that was the best way to reveal to the world and the powers-that-be that action on civil rights needed to be taken.

But he never started the violence and instructed his marchers to remain peaceful. May I remind you that he won the Nobel Peace Prize for his non-violent protests.

I know, but his protests were effective because they were meant with violence, and he knew that. That’s why he was so successful.

You also keep emphasizing that he was peaceful as though that somehow condemns other protesters, when Sinéad and the athletes were peaceful too.

I never said Sinéad and Anthem kneelers weren’t peaceful. That would again be reading words into my mouth that weren’t there.

You say that some peaceful protests are bad and you point to King as a positive. I don’t doubt that if King were alive he would support the kneelers and probably would have supported Sinéad too.