Posted on 12/12/2013 12:27:08 PM PST by Starman417
There are numerous CONSERVATIVE web sites to which we can turn for the truth, the unedited story. Such web sites as Free Republic do a tremendous job of disseminating our thoughts, perspectives, and opinions. They provide facts that allow us to form our opinions based upon the complete story. Unlike most of the MSM. There are, of course, exceptions (Fox comes to mind), but the vast majority of the MSM promulgates liberal hypocrisy, half-truths, and out-and-out lies (Chris Matthews of leg tingle fame comes to mind).
Even though there are numerous conservative web sites, only conservatives (for the most part) visit them. Liberals who comment are quickly shown to be thinking un-critically. We conservatives are "preaching to the choir." We need to expand our horizons.
What got me thinking along these lines was Sarah Palin's comment about Pope Francis' recent remarks, and Bill Maher's reaction. And the MSM non-reaction to Martin Bashir's remarks.
Pope Francis said:
In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. [emphasis mine]
Was Pope Francis referring to the "trickle-down" theory as crude and naïve? If so, his economic expert credentials were omitted. "This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts ...[.]" Gee, the Pope was quick to offer HIS opinion. I could not find any reference to substantiate the Pope's opinion. Yet the MSM reported the Pope's opinon as if it was fact. Personal note: my intent here is not to attack Catholics (I'm married to one), but to illustrate that the Pope has an agenda.
To which Palin responded:
He's had some statements that to me sound kind of liberal, has taken me aback, has kind of surprised me. There again, unless I really dig deep into what his messaging is, and do my own homework, I’m not going to just trust what I hear in the media.I'm kinda trying to follow what his agenda is. You know he came out with a couple of things in the media but again I'm not one to trust the media's interpretation of somebody's message but having read through media outlets.
Palin then, as interpreted by the MSM, "apologized" for her remarks.
It was not my intention to be critical of Pope Francis. I was reminding viewers that we need to do our own homework on news subjects, and I hadn't done mine yet on the Pope's recent comments as reported by the media. Knowing full well how often the media mischaracterizes a person's comments (especially a religious leader's), I don't trust them to get it right when it comes to reporting on the Vatican.I apologize for not being clearer in my response, thus opening the door to critical media that does what it does best in ginning up controversy. [emphasis mine]
Bill Maher, ignoring Palin's comments about not trusting the media's interpretation, had to interject his opinion into this situation. Maher said, "Well, if she thinks Pope Francis is liberal, wait until she sees what Jesus has been saying." Maher then presented a series of tweets that he claimed was exchanged between the Pope and Palin. The tweets were supposed to (I guess) be funny, but they weren't, and further illustrated Maher's opinion. Maher never got around to the crux of what Palin said about not trusting the MSM. Nor did he get around to citing what Jesus said, as illustrated below. I'm pretty sure Maher has not read it. And, Maher never got around to saying that the Pope was offering an unauthenticated opinion. Typical liberal.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Why?
And why is it that you never respond or make a comment?
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:starman417/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change
Why does FOX (I assume the writer means Fox News Channel) come to mind? They are pro-gay, pro-amnesty and other stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.