Shocking news from Vatican City announced this Monday morning that Pope Benedict XVI will resign as of February 28 due to health reasons. The 85 year old successor to Saint Peter is weak and doctors have warned him against any further overseas flights. The last time a Pope resigned was in the 15th Century when Pope Gregory XII quit in 1415 as part of an agreement to end the Great Western Schism. The news today begins with a statement from the Pope saying, ″After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry.″ One can admire the courage of admitting that it is best to leave now and permit someone more capable to carry on.
Too bad we do not have the same intelligence from many of our elected officials in Washington. Many politicians linger on, clinging to their seats of power like desperate survivors of a shipwreck grasping for a lifesaver. Folks like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi demonstrate how intellectually exhausted they are. They, and others like them, contribute nothing positive and have become drags on the system. They offer no new ideas and block any attempt to bring about reforms and true progress.
So hats off and respect to Pope Benedict XVI for deciding to resign Saint Peter′s seat of power over the Catholic Church. Vatican City announced today, Monday, that the Pope will step down as the head of the Petrine Ministry come February 28. He will be the first Pope to resign since 1415 when Gregory XII stepped down to complete a deal to end the Great Western Schism within The Church. At 85, the Pope′s health has become an issue, now preventing him from long distance travel. A tough call to make but one which Benedict shows great courage and intelligence in voluntarily giving up such power.
February 11th, 2013 at 10:15 am
God Bless Him!!!!!!! Hope he has some peace and joy his last couple of years on earth.
A media person said that the next pope will probable be a conservative. Listening to this opened minded liberal I got the feeling she was not happy with this prospect. I pray and hope the next Pope is a conservative and carrys on the last two popes work on bringing the Catholic Church back to its true teachings.
Maybe more catholics will come back to the church and fresh young new recruits will increase the catholic population. I know liberals hate the church but the human race thrives and prospers under Christ’s Teachings
February 11th, 2013 at 10:52 am
Dialog
Photo
Diatribe/rant/spew- Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi intellectually exhausted/more rant and spew.
I would say there’s nothing new here but there is a bit of irony. The regurgitated chime of “conservatives good, liberals bad” rings rather hollow.
Sue seems to think that a return of the same conservative policies of the church such as alienating women and anti contraceptives means “more catholics will come back to the church and fresh young new recruits will increase the catholic population”. That’s somewhat consistent with Andrew’s omission of the old white male Mitch McConnell mentality that you can just keep ignoring minorities (or disenfranchise them) and all will be fine. In the meantime, the church’s power and wealth declines and the GOP implodes.
February 11th, 2013 at 11:43 am
I’m shock shock shocked to find a liberal feeling bitter about this and that. Poor Ronald.
So I’m thinking Obama will need a new job in four years. Why couldn’t Pontiff wait?
February 11th, 2013 at 12:00 pm
Ron, you’re a moron.
I’m no fan of organized religion but I challenge you to find a more charitable organization on the planet thats been around so long.
You also fail to realize that the Catholic/Christian Church has made great strides in the freedoms of women.
The churches opposition to contraception is a spiritual right and one that upholds life, different than your misguided attempt to paint is as a bondage to women.
You can do what the hell you want with your body, but not that of the infant, and dont ask me to help you in its disposal. You dont have that right.
If you’re so damned worried about womens rights I suggest you take it up with the followers of the worlds most abusive religion towards women on earth.
Islam.
Your problem most likely will be that any approach to these Islamic leaders on this matter may get your head chopped off.
You might want to consult with the many hypocritical liberals who call themselves Catholics before you open your bigoted yap again.
Ratzinger is a decent man who upon your idiocy would wish you well anyway.
I love it when all you morons say the GOP is imploding as if somehow that means conservative values are declining and we’ll soon be subjected to a one party rule.
One party rule never ends well, idiot.
We seen these results whenever either party holds power in all three branchs and only an idiot such as yourself would think it can work for any meaningful duration.
Once you pull your head out of your ass and stop seeing everything as “left is good and right is bad” but instead concentrate on what really works, you’ll continue to sound like a Marxist Kos baby.
February 11th, 2013 at 12:06 pm
Catholics, or any other religion for that matter, have a bit of an issue on their hands.
Young people are simply ambivalent about religion.
Everyone speaks of gaining the minority electorate, which is important, but the young vote sector is a growing quickly and they are very different voter (not to mention the lack of church revenues when there are no new “recruits”).
They are indifferent to all of the core issues of the GOP.
Rather than voicing an opinion about social issues, they simply don’t know why they are even “on the table”.
They grew up in a different world that is reflected in the television shows they grew up with and currently watch.
Things such as religion, abortion, gay rights, ethnic or racial divisions, prayer, etc., etc., are not even on their list of issues.
They simply want a chance to earn a living, manage their school loans (or figure out a way to continue their education) and possibly own a home someday (unlikely, as getting a home loan with a substantial school debt on their record is almost impossible and they don’t have careers, they have jobs).
Want to win the next election? Find a multi-ethnic, young, female candidate and promise to let them modify their school loans.
Pandering? Sure, buy it is a good way to “buy” votes on the cheap.
Since there is no change likely on the aforementioned issues, such as abortion, prayer in school or any other social issues, simply ignore it and address the things that matter to young people.
I know the GOP tried to do this in the last election, but some of their fringe candidates threw a wrench into their plans.
They wanted to continue to focus on the economy, but the Akins and Mourdocks of the world made them appear to be completely out of touch.
February 11th, 2013 at 12:33 pm
Buzz, you are right about the one demographic but ignoring another. Mexican immigrants are very social conservative and 100% church-going Catholics.
February 11th, 2013 at 1:00 pm
The Hispanic vote used to be owned by the GOP when the issue was communism.
Young Hispanic voters, however, are radically different than their parents.
While they may be nominally more religious and conservative, they do not identify with the GOP.
The GOP has simply become stereotyped as a bunch of “Old White Guys”.
While there are elements of the party that have identified that problem, and appear to be making changes to address the issue, it has been met with a lot of resistance.
People on this site, for example, often promote the idea that the GOP is not “conservative enough” and merely need to “get out the message”.
This is why a Karl Rove is initiating efforts to limit the influence of the Tea Party. If ever there was a sector that is actively promoting candidates that are steadfast in their principles, but unelectable, it would be them.
If they are not willing to compromise (and they seem to think compromise is weakness) the Tea Party and possibly the GOP will become a niche party.
True, gerrymandering and demographics will allow them to run many states, but nationally, they will never have control of anything but the House.
By extension, the Supreme Court will no longer remain conservative and that will result in significant and long-lasting change.
Many minority populations are now 2nd and 3rd generation and they are more apt to identify and vote similar to other young Americans, rather than how their parents may have voted.
February 11th, 2013 at 1:04 pm
“Mexican immigrants are very social conservative and 100% church-going Catholics.”
Yup, that was my next sentence.
Kids are ambivalent to religion or any sense of spirituality outside of global warming only because of the left and the parenting they endorse.
A decent spiritual guideline begins at home, and when so theres none of these bullsht excuses, as Dennis the Menace would say “the telebision made me do it”.
Spirituality saved my life, and has been an excellent instrument in guiding my son when confronted with the same mistakes I made in my youth due to moonbat parents who mocked religion.
I’m alive to see my son is a better person and not dead, or struggling like the idiot girl busted with X who told the judge “fck you”.
The trade off
February 11th, 2013 at 1:05 pm
Apologies…
The trade off is obvious
February 11th, 2013 at 1:09 pm
LOL, Hispanics are not “nominally” more religious. They are quite devote, including the second and third generationers. Hispanics are the only reliable church going Catholics in this country. A GOP that appeals to Catholics generally would be a good thing for the party, contrary to your comment #5. The country is complex, Buzz.
February 11th, 2013 at 1:38 pm
Yes it is complex.
Which groups are going to fill the GOP tent in the future?
They clearly carried the senior vote, but those people have a tendency to, you know, die.
And if they don’t do that fast enough the left will simply “death panel” them.
February 11th, 2013 at 2:23 pm
Seniors also tend to replenish from pre-seniors, many of which tried for years the liberal way and discovered it doesn’t work. After all, life is nothing but the experimental verification that God was right from the very beginning. Sadly, it’s the most expensive way to learn…
Of course, free will is an awesome thing and people can choose stupidity until death.
February 11th, 2013 at 2:39 pm
“And if they don’t do that fast enough the left will simply “death panel” them.”
Keep tellin yourself that as if economic decisions dont effect everyones care in private or public sectors of healthcare.
Most people cant insure themselves to a point of unlimited resource so these decisions inevitably always come up.
These panels exist in both the public and private sector.
The difference is that leftists will trust the goverment to do this deciding.
Thats an incredibly dangerous precedent or slope to allow government to be on.
If one cant see this they’re blissfully stupid.
If these Mexicans you speak of are so Catholic and so liberal they cant be fully true to either the religion or ideology.
I find it amusing that so many “supposed” Catholics would vote for the party of abortion and sexual “affirmative action”.
Its a daunting level of hypocrisy.
February 11th, 2013 at 2:39 pm
“And if they don’t do that fast enough the left will simply “death panel” them.”
Keep tellin yourself that as if economic decisions dont effect everyones care in private or public sectors of healthcare.
Most people cant insure themselves to a point of unlimited resource so these decisions inevitably always come up.
These panels exist in both the public and private sector.
The difference is that leftists will trust the goverment to do this deciding.
Thats an incredibly dangerous precedent or slope to allow government to be on.
If one cant see this they’re blissfully stupid.
If these Mexicans you speak of are so Catholic and so liberal they cant be fully true to either the religion or ideology.
I find it amusing that so many “supposed” Catholics would vote for the party of abortion and sexual “affirmative action”.
Its a daunting level of hypocrisy.
February 11th, 2013 at 3:22 pm
Micky, people who focus only on one issue cannot understand why Catholics vote 50-50 Democrat. It’s the “social justice” economics stuff that makes them split their vote. Nobody agrees with their party’s entire platform so why should Catholic voters, whether Hispanic or otherwise, be any different having to decide between social and economic issues? It’s sort of like wondering why gay people who care about their wallets would vote GOP.
February 11th, 2013 at 3:32 pm
Actually Patrick, the question that has become much more front and center is sort of like wondering why 99% of people who care about their wallets would vote GOP.
February 11th, 2013 at 3:40 pm
Ronald is talking about the freeloaders who don’t like to work. Good on you, man. (I think it’s 47% tho)
February 11th, 2013 at 4:57 pm
Patrick, you seem to have a rather Mickish trait of stating matter of factually things that simply aren’t true. Examples being that I’m “bitter about this and that”, that “Democrat Party” is now the preferred term of linguist’s lexicon, or your impeccable understanding of Mexican immigrant’s church going habits. And like always, I could simply go on indefinitely as you’ve left yourself open on so many occasions.
No, it’s much closer to 99% in which I refer to.
February 11th, 2013 at 5:27 pm
So people should fear the government making decisions regarding health in late life more than private health insurance?
As someone who works with private insurance companies everyday, I don’t think they are making any decisions based on what is “right”.
New drug, procedure or equipment that everyone acknowledges as better? Sorry, won’t be reimbursed unless forced.
They, however, shouldn’t be blamed. They are only in it for the money. As they should be as they are “for profit” businesses.
The fact that we are the only modern, industrialized country without a national health plan is not only embarrassing, it is now fiscally irresponsible.
We pay more, for less. Can’t get much simpler than that.
All of this rhetoric is nothing more than the “haves” versus the “have-nots” and I am not even referring to wealth.
If you have a job that provides health care you don’t want anything to change, and why would you?
If you don’t, and even worse, have had a serious health problem in your life, you are, in effect, uninsurable and your quality of life suffers.
Unfortunately, the number of corporations that will provide partial or full healthcare is waning (and why should corporations have to provide health care?).
Obama originally wanted a single-payor solution, but his own party sold him out, so instead, we included insurance companies.
Ridiculous. You lose all economy of scale purchasing leverage.
February 11th, 2013 at 9:02 pm
“Actually Patrick, the question that has become much more front and center is sort of like wondering why 99% of people who care about their wallets would vote GOP.”
You’re a Marxist, so, thats why you’ll never get it.
Yes, we like money in our wallets as much as you do Rolnald.
The difference is we like our money because its ours, instead of taking it from those who we think owe it to us.
That means our money means more to us and because its value is “earned”.
Libs dont value easy money which is why they go thru it like diapers.
“So people should fear the government making decisions regarding health in late life more than private health insurance?”
Yeah, I guess to trust the fed, Logans run, to make your decision.
You want the fed deciding your allotment cutoff ?
Rolflmfao.
February 11th, 2013 at 9:10 pm
“As someone who works with private insurance companies everyday, I don’t think they are making any decisions based on what is “right””
Thats besides the point.
All sectors make these decisions.
Insurance companies constantly refuse certain treatments based on one progression of illness or drugs they think are not cost effective or experimental which have actually worked before.
I had cancer, dont tell me that theres not a cut off on the average policy to where one has to pay cash.
Dont go there, you’ll look dumb
February 11th, 2013 at 9:31 pm
You might want to forego that Medicare when it kicks in and purchase your health care instead.
You never know, they might just kill you out of spite.
February 11th, 2013 at 9:32 pm
Did someday say, “Marxist”?
Again?
I swear there is an echo in here.
February 11th, 2013 at 10:08 pm
Ronald is a Marxist. What’s the big deal? I think it’s great having a variety of perspectives on a website.
February 12th, 2013 at 6:24 am
I really haven’t studied into Karl Marx’s theories but “Marxist” seems to be a pretty vague term. Marxian economists, or Marxists, pretty much pick and choose from his work to form whatever belief they want.
What’s promoted here and by today’s GOP leans more toward Plutocracy and Social Darwinism. I suppose by Patrick’s mindset, you either endorse Plutocracy or you’re a Marxist, or something equally stupid.
February 12th, 2013 at 7:32 am
Funny, Ronald! Liberal/Progressives are the REAL promoters of Plutocracy and Social Darwinism. Having a large, all-powerful, highly centralized Nanny-State is the perfect example of Plutocracy, with a political class dictating power. As for Social Darwinism, who is it that really wants to control every aspect of one’s life? Who helps fund and promote the most successful organization of Social Darwinism, Planned Parenthood, which has worked for decades to eliminate ‘undesirables’ though some 55 million abortions just since Roe v. Wade was ruled on.
Whether you, Ronald, are a true Marxist or not is besides the point. You obviously want to be one. I’d bet a paper dollar that you have a Che t-shirt to wear in order to prove yourself to be ‘cool’ with your Liberal/Progressive pals.
February 12th, 2013 at 7:34 am
Benedict gives up the papacy? Talk about giving something up for Lent.
February 12th, 2013 at 7:38 am
Hey, at least he didn’t give up a paczki or a slice of king cake!
February 12th, 2013 at 8:01 am
Andy, you seem to share the exact denial, misunderstanding, and “I’m rubber/you’re glue” of Plutocracy and Social Darwinism that Micky has. That in itself is rather telling.
To say that in today’s environment of a corporately owned GOP that “Liberal/Progressives are the REAL promoters of Plutocracy and Social Darwinism” is simply beyond the pale of stupidity. It doesn’t even deserve a response. And this is coming from you- the guy that has openly admitted we should not allow poorer citizens access to health care as that would inconvenience and crowd out the more affluent.
The very term, Social Darwinism is a belief of survival of the fittest. Plutocracy is the belief of being ruled by the wealthy. It’s today’s GOP that cheers at a candidate that advocates the poor can “just go home and die”. It’s today’s GOP that push for the pay inequality we’re seeing, that corporations be free from any regulations, the demise of labor unions, an elimination of minimum wages and overtime, that through Citizens United our elected officials be sold to the highest bidder, and it’s they that are pushing for more corporate welfare at the expense of the working class despite the abject damage to the economy.
The interesting thing about lapdogs like you Andy is that you run from the very policies you promote.
February 12th, 2013 at 9:20 am
“I swear there is an echo in here.”
Yeah, if rons ass hole werent so deep i’d be gone.
The guys a fckin moron.
He’ll ramble of any word with more than one syllable and think hes viewed as a genius.
I’m a plutocrat ?
Thats like a total fcking “DUH”
That doesnt make damn bit of sense at all.
Is he a Marxist ?
Hell yeah.
Just because he never studied Marx, or they never met, doesnt mean they werent on the same path to epitomizing what they are.
Just because no ones ever read a communist manifesto doesnt mean they can rationalize themselves into communism.
Maybe Ron should study Marx.
He might, “might” see what a flaming ass hole he is.
February 12th, 2013 at 9:48 am
oops again
Just because no ones ever read a communist manifesto doesnt mean they “”CANT” rationalize themselves into communism.
February 12th, 2013 at 12:03 pm
There you go again, Ronald Marx. “Plutocracy” was a term of Marx and is a favorite propaganda term used by communists to describe democratic nations like the US. The term is pretty much used only by communists these days.
February 12th, 2013 at 12:07 pm
As laid out in my #25 response Patrick, your interpretations and definitions have to be taken with a couple pounds of salt.
February 12th, 2013 at 12:12 pm
Yes, but you are not being truthful. It’s fine having a commie on the site, so just come out of your closet and we can talk like adults about plutocrats, the theory of labor value, the heroic class struggle, Big Industry, and other matters dear to your heart.
February 12th, 2013 at 12:14 pm
Make that #18 instead of 25.
February 12th, 2013 at 12:23 pm
Ronald, when are you going to fix all of those typos on your world-class website? Liberals pride themselves on form, and Marx certainly was an educated man.
February 12th, 2013 at 12:23 pm
Hey moron.
Patricks definitions are straight out of Marxs own pen.
Like I said, you should study Marx so you dont sound like your Marxism was obtained by osmosis or sheer ignorance of how our economy works.
If you’ve never read Marx then one can only assume your minds end result has been constructed by your Messiah in the last 4 years.
February 12th, 2013 at 1:37 pm
Patrick @ #34, it’s audaciously rich for you to pretend an interest in a rational discussion when your history of throw-a-rock-and-run jabs and cowardly evasiveness of my arguments prove otherwise.
Your #36 gives an appearance that I’m raising your hackles. Not that doing so was my intentions but I’ll take it as an amusing plus.
February 12th, 2013 at 1:40 pm
Sorry, Ronald, I was just making light of the terms “socialism” and/or “Marxism” being synonymous with “anyone having the temerity to disagree”, but they took it seriously.
My mistake, I sometimes forget that they are “changing the world” here and trying to identify those in need of “fixing”.
You are obviously in need of some capitalism instruction and indoctrination and perhaps would also benefit by having some religion rammed into you (because it will make them, oops, I meant “you” happy). But it’s for your own good. You’ll see.
February 12th, 2013 at 1:46 pm
It reminds me of another comment I saw on here about “their” money meaning more to them because they worked for it, while liberal’s money arrives magically in the mail and is not earned.
I keep looking in my mailbox and I have asked all of my colleagues (physicians, business owners and lawyers that are “infected” with the liberal virus) and none of us are getting those checks.
I wonder if they have our addresses wrong?
February 12th, 2013 at 1:53 pm
Naw Buzz, there are actually very few Marxists in the country. But they pop up on websites like this. Ronald is a Marxist. You are a socialist. Nothing wrong with it. I like the diversity.
Ronald, I did actually click your name for the first time and arrived on a website that right up front contains several spelling errors and grammatical errors that you might expect of a 4th grader. Just sayin’ Not very literate, and certainly not something to promote if you want readers to believe that you are intelligent.
February 12th, 2013 at 1:57 pm
Oops I should have posted the link.
Check out the great Ronald’s website:
http://mediadishonesty.blogspot.com/
February 12th, 2013 at 2:09 pm
Then I am the worst socialist on record as I am staunchly capitalist, only believe in government assistance because it is pragmatic (I am rather uncaring towards my fellow man), believe in charging what the market will bear, have owned businesses most of my life, pay employees no more than what is necessary, outsource work if it saves money and think that a recession is a good time to gain market share through increased marketing and advertising and just recently entered an agreement to ship medical equipment and supplies to the Middle East because it is the fastest growing market sector on the globe.
Pssst..don’t tell the other socialists what I do or I will get thrown out of the next meeting.
February 12th, 2013 at 2:16 pm
Goodness Buzz, Marx himself married into a wealthy industrial family and Engels himself was a fatcat business owner. I can believe that your socialist beliefs are different than what you practice. We cannot all be pure.
February 12th, 2013 at 2:48 pm
I am just curious where you get the impression I am a socialist?
Just because I think the GOP has lost its way when the primaries became a series of litmus tests; abortion, God, taxes, evolution, not speaking to Obama (or the Lugar test), etc., doesn’t make one a socialist.
What gives you the impression I am a socialist?
I didn’t think that disagreeing with an extreme right wing view of things categorized one as a socialist.
Of course I also suspect that while I get criticized for saying this is merely “entertainment”, many of you keep saying “Marxist, socialist, fat butt for no other reason than it garners a response. Unfortunately, I am pretty sure that is the impetus.
“Let’s poke the liberals”.
Let’s see what is laying around today, Marxist, socialist, Pelosi, guns, immigration, fat butt, Obama plays golf, budget, Obamacare, skewed polls, mainstream media, Palin is really secretly well-informed and smart, torture, prayer in schools, evolution, call Ronald a Marxist again, ban someone that disagrees with us for a random violation of a the comment rules etc., etc.
Now if it is merely a sound strategy for eliciting unique visitors than I can respect that, because despite your socialist categorization I clearly understand the business of the Internet (sold a few hundred thousand downloadable books over the last decade, especially when “purchasing” eyeballs was very inexpensive).
If it is simply business, I get it and will simply tip my hat to your strategy and if Michelle’s fat butt results in money being generated than by all means don’t deviate from the plan.
February 12th, 2013 at 3:20 pm
If you havent seen this ya gotta see this.
Superbowl Commercial “GOD MADE A LIBERAL”
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/08/video-so-god-made-a-liberal/
=====================================
[Soopermexican] Source: LYBIO.net
“And on the Ninth day, God spilled some coffee on an angry possum and God made a Liberal.”
God said, “I need someone willing to get up at the crack of noon and check their Facebook and Tweet vile things; take a nap, borrow money from their parents and stay out all night drinking Pabst ironically and snorting bath salts and whine until midnight.” So God made a Liberal.
He said, “I need a person that can take a thriving community and turn it into a debt-ridden, post-apocolyptic welfare-state. I need someone who thinks Meat is Murder; Produce is raised in grocery aisles; who can’t fix a flat tire or change their own oil; and who, when forced to finally get a job as a barista makes you wait for your latte while they play Angry Birds on their iPhone, and then takes his union mandated two hour break.” So God made a Liberal.
God said, “I need somebody dumb enough to believe in Global Warming and deficit spending yet arrogant enough to look down at hard-working folk cause they don’t have a worthless Ph.D. in 17th Century Belgian Lesbian Studies. It had to be someone that would tax and spend, sue and attack, flip and flop, legislate from the bench and pass an unread bill. A person that would take a story of American success and turn it into a lesson of injustice.” So God made a Liberal.
[Soopermexican] Source: LYBIO.net
“It had to be someone who would lie to themselves and others and envy the successful. Someone to whine, cry, demand, screech and scream ‘Sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist bigot!’ It had to be someone that at the end of the day they could go home after helping rip apart a country with divisive, race and a class war, and who would laugh and then sigh with mocking eyes thinking, ‘If I hadn’t aborted all my children they would probably say they want to spend their life doing what dad does’.” So God made a Liberal.
February 12th, 2013 at 6:09 pm
“What gives you the impression I am a socialist?”
yOU’RE IN LOVE WITH ONE
February 12th, 2013 at 7:23 pm
I have rarely written anything about Obama.
I generally just comment on the inanity of the far right, while also pointing out the obsession on this site regarding his wife.
February 12th, 2013 at 8:09 pm
“I have rarely written anything about Obama.”
You’re full o sht.
You defend his policies more often than not.
Give us all a break from the semantic dodgeball wouldja ?
Thats about as honest as Ronald Ward sayin hes in love with Reagan, or saying we/conservatives just tease Michelles ass because we have a deeply concealed lust for her.
I’m offended that you think I’d want that fat zitty ass.
I’d rather bob for apples in cat piss