July 15, 2012

Obama adopts Newt Gingrich as a surrogate crybaby.

Strange! This is an official Obama ad. Watch for Gingrich at the end.



It's also weird in that it shows Romney making his harshest attacks on Obama.

It's also dishonest. The idea is to portray Romney as a hypocrite for attacking Obama when he also makes attacks. But the material at the beginning — "Is this the level that the Obama campaign is willing to stoop to? Is this up to the standards expected of the presidency of the United States?" — refers to the Obama campaign's making deceptive statements about Romney and Bain Capital. Has Romney ever lied about Obama? Has he ever made statements that are proven false without correcting them and apologizing? That's the comparison that needs to be made. That's what Romney said was beneath the standards of the presidency.

ADDED: I was curious about Romney's statement — in the ad — that Obama wanted to make America a "less Christian nation." I found this:

In February, Romney criticized the relationship between Obama and the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. in a radio interview with Sean Hannity. Hannity had played a clip for Romney in which Obama had said “given the increase in diversity” in America, “the dangers of sectarianism are greater than ever. Whatever we once were we are no longer a Christian nation ...“ Hannity abruptly cut off the clip there, editing the president’s quote in a manner that distorted its meaning, and asked Romney for his thoughts.

“I think again that the president takes his philosophical leanings in this regard, not from those who are ardent believers in various faiths but instead from those who would like America to be more secular,” Romney told Hannity in that interview. “And I’m not sure which is worse, him listening to Rev. Wright or him saying that we must be a less Christian nation.”

Asked Thursday what he had meant when he said President Obama was trying to make America a less Christian nation, Romney said he could not recall the context of the remarks.

“I’m not familiar precisely with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said, whatever it was,” he told reporters at the hastily scheduled press availability to respond to the New York Times report. “I’ll go back and take a look on what was said there. The focus of my campaign is going to be, as I’ve just suggested, on the future and on who can do best to build an America that has great promise and great opportunity for fulfillment of dreams.”

He declined to respond to a question about whether he believed President Obama’s world view was shaped by Rev. Wright and whether he saw any evidence of Wright’s influence in his policies....

In the February radio interview, Hannity cut off the president’s statement mid-sentence. In the full quote, the president did not say that the United States is no longer a Christian nation; he said that the nation is made up of Christians, people of other faiths and nonbelievers.

94 comments:

Kurt said...

The Obama 2012 campaign just keeps moving further and further into the bizarre realm. It certainly suggests desperation to me, and I don't think that is just wishful thinking on my part. Their internal polling must be dreadful if they can't even put forward bland, generically positive ads about Obama's so-called accomplishments. To go this negative, this early, and in ways that only serve to undercut the messages the campaign is trying to project sure seems like a losing strategy to me.

campy said...

Has he ever said that Obama is AWESOME!!!???? No? Then he's a liar.

Andy said...

Has Romney ever lied about Obama? Has he ever made statements that are proven false without correcting them and apologizing? That's the comparison that needs to be made.

1. Of course.

2. Romney is currently lying about Obama on the Romney website.

3. Romney ran a campaign ad that was breathtakingly misleading where he purposefully and intentionally mislead people about what Obama was saying.

traditionalguy said...

Obama's guys are really losing it. They just ran a Romney ad against Obama and used it to ask for victim status for being attacked. What a strange plea for a fight contestant...it's like pleading "no mas" and going back to sit in your corner.

Romney has flustered them. Their best Bain stuff has bounced off Romney. They want to get some of Romney's mojo by throwing back at him his counter attack on their Bain Lie.

harrogate said...

Tha clip of Romney pounding his heart and talking about the "passion of freedom" is fucking hilarious. Who can take Romney seriously in that clip? He's such a tool.

Andy said...

To go this negative, this early, and in ways that only serve to undercut the messages the campaign is trying to project sure seems like a losing strategy to me.

If you're curious why they are going negative on Romney, it's because Romney has failed to define who he is, and that represents an enormous opportunity for the Obama campaign to define who Romney is. It would be political malpractice for the Obama campaign not to go for it.

The reason that Romney has not defined himself is because the key to understanding Romney is his family, his religion, his time as Governor of Massachusetts, and his time at Bain. Romney is studiously avoiding talking about three of those things, and "vote for me, I have five kids and a wife" is not a winning slogan.

Sydney said...

Made me want to vote for Romney.

Ann Althouse said...

@Andy R Point to something specific. Provide links.

rehajm said...

We're no longer highlighting the terrible economy, or our president's inability to comprehend it, or do anything constructive about it. +1 or the Obama campaign.

AF said...

Romney ran an ad with Obama saying, "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose." He left out the fact that Obama was quoting McCain's campaign, and chiding them for wanting to avoid talking about the economy. You can't get any more distorted than that.

AF said...

Link: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/22/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obama-said-if-we-keep-talking-abo/

Unknown said...

I don't think it's wise for Team Obama to offer a concise compendium of Romney's criticisms of Obama!

Ross said...

I too, after watching this, want to vote for Romney even more than I did before. The only question is, what do Independents think?

The Crack Emcee said...

They're both liars:

Mitt's line about how this should be a more Christian nation sure is strange when A) Mormonism is an occult belief - not Christianity - and B) he takes shots at Rev. Wright but declares his own "religion" off-limits, and C) the leader of his cult has declared he's engaging a "war" in the name of Mormonism.

The people of this country need to hear the truth about both of these clowns - and bury them.

To defend Romney - when he's playing the same "dishonest" game as Obama - is dishonest itself,....

Andy said...

@Andy R Point to something specific. Provide links.

On the Romney trade page, it says, "0 Trade Deals Signed by Obama". See the right sidebar. This is a lie. Proof: "Obama Signs 3 Trade Deals, Biggest Since NAFTA"

The misleading ad I was talking about is this one: "CNN Demolishes Mitt Romney’s ‘Misleading’ New Campaign Ad: It’s ‘A New Low’"

The Romney campaign didn't even deny they were trying to mislead people when they put words in Obama's mouth. It was shocking to me they would lead off their campaign with something so despicable.

Fen said...

Althouse: @Andy R Point to something specific. Provide links.

*snicker*

You're kidding, right? Argument by Assertion is all he's got.

Comanche Voter said...

Andy R, put on our big boy pants and explain yourself with specifics--not just opinions--and then an adult may listen to you. Until then--well---have a good time playing in the mud.

Dante said...

If you're curious why they are going negative on Romney, it's because Romney has failed to define who he is, and that represents an enormous opportunity for the Obama campaign to define who Romney is. It would be political malpractice for the Obama campaign not to go for it.

I agree with most of this, but surely, you can not agree that lying is fair, is it?

The Crack Emcee said...

Andy R.,

If you're curious why they are going negative on Romney, it's because Romney has failed to define who he is, and that represents an enormous opportunity for the Obama campaign to define who Romney is. It would be political malpractice for the Obama campaign not to go for it.

I heard the same analysis on NPR this week. Didn't know what to think of it, since they're both pretty-well defined for me, but - at least in the case of the over-ground campaign - it seems to pan out.

Whenever I hear mention of the planet Kolab, Jesus' return to Missouri, or any of the other bizarre "beliefs" Romney holds - which all make Rev. Wright seem like a font of wisdom - then I'll know the game is on.

Until then, it's just another rube circus rolling through town,...

gk1 said...

This reminds me so much of when the obama crew was trying to freeze out Fox news from the white house in 2009. They tried it for about a week and even the MSM couldn't be convinced to go along with it. I think the bain attacks will go the same way. It will be quietly dropped after the media starts asking "Why the unsubstanciated attacks?"

The Crack Emcee said...

Fen,

*snicker*

You're kidding, right? Argument by Assertion is all he's got.


Somebody just said this about me yesterday - also wrong.

Why do you guys keep saying it? He's given you links, so now you look like an idiot - what now? Should we conclude you don't know what you're talking about?

It would at least be an idea based on fact,...

Zachary Sire said...

If it had been the other team who had made such an absurd linguistic gaffe on CNN this morning, you better believe Althouse would have been all over it--instantly! And it's such a delicious gaffe! So bloggable! But, no, of course not. Althouse can't let herself go there.

In order to keep all you loyal Althouse right-wingers (and page view contributors) happy, at bay, and continually clicking thru, she can't upset the balance. She can't lift the veil! She can't be true to herself and her blogging sensibilities. Sad!

Too bad Althouse can't retroactively vote for McCain in 2008! Her credibility with regard to her feigned support for Romney is a schizoid mess. A fun mess, to be sure, but hollow and insane nonetheless. The fact that no one even recognizes it is what makes coming here so fascinating.

I hope it's as worth it to her as it is to the gaggle of racist, teabagging clowns who are only using her blog for a forum to gather and spread their hatred. Something that could be done anywhere else online, really. What a shame.

jeff said...

"I hope it's as worth it to her as it is to the gaggle of racist, teabagging clowns who are only using her blog for a forum to gather and spread their hatred." = anyone who disagrees with ZPS. Perhaps Althouse could consult with you to see what is or is not allowed to post about?

Unknown said...

ZPS,

What's your strategy? You insult Prof. Althouse, and most of the commentariat with typical lefty blather that proves how nasty and content free most Obamabots seem to be.

Do you think your bile will sway independents? Maybe you just get a kick out of being an asshole.

What are you trying to accomplish?

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

test #2

Dante said...

Andy,

Thanks for the note on Romney's attack on Obama. I never liked Romney's attacks on Newt Gingrich either. They were simply BS (oh, Ann doesn't like that, how about Bullshit).

I will say this, though. The press is in NO position to complain about taking quotations out of context. They do it all the time to smear candidates they don't like, usually those with an "R" behind their name.

And so far as Obama is concerned? The man is disgusting. Check out what he did to Seven of Nine. Oh, maybe it was just Axelrod, who is widely believed to have initiated this disgusting court action:

When Jack Ryan's campaign for an open United States Senate seat in Illinois began in 2003, the Chicago Tribune newspaper and WLS-TV, the local ABC affiliate, sought to have his records released. Both Jeri and Jack agreed to make their divorce, but not custody, records public, saying their release could be harmful to their son.[29]

On June 18, 2004, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider agreed to release the custody files.[30] The decision generated much controversy because it went against both parents' direct request and because it generally reversed the early decision to seal the papers in the best interest of the child. It was revealed that six years previously, Jeri had accused Jack Ryan of asking her to perform sexual acts with him in public,[31] and in sex clubs in New York, New Orleans, and Paris.[29][32] Jeri Ryan described one as "a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling."[33] Jack Ryan denied these allegations. Although Jeri Ryan only made a brief statement,[34] and she refused to comment on the matter during the campaign, the document disclosure led Jack Ryan to withdraw his candidacy;[35][36] his main opponent, Barack Obama, then won the 2004 United States Senate election in Illinois.


From Wikipedia. Not to mention he got his opponents thrown off the democratic ticket using questionable legal means.

I don't like Romney. I never have, and I like the way he won the R nomination even less.

I'm simply not going to vote for either of these clowns. It doesn't matter: I live in CA, and I'm glad I don't have to make the choice between these disgusting human beings.

And it has nothing to do with his mormonism either. We don't need a manage the decline guy, and that's what Romney is, in my view.

Michael K said...

That Obama ad was weird. I couldn't tell if it was an Obama or Romney ad. I believe you but it sure looks like an "own goal" to me.

"Whenever I hear mention of the planet Kolab, Jesus' return to Missouri, or any of the other bizarre "beliefs" Romney holds - which all make Rev. Wright seem like a font of wisdom - then I'll know the game is on"

Are you listening to your own dreams again ? Jeremiah Wright is sure a font of wisdom. He explains a lot about his student.

Dante said...

Whenever I hear mention of the planet Kolab, Jesus' return to Missouri, or any of the other bizarre "beliefs" Romney holds - which all make Rev. Wright seem like a font of wisdom - then I'll know the game is on.

Crack, you got something better going on? I believe I'm going to die, and my consciousness is going to be gone forever. If I could believe in something where that wasn't the case, and the deep terror of it was not there, I would. But I can't. Magic underwear, little hats on the head, whatever works is OK, so long as you keep it separate from your public life.

Jason (the commenter) said...

It's an anti-Romney ad from Obama that sounds more like an anti-Obama ad. The people at team-Obama must be so isolated, even from a Moderate perspective, that they can't tell the difference.

And what was the point of bringing up Newt? This ad is directed at people who loathe Mr. Gingrich. Anything he says, they're going to think twice about, not blindly agree with.

Michael K said...

The Ryan divorce records caper was despicable and an Axelrod maneuver from the beginning. Jeri Ryan is still being called a Republican which I object to. These stories are not uncommon in custody fights and are usually lies.

Expect a big attack on the Mormon religion similar to crack's nonsense. I expect it will be mid-October.

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

Thank you, Saint Croix!

edutcher said...

The best Romney ad I've seen!

Everything wrong with this administration in 1 minute.

Axelrod and Plouffe are as incompetent as their client.

Andy R. said...

@Andy R Point to something specific. Provide links.

On the Romney trade page, it says, "0 Trade Deals Signed by Obama". See the right sidebar. This is a lie. Proof: "Obama Signs 3 Trade Deals, Biggest Since NAFTA"


From the link, "The three deals were initially signed in the George W. Bush administration but were slowed down as the Obama White House renegotiated changes and haggled with Republicans over the worker aid program."

These were Republican deals, genius. They shopuld probably correct the copy to read "negotiated", not signed.

As for the ad, the campaign is turning Zero's tactics against him.

It's called irony.

Look into it.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

If it had been the other team who had made such an absurd linguistic gaffe on CNN this morning

Like Choom saying the people who fainted at the Roanoake rally needed "paralegals"?

Tim said...

The failed hat mannequin lies about Romney lying about Obama.

Palladian said...

I hope it's as worth it to her as it is to the gaggle of racist, teabagging clowns who are only using her blog for a forum to gather and spread their hatred. Something that could be done anywhere else online, really. What a shame.

Lol. As if you'd know about shame! How's the gay porn promotion business these days? Any new bareback flicks you're excited about? Does your industry keep track of the rate of new HIV and other STIs that are a direct result of your irresponsible products? No?

What a shame!

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

There's Obama lie and Obama creepy.
This is about the creepiest thing he has uttered in a long time.

'If you've got a business — you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
-Barack Obama

Wow. Just wow.

Phil 314 said...

Gosh, those on the right have urged Romney to get tougher, BO just showed him how.

Maybe its a briar patch tactic.

Palladian said...

Can't you just feel the optimism, hope and change oozing out of people like Andy R and Zachary Sire? Doesn't it fill you with confidence in America's future under 4 more years of Barack Obama? Don't these two seem like the kind of nice people you want in charge of your freedom, your survival, making your life-and-death decisions for you?

Paco Wové said...

"Maybe you just get a kick out of being an asshole."

By Jove, I think you're on to something!

coketown said...

Did anyone else notice the Obama speech Drudge is currently linking from the Washington Times is basically the same speech Elizabeth Warren made that received so much ridicule? "You made money, good for you; but you only got there with help from others."

That sentiment does not resonate at all with most Americans. I hope he doesn't plan on making it a theme of this campaign. But odds are he will. Obama 2012 has been all thumbs from the start.

Ann Althouse said...

Andy R, you said "On the Romney trade page, it says, "0 Trade Deals Signed by Obama". See the right sidebar. This is a lie. Proof: "Obama Signs 3 Trade Deals, Biggest Since NAFTA""

I agree that's weird. Has he been confronted about that? I looked. I note that the sidebar doesn't match the text on the left, which only says:

"Under President Obama’s watch, America has sat on the sidelines while our major trading competitors have been moving forward aggressively. Thus, since the last trade agreement signed by President Bush in 2007, the European Union has successfully signed agreements with nine countries and pursued negotiations with sixteen others. China, for its part, has signed agreements with four countries and pursued negotiations with fifteen others. In August 2011, a group of Asian nations – including many with whom President Obama has stalled progress on trade – announced their goal to create an economic bloc that would include China but not the United States."

Is Romney going around saying "0 trade deals" or is that a screwup by the webpage people who misread the statement about the "last" deal with Europe? The 3 deals were with with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama (not Europe).

coketown said...

He should stick with attacks on Bain--that strange extraterrestrial entity. It may even be from another dimension altogether.

All aboard the Bain Train! Chuga chuga choom choooom! lolololol

Paco Wové said...

"In the February radio interview, Hannity cut off the president’s statement mid-sentence. In the full quote,"

You know, it would have been a simple matter to, I don't know, PROVIDE THE FULL GODDAMNED QUOTE.* But the L.A. Times couldn't be arsed to do that, and assumed that people would be happy with a paraphrase. Would the original quote have been so hard, L. Fucking A. Fucking Times? Christ. I can feel my blood pressure rising by the hour...

--

"Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers." Whatever the hell that means.

Ann Althouse said...

Jeremiah Wright's "God damn America" always made sense to me. He was, I think, elaborating on what Jesus said. Wasn't this the relevant Bible verse?

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. ”


Let's face up to that.

sakredkow said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dante said...

Let's face up to that.

What's this mean? All this welfare state guarantees all of us a place in heaven, since those who pay taxes do feed the hungry, clothe the needy, etc.?

Oh, wait. I'm being forced to do these things. Do they still count? Or am I a goat?

And if there are no hungry, needy, etc., then surely this welfare state is a horrible thing, removing all those opportunities for real human compassion.

wyo sis said...

"And it has nothing to do with his mormonism either. We don't need a manage the decline guy, and that's what Romney is, in my view."

What makes you think that's what Romney will do any more than any other candidate? What has he said that indicates that to you?

Palladian said...

Let's face up to that.

Lol. Is it possible to be a troll on your own website?

Paco Wové said...

"Let's face up to that."

What about that is a governmental commandment? Is Jesus saying the government should not imprison people, not control borders, feed and clothe everyone? I thought he was saying it to each and every person, about their own behavior, not what they were doing by proxy via their government. You can't farm out personal morality.

Saint Croix said...

Whiny. Very, very whiny. The vibe I got was a little boy complaining to his mommy.

"And, and, (sniff), he said I was calling him names. But he's calling me names! He's a name-caller! And I have mean pictures. See how mean he is? He's even picking on the fat kid!"

Do they test these ads before they put them on the air? Hatman isn't this whiny.

"Vote Obama - He Was Bullied Too."

Michael K said...

"The 3 deals were with with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama (not Europe)."

Obama sat on them until the 2010 election. Bush negotiated all of them and the Democrats wouldn't advance them. Columbia was especially egregious.

"The trade deal, approved by the U.S. Congress in October, will add as much as $1.1 billion to U.S. exports when it takes full effect, according to estimates from the U.S. International Trade Commission."

That was October 2011 when Bush signed the deal in 2008.

shiloh said...

smitten w/mittens Althouse

When was the last time you had a pro Obama thread and an anti mittens thread.

Provide links.

:::zzzz:::

Wince said...

AF said...
Romney ran an ad with Obama saying, "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose." He left out the fact that Obama was quoting McCain's campaign, and chiding them for wanting to avoid talking about the economy. You can't get any more distorted than that.
7/15/12 5:28 PM


Whether Obama was asserting it outright or was chiding McCain "for wanting to avoid talking about the economy" in 2008, I think Obama's same desire now to avoid talking about the economy makes the clip relevant grounds for Romney's attack in either case.

leslyn said...

Zachary Paul Sire said...

[Althouse's] credibility with regard to her feigned support for Romney is a schizoid mess. A fun mess, to be sure, but hollow and insane nonetheless.

I would change "insane" to "inane."

Before you go, thank you for buying something through Amazon.

Saint Croix said...

Thank you, Saint Croix!

You're very welcome!

shiloh said...

Presidential candidates stretching the truth er lying :::shock::: in presidential ads notwithstanding, interesting mittens won the Rep nomination vs. several train wrecks by running 95% negative ads against said train wrecks.

Me thinks whiner mittens is gonna drop the apology meme very soon. :-P

leslyn said...

Zachary Paul Sire said...

[Althouse's] credibility with regard to her feigned support for Romney is a schizoid mess. A fun mess, to be sure, but hollow and insane nonetheless.

I would change "insane" to "inane."

Before you go, thank you for buying something through Amazon.

Cedarford said...

Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers." Whatever the hell that means.
-------------------
It means meaningless MultiKuti diversity babble.
He could have gone on. "We are a Satan-worshipping Nation, We are a Panspermia NAtion! A Scientology Nation! A Deus Ex Machina Nation! We are a Voodoo nation!"

Someone should play that to hispanic and Christian white and black audiences.

And ask that very question. If Obama believes a small number of Hindis or Jews makes us a Hindi or Buddhist nation - is America also a Satan worshipper nation? Is Mexico a Muslim and a Voodoo nation as well as a Christian nation if they have a small number of Muslims and Voodoo worshippers? Is Israel a Muslim nation?

leslyn said...

Paco Wove' said,

You can't farm out personal morality.

If we brought our "whole tithe into the barns," there would be no need for government assistance. But because we won't, then yeah, it has to be farmed out to the government.

ddh said...

Andy R.,

President Bush signed the three trade deals with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea, but President Obama withdrew the treaties from consideration by the Senate in order to negotiate some minor provisions to placate US labor union opposition. The final results were barely different from the original versions of the treaties.

When President Obama sent the treaties to the Senate, he had to sign committal letters, which is what you see being signed in the photo. Big clue: Treaty signings have foreign officials present. Where are they in the photo?

Governor Romney would have been on completely solid ground if his web site had said that President had initiated no new trade deals. Even with the imprecise language about "signing," Romney is not deceptive. He's in favor of free trade, and President Obama is not. That's a difference in position that President Obama himself has been highlighting with his attacks on "outsourcing."

As for your second point, a bunch of Democrats and CNN journalists are outrageously outraged that a Romney ad played a clip from 2008 in which candidate Obama says, quoting a McCain aide, "If we keep talking about the economy, we won't get elected." I think most viewers would get the point that President Obama in 2012 doesn't want to talk about his economic record.

Perhaps it would have been better if the ad had a voice-over that said "Now who doesn't want to talk about the economy." Nonetheless, the absence of such a tagline does nothing to deceive the viewer about the economy's performance, which has been poor.

Unknown said...

Yeah, I'm not an expert on the Bible, but I don't think Jesus ever said "give the government your money so they can pick and choose who to clothe, feed, etc."

He was talking to individuals. AFAIK.

And Rev. Wright is still an insufferable hatemonger.

leslyn said...

Cedarford, you're incoherent.

Chip Ahoy said...

I cohered you perfectly well, Cedarford.

Paco Wové said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paco Wové said...

"If we brought our "whole tithe into the barns," there would be no need for government assistance. But because we won't, then yeah, it has to be farmed out to the government."

...and you call Cedarford incoherent...

Tim said...

Palladian said...

"Let's face up to that.

Lol. Is it possible to be a troll on your own website?


Boy, is that ever right.

Like Jesus was telling his followers to give more money to the Romans, so that they might distribute more bread.

Besides which, if someone is going to start citing Jesus for how government who work, let's do the whole thing.

Let's start by outlawing abortion.

Tim said...

"...and you call Cedarford incoherent...

I'm sure you know there is a distinction between "incoherent" and "stupid."

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

sakredkow said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sakredkow said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
leslyn said...

Paco, just look up the big words.

Paco Wové said...

Leslyn, I am no theologian, but I strongly doubt that Jesus' words quoted by Althouse are an attempt (by Jesus, at least) to argue for a government-sponsored welfare state. Salvation is not a concern of the U.S. Government.

sakredkow said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
leslyn said...

Paco Wové said...
Leslyn, I am no theologian, but I strongly doubt thatesus' words quoted by Althouse are an attempt (byesus, at least) to argue for a government-sponsored welfare state. Salvation is not a concern of the U.S. Government.

I agree. I don't know if Althouse meant that, but I didn't.

What I said, in essence, is that failure by the religious to care for the poor has led us to government care. What I failed to explicate was that the gap caused by the religious in failing to care for the poor creates a secular moral conundrum: what do we do with them?

It has become a moral duty by the government, but by no means a government Christian duty. I think you can find some of that in Jesus' saying, "Pay to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

I abhor any notion that the government cares for the poor out of a "Christian" duty. For one thing, it resembles a theocracy, and for another--it lets the religious off the hook.

traditionalguy said...

In scripture the " ...do to least of these my brothers" standard of care is specifically reserved for final judgement upon the way Nations treated Jesus' brothers. Did they care or not care when Jews were in need of help?

Jesus ends this warning with the Jew hating Nations being dumped into the lake of fire reserved for the devil and his angels, forever.

God apparently gets very angry at those who will not help his Covenant People when they are being abused. It's one of their promises he made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob's descendants.

Many Christians try to hi-jack that verse by using a substitution theory that the Church has replaced the Jews who apparently in theory no longer exist. That is an evil, intellectually false sillyness.

Christians do not need this warning since there is no condemnation for them at judgement anyway due to Jesus' blood sacrifice as the Lamb of God in their place. That is the only covenant they will ever need.

But the brothers of Jesus still need the old Covenant, and it is still in full force and effect for them and backed up by as horrible a threat as God has ever made in scripture.

I do often wonder how Obama and his advisors' Israel betraying policies are going to affect this Nation.

tim in vermont said...

I had no idea that cracked MC hated Harry Reid so much. Are the emotions of a bigot best left under a rock, or exposed to sunshine?

tim in vermont said...

I am sure that calling Romney a liar is going to work with

Barack "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" Obama

Barack "My health care plan will not raise the deficit by one dime" Obama

We could talk about "transparency", "gonna close gitmo" (more evidence he is stupid than a liar), lobbyists, etc....

I could go on, but the point is that the man long since squandered his credibility.

The Crack Emcee said...

tim in vermont,

I had no idea that cracked MC hated Harry Reid so much.

I understand that, because "Keeping A Bead On Harry Reid (Ain't Easy)"

Are the emotions of a bigot best left under a rock, or exposed to sunshine?

So, now that I've proven I've ALWAYS hated Harry Reid - and have called him a liar, at least, since 2008 and been on Mormons since 2007(loooong before Romney was a serious candidate for leader of the free world - am I still a bigot, or are you a liar who doesn't understand what the word "bigot" means, but will still throw your ignorance around to cover for cult members?

I think I know the answer,....

The Crack Emcee said...

And one more thing, tim in vermont, since you like sunshine so much:

You can't beat me.

Do you know why you can't beat me? Because I know what I'm talking about. I know it inside-out, through and through, on all sides and from all angles.

And I don't care who it is who questions my integrity on this issue - you, Ann, or anyone else who dwells here - the answer is ALWAYS going to be the same:

You are the ones who are being bigots - by insisting on denying reality, by covering for cults, and by (now repeatedly) allowing our nation to be run by groups who don't have it's best interest at heart but only their own - and, like them, doing it for your own selfish reasons.

The full scope of your ignorance - the way you lash out even when presented with undeniable evidence of your foolishness - is sickening:

Oh - YOU DIDN'T KNOW HOW I'VE ALWAYS FELT ABOUT HARRY REID AND THE MORMON "CHURCH"?

Well, doesn't that make you special?

Yeah - "special" as in retarded. Which gives retards a bad name because they're capable of processing more complex ideas than you are. Tell any developmentally disabled person the story of Joseph Smith and they'll find major holes in that story, but not you - you're a fucking genius. Tell me:

What else are you going to attack me for, that YOU DON'T KNOW, Einstein?

I knew sap comes from Vermont but this is ridiculous,...

Kirk Parker said...

leslyn,

"What I said, in essence, is that failure by the religious to care for the poor has led us to government care"

Well, other than the fact you've got it quite backwards, sure.

el polacko said...

@timinvermont: that fellow on crack, apparently, despises anyone who has 'beliefs' because they remind him of that evil, believin' bitch who done him wrong once upon a time. at least that's what i got from his rants until it just got old. lately, i just scroll past him.

The Crack Emcee said...

Kirk Parker,

Well, other than the fact you've got it quite backwards, sure.

Everything's backwards - the bigots are calling others by that name. The people of a free country want to elect a cult member to run it. The smart are making stupid decisions.

It's now becoming par for the course,...

The Crack Emcee said...

el polacko,

@timinvermont: that fellow on crack, apparently, despises anyone who has 'beliefs' because they remind him of that evil, believin' bitch who done him wrong once upon a time. at least that's what i got from his rants until it just got old. lately, i just scroll past him.

So, el polacko - now that I know how you feel about me - how's it feel to be an ignorant bigot?

"So far, Mitt Romney,...has evaded most questions by acting as if he was being subjected to some kind of religious test for public office. He’s been supported in this by some soft-centered types who think that any dislike for any “faith group” is ipso facto proof of some sort of prejudice. Sorry, but this will not wash. I don’t think I would want to vote for a Scientologist or a Moonie for high office, or indeed any other kind, and I think attempts to silence criticism of such outfits are the real evidence of prejudice."- Christopher Hitchens

The Crack Emcee said...

The Mormons apparently believe that Jesus will return in Missouri rather than Armageddon: I wouldn’t care to bet on the likelihood of either. In the meanwhile, though, we are fully entitled to ask Mitt Romney about the forces that influenced his political formation and—since he comes from a dynasty of his church, and spent much of his boyhood and manhood first as a missionary and then as a senior lay official—it is safe to assume that the influence is not small. Unless he is to succeed in his dreary plan to borrow from the playbook of his pain-in-the-ass predecessor Michael Dukakis, and make this an election about "competence not ideology," he should be asked to defend and explain himself, and his voluntary membership in one of the most egregious groups operating on American soil. - Christopher Hitchens

"One of the most egregious groups operating on American soil"?

That doesn't sound like much of an endorsement to me,...

Rusty said...

Let's face up to that.

Just as long as it isn't with public money.

Christopher in MA said...

One of the most egregious groups operating on American soil.

Considering that comes from the pen of Christopher "Mother Teresa was a sexually frustrated masochist who gloried in squalor and filth and fellated Third World dictators" Hitchens, I'll pass on what he thinks is egregious.

But you just keep on truckin' there, Crack.

damikesc said...

Andy, are you aware that McCain didn't say what Obama claimed he said in the clip?

An "anonymous campaign staffer said it"

And the trade deal thing has been shown. Dems sitting on agreed to deals under Bush isn't an Obama accomplishment. He has yet to negotiate one.

Ann Althouse said...

"Just as long as it isn't with public money."

That's your effort to digest the difficult Bible passage and coordinate it with your political ideology.

But the reason I presented it was to show that Jeremiah Wright's sermon was not as outrageous as it is portrayed. Of course, it's the left-wing political position, but he's interpreting the Bible to support that position. And in that context "God damn America" is fiery but not anti-American.

I think he's saying Jesus told us we needed to care for the poor and we'd be damned if we didn't. America doesn't care enough for the poor, so on judgment day, the judgment will be America should go to hell. But we can change now so that doesn't happen.

Rusty said...

I think he's saying Jesus told us we needed to care for the poor and we'd be damned if we didn't. America doesn't care enough for the poor, so on judgment day, the judgment will be America should go to hell. But we can change now so that doesn't happen


Remember our discussion on charity?
By the very definition of the word it is an act by an individual towards another, but it is the realtionship of the individual giver towards their god. welfare is not charity. Welfare is not charity. Institutions are not charitable. Let me rephrase that.Very few institutions are charitable. We as a nation will not be judged by god, but we as individuals will be.
"take heed that you don not do your charitable deeds before men, but when you do..........do not let your left know what your right hand is doing.........."

leslyn said...

Rusty,

I believe we'll be judged as nations and individuals.

"Welfare is not charity." You're right. "Welfare" (which I am going to presume includes unemployment insurance, SSI disability, and veterans' benefits--tell me if I'm wrong) is a duty the secular state has taken on. I called it a moral duty, but it's also political. Go back to the Great Depression, and the images alone would be enough to spark political movements.

Charity is a giving form of love; none be ashamed to receive it, for it says nothing about the moral values of the recipient. It is God's way of making sure all receive what they need, but I think that more important than that, it is God's way of making sure that all give up a portion of what they think they "own." The end result of that giving up is to make sure there is enough for times of trouble or shortage. If that is not working, then the religious having failed to live up to their end of the "bargain:" Mal. 3:10

Dante said...

I'm with you, Rusty. The extent the Welfare state removes opportunities for real compassion, is the extent we as people have less opportunity to be compassionate.

Ann Althouse said...

"Remember our discussion on charity?..."

Yes, but you're just debating the politics.

I'm trying to restrict my point to explaining why Wright's sermon was much more normal than people want to acknowledge.

I don't see any response here to that.

Rusty said...

Ann Althouse said...
"Remember our discussion on charity?..."

Yes, but you're just debating the politics.

I'm trying to restrict my point to explaining why Wright's sermon was much more normal than people want to acknowledge.


And I reject your assertion that he was speaking from a religeous point of view. He was giving his political opinion.

Rusty said...

leslyn said...
Rusty,

I believe we'll be judged as nations and individuals.

"Welfare is not charity." You're right. "Welfare" (which I am going to presume includes unemployment insurance, SSI disability, and veterans' benefits--tell me if I'm wrong) is a duty the secular state has taken on. I called it a moral duty, but it's also political. Go back to the Great Depression, and the images alone would be enough to spark political movements.

States are not moral. The very best a political entity can be is amoral. All governments tend to enslave. There is no morality in government.

Charity is a giving form of love; none be ashamed to receive it, for it says nothing about the moral values of the recipient. It is God's way of making sure all receive what they need, but I think that more important than that, it is God's way of making sure that all give up a portion of what they think they "own." leslyn said...
Rusty,

I believe we'll be judged as nations and individuals.

In your judgement you will stand alone before your god. There will be no hiding in groups.

"Welfare is not charity." You're right. "Welfare" (which I am going to presume includes unemployment insurance, SSI disability, and veterans' benefits--tell me if I'm wrong) is a duty the secular state has taken on. I called it a moral duty, but it's also political. Go back to the Great Depression, and the images alone would be enough to spark political movements.

Charity is a giving form of love; none be ashamed to receive it, for it says nothing about the moral values of the recipient. It is God's way of making sure all receive what they need, but I think that more important than that, it is God's way of making sure that all give up a portion of what they think they "own." The end result of that giving up is to make sure there is enough for times of trouble or shortage. If that is not working, then the religious having failed to live up to their end of the "bargain:" Mal. 3:10
If that is not working, then the religious having failed to live up to their end of the "bargain:" Mal. 3:10

Charity from the greek 'charitas'
mans love for his fellow simply because he is his fellow man without hope of recognition or reciprocity. It is what YOU do. It is about YOUR relationship with god.

Yes. it is. In christianity it is the relationship between the giver and god. The reciever is secondary. in order to be closer to god one must give."leslyn said...
Rusty,

I believe we'll be judged as nations and individuals.

"Welfare is not charity." You're right. "Welfare" (which I am going to presume includes unemployment insurance, SSI disability, and veterans' benefits--tell me if I'm wrong) is a duty the secular state has taken on. I called it a moral duty, but it's also political. Go back to the Great Depression, and the images alone would be enough to spark political movements.


God is not concerned with what you have. In this god is concerned with what you give up. By yourself. When noone is looking.



The great depression was not about charity. It was about FDRs great social experiment that caused the unneccessary suffering of millions.
save that for another time, lest we get sidetracked.

leslyn said...

Dante said...
I'm with you, Rusty. The extent the Welfare state removes opportunities for real compassion, is the extent we as people have less opportunity to be compassionate.

I call bullshit. There is nothing whatsoever which prevents you from finding and putting into use "opportunities for real compassion." Don't hide behind "the welfare state." It's about YOU.