Todd's response was, "I, I, I appreciate that and my apologies to your pastor," which seemed reasonably appropriate, but then Todd brought the subject of religion up again, this time on his own, as he was closing the interview, and this time it felt perhaps less appropriate:
CHUCK TODD: Mike Conaway, I have to leave it there. Republican from Texas. Thanks for coming on.My first reaction was, wow, Conaway went heavy, when Todd was keeping it light. That is, I thought "I hope your pastor forgives you" was almost silly — like: Of course, "Meet the Press" is more important than showing up for church and Sunday school in any given week. And all Conaway heard was doctrinal incorrectness — That pastor doesn't forgive; forgiveness comes from Jesus Christ. This isn't something casually social between me and the man who happens to be my pastor, but the most important thing in my life, and maybe you don't hear that much on a network news show, but I'm going to say the words in utter seriousness: I need Jesus Christ's forgiveness.
REP. MICHAEL CONAWAY: My pleasure.
CHUCK TODD: Missing church this morning. I hope your, I hope your pastor forgives you. I appreciate you coming on--
REP. MICHAEL CONAWAY: I don't need my pastor's forgiveness. I need Jesus Christ's forgiveness.
My second reaction was that Todd had contempt for this man. In fact — I encourage you to read the whole transcript — Todd had batted him around throughout the interview, and that last line about religion was a final get outta here. And Conaway heard the contempt and knew how to stand his ground and speak in the language that is understood by the People he represents back in Texas and the Man who represents him in Heaven.
I'm interested in hearing your interpretation. Here's video for more perspective:
Posts
122 comments:
Chuck Todd(D)is an asshole.
The left do not understand religion outside of their one-party rule objective (d)ictator cult.
Its not disrespect only to the man, but to his constituents and that entire culture.
DBH,
They do understand it.
Its simply the enemy culture. It has to be disparaged and reduced in social status.
How is it that a TV reporter is contemptuous of a person who represents three quarters of a million people? What arrogance.
And he would not speak this way to a Muslim, it probably goes without saying.
My interpretation is the same as Scott Adams': Two movies.
Its simply the enemy culture. It has to be disparaged and reduced in social status.
Ever since their preferred candidate lost, the disparaging is non-stop. The cult of the democrat operative with byline pushes the agenda. But they do fail to understand how anyone anywhere could be religious, when there's a national party to worship.
I'll watch it to see if the tone of either participants makes a difference, but initial thoughts on etiquette towards others, violating the Sabbath, and religious practice:
1) The first comment appears to blame someone else for not observing his Sabbath. Why is he doing that?
2) Were there no other church services he could attend at a earlier time, or at a different church? People often attend different churches when traveling. ie - Mitch McConnell & Elaine Chao tend to go to church on a Saturday night.
3) Was he distressed because he needed to attend a specific church? Did he have a personal obligation to teach Sunday school or organize the choir or make coffee? If so, it's reasonable to think he might need to apologize to his minister or to the congregation.
4) His comments are odd. If he believes he should not violate the sabbath -- whether that sabbath begins on Friday night, or Sunday morning -- it's his responsibility to not violate his belief in God's law concerning the Sabbath.
My Uncle believes Sabbath is Saturday evening. If he violates it, that's on him, and it would be rude of him to blame someone who is hosting an event he chose to attend. If he brought it up at the event, I would consider it to be a rude statement.
ok, I watched the intro and conclusion of the interview. Sorry, but I couldn't make it through the blah blah blah of the interview. My tolerance for talking points is quite low these days. So, if the middle of the interview makes a difference, I cannot comment on that aspect.
The tone of the intro and conclusion seemed pretty low key, on the part of both men.
It only makes me wonder who signs the checks who pay the person who signs Chuck Todd’s paycheck.
If that sounds too once removed, consider that Todd is following someone else’s personal agenda. It’s just not clear - deliberately - whose that is. It can’t just all be rhhardin’s “women’s eyeballs,” can it?
I think Todd can be very irritating (and what is with that haircut?), but I don't think he was disparaging of either the congressman or religion. Conaway started the interview by noting, with a smile, that he was missing church. I doubt Todd has ever had that comment before, and his reply was good natured, I thought. Same with the closing. Todd simply rephrased his earlier remark in what I take to be an effort to end the interview on a light note. Conaway chose to make the theological point, but again with a smile. I see no offense given or taken.
Reading what wwww wrote, I remembered the movie Chariots of Fire and how one of the runners, Eric Liddell, son of a missionary family, refused to run in a race in the Olympics because it was held on a Sunday.
Chuck Todd has turned into a complete parody of a newsman. A total Dem shill.
I watched it live.
1. I didn't think that Chuck Todd was terribly hard on the Congressman; it was a pretty good interview. I think Chuck (Rep. Conaway slipped and called him "Todd" as a first name at one point, and apologized for the error) was aiming more for information than "gotcha." And I think Rep. Conaway handled himself well.
2. I see the religious aspect the way that Althouse does, although a bit less dramatically. I do think that Chuck Todd was merely making casual small talk, and probably had no idea the way that Rep. Conaway would answer; I think it was as earnest as it was surprising to Chuck Todd.
I will say this; my reaction when Rep. Conaway said the words "Jesus Christ," I pictured a dozen heads in an NBC studio swiveling at lightspeed. Having almost never heard those words except as an epithet when they stubbed a toe or had a cab pass them by on Nebraska Avenue.
Chuck Todd in part of the Resistance. All of NBC is in full Resistance mode.
I got a CNBC news alert on my phone last week and it was something like this, "Dow down 100 points with chaos in the WH."
They never miss a chance.
I complained as 100 points is nothing - as a percentage - of the Dow these days. Firing Rex was a non-event for the market.
Meh, tempest in a tea pot, but the sanctimony on Conaway’s part was a bit odd.
Its just the typical Chuck Todd interview.
With the people he likes - Dems and Nevertrumpers - its "tell us what you think?"
With Republicans and people he doesn't like - its a debate.
The DNC should be paying him money.
There is no war on Christmas.
There is no war on Christianity.
But if you say "Jesus Christ" on the publicly owned airwaves - except as a curse word - then people freak out.
BTW, Church attendance never seemed to cross McCain or Miss Lindsey's mind.
I watched it on TV. I agree with chuck that it was a pretty good interview except Conaway talks too fast.
Of course wwww and Inga thought he was "odd."
Todd was a pretty reasonable guy early on. He may be getting orders from above or he may just be sliding into Democrat looney land.
Hugh Hewitt used to have him on his show all the time. He sounded pretty reasonable then.
all Conaway heard was doctrinal incorrectness
Or what he saw was teachable moment.
Conaway could have been a lot clearer about what they'd done and in refuting Chuck. I can see how Chuck would become irritated, it's surprising Conaway didn't.
"The DNC should be paying him money."
pretty sure they are
Conaway’s remark probably reflected an attitude that the sunday talk shows are a profanation but as a conservative Christian in his place, I would not have remarked at all, having rationalized my consent to be a part of the profanation in my own mind. Todd’s response seemed to me just a congenial and polite way to acknowledge Conaway’s remark. Neither seemed overtly hostile to the other and not worth much notice.
Not worthy of a post.
They're just competing on religious dick sizes.
One man's sanctimony is another man's righteousness. Conaway sounded grounded and reasonable. Of course, now a team of investigative reporters is enroute to his home district. If he ever skipped church to play golf we will soon hear of it. It's important that facts like that be made transparent because otherwise the Russians might blackmail him.......I think Todd would be more effective if he were less openly partisan. He seemed too eager in his quest for a gotcha question. He should take some acting lessons and try to develop a more above the fray persona......Charlie Rose was really good at pretending to be a neutral observer. He'd be the ideal man to conduct the interview of Stormy Daniels. CBS should bring hm back for that. It would be right in his wheelhouse.
Ralph L: "Conaway could have been a lot clearer about what they'd done and in refuting Chuck.
The republicans who are "in the know" (and have seen the underlying documents and are aware of IG Horowitz' activities) seem supremely confident and content.
I think its clear that all the evidence required to push back on the dems and their LLR allies will be coming out in those reports that will be issued by Horowitz. Hence the calm demeanor of the republican members and their not feeling the need to push back strenuously since they can't actually talk about the underlying evidence.
Better to let the coming reports do that work for them.
LLR Chuck is NOT going to enjoy those forthcoming reports by Horowitz!
William: "I think Todd would be more effective if he were less openly partisan. He seemed too eager in his quest for a gotcha question."
Careful now.
You don't want to activate the LLR Chuck Auto-Dem Defense Mode.
Its amazing to watch the old MTP shows -from the 60s - on youtube (don't know if they are still up). But it was reporters asking questions about policy. The whole point was to elicit information from "newsmakers" not play gotcha or "crossfire".
Of course, lots of the questions were from a liberal POV, but it was respectful and not a debate.
The journalist roundtables are even worse. Who the hell elected these people to anything? I don't care what Andrea Mitchell thinks about anything.
Listened to the tape and i think the religious angle is a nothing burger and I am a Christian.But along those lines two things stood out 1) totally unnecessary for Conway to start by saying " gee i missed church and sunday school today" .Very pretentious and not humble. Secondly he was actually smiling when he corrected Todd at the end. Probably thought another northeast intellectual who is ignorant of Christian Theology.
Politically i thought Conway did a poor job.
Conaway is a straight shooter and probably represents his district well and earnestly. The Todd guy was mildly snarky and he kept cutting wood with his two hands together as if praying for something to materialize from his effort. It looked like a game of gotcha on one side vs trying to deliver the truth on the other. (It was less a conversation than an interrogation.) I wasn’t impressed by Todd’s sense of fashion either, neither the face nor the tie, and I wonder why he thinks the Jefferson Memorial over his right shoulder is a good look.
They all have contempt for us.
Of course wwww and Inga thought he was "odd."
Why you gotta try to stir some poop? I wrote I thought both men were low key in their exchange.
I listened to the show on the radio driving home from church. For the life of me, I don't understand how the Press has become the John Birch Society, seeing the Russians behind everything all of sudden. It's bazaar.
I didn't take Chuck's question as being condescending. It's the usual politeness that people who aren't part of one cultural experience throw at someone from another experience. People who get offended about this kind of attempted politeness are the jackasses. Most are from the Left.
I've been in church since my 20's. Back when I was a true believer and zealot, I used to try to explain and try to find common ground. Now that I'm more of a skeptic who's been around the block intellectually and through some bad experience in the church, I'm more blunt. Maybe because I don't care anymore. I have lot's of questions and doubts, but I still believe I need to be forgiven by the Almighty for the wrong I have done. I find that forgiveness in Christ. What people actually think about my response, I don't know. They rarely comment or ask when I'm blunt.
Chuck Todd is a toady of the first order. He just assumes that McCabe is completely innocent and "targeted by the White House for a year", even though it was the FBI's own investigation at issue. Nonsense.
Dave Duffy: "For the life of me, I don't understand how the Press has become the John Birch Society, seeing the Russians behind everything all of sudden."
Its a lie conjured up by LLR Chuck's hillary/dem/lefty/deepstate/LLR allies to overturn an election.
It's that simple.
Many, many ways to say “fuck you”.
How is it that a TV reporter is contemptuous of a person who represents three quarters of a million people? What arrogance.
Probably because his viewership is nationwide and represents 3.6 million viewers - or 5 times as many. And you assholes are contemptuous of a woman who represents just as many people every day: Nancy Pelosi. And that's on the good days, when you're not dissing senators who represent even more people than that. But the hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness is amusing to watch.
Why you gotta try to stir some poop? I wrote I thought both men were low key in their exchange.
His comments are odd. If he believes he should not violate the sabbath -- whether that sabbath begins on Friday night, or Sunday morning -- it's his responsibility to not violate his belief in God's law concerning the Sabbath.
Apology accepted.
I don’t need to listen to this to pick a side. Todd is the penultimate asshat.
They all have contempt for us.
As we or anyone would for any political minority - let alone an incompetent one - that attempts to cram its ignorant views and bad policies down our throats and the nation as a whole.
Its amazing to watch the old MTP shows -from the 60s - on youtube (don't know if they are still up). But it was reporters asking questions about policy.
That's because back then both parties actually did care about and address policy. Until Republicans abandoned that stuff in favor of their phony baloney "culture wars" that they kept forcing down the throats of the unwilling and disapproving majority and pivoting off of every question instead of actually answering it.
Sounds like someone not realizing they were joking about something the other takes seriously. Like joking about cancer victims going bald and the person responds "I have cancer."
language that is understood by the People he represents back in Texas and the Man who represents him in Heaven.
Thank Darwin that the man who represents him is still spinning in his grave.
Hugh Hewitt used to have him on his show all the time. He sounded pretty reasonable then.
Oh. You mean the guy who called your hero Trump out (twice?) for not knowing what the "nuclear triad" was?
"Violating the sabbath." You guys are hilarious. You know what the originators of that whole sabbath concept used to do to violators? They stoned them! Get ready for the rocks.
Michael,
I am more then happy to oblige with an apology.
I do not understand you earlier statement, nor why you singled me out. What was your specific critique of my statement? I thought it was clearly articulated. Were you intending a personal comment towards me, with the "Of course?" If so, I find that personal and not conducive to interesting conversation.
Perhaps you did not intend it, but your statement came across as some sort of broad insult, in some sort of un-specific way. You also grouped me in with someone with whom who have a long-standing personal antipathy.
If you have a intellectual critique of my statement, I would find it interesting to engage.
I find the personal antagonism on this blog to be disturbing. I do not want to be part of it. Please leave me out of it.
I would ask you to engage with me on an intellectual level, and not encourage contempt, insults or anger.
In other words, don't let the devil ride. If you have a personal beef with something I said, if you let me know in a upfront way, I can move the conversation to a constructive place.
“You also grouped me in with someone with whom [you] who have a long-standing personal antipathy.”
I don’t pay much attention to Michael K anymore. He is personally affronted by opinions that differ from his own. There’s no arguing with that.
btw- if you read my statement you'll see I thought the statement is odd, particularly before watching the clip. After watching the clip I thought both men were low-key and joking.
I do think it's odd to tell people you are violating something you hold dear. It can come across as piety-for-show. In this instance, it was much more low-key.
I don’t pay much attention to Michael K anymore. He is personally affronted by opinions that differ from his own. There’s no arguing with that.
I would be interested in the counter-opinion. It would be interesting to hear why he disagreed.
I don't like the personal insult back-and-forth. It's tedious. More tedious then watching cable news shows.
I just watched the whole clip. Can't see anything worth making a conflict or controversy over. Is it really necessary to turn an exchange with investigatory committees over hostile foreign acts attempting to subvert our democracy into a contest of who knows more about Jesus and is more respectful of those who say they do? What a triviality of a subject changer.
It's true that Michael K is incapable of handling disagreement, let alone anything more contentious. He is a really thin-skinned kid, unfortunately. I've speculated at length on why this is so but at the end of the day he is what he is. Just a really super-sensitive, easily offended guy. He likes to pose as a well-traveled intellectual gadfly but unfortunately is just too afraid of anything he disagrees with to mix well in any company that he doesn't control. I wouldn't take it personally, though it is a shame. I guess.
I would be interested in the counter-opinion. It would be interesting to hear why he disagreed.
Yeah, but even he's not interested in knowing why he disagreed. He's just offended that someone didn't agree with him. Too offended to say why, in fact. He's a bit of a lost cause, that way. Sad.
Toohless,
"hostile foreign acts attempting to subvert our democracy"
How is democracy subverted?
“Yeah, but even he's not interested in knowing why he disagreed. He's just offended that someone didn't agree with him. Too offended to say why, in fact. He's a bit of a lost cause, that way. Sad.”
Exactly. It’s not worth my time to figure out why he reacts the way he does any further than I already have.
How is democracy subverted?
It isn't - if you believe that misinformation is a good thing to spread in an election.
Some people aren't as favorably disposed to lies and dishonesty though, wouldn't you know it. Hard to believe, eh?
Okay, so democracy can't be subverted. Good starting point to stop being so hysterical.
Not with facts. But you just subverted what I said so that you could make it seem like I said something in agreement with you, which I did not. And "hysterical" is a good way for a cool sociopath to see things, I guess. Like Hannibal Lecter, whose heart rate never rose while eating his victim's face, it sounds like you're cool with any manner of moral perversion. I guess that as with any Republican, you really find honesty to be a cruel chore. That must suck. What's it like having to lie to get everything you want in life?
Thanks Toothless. A sociopath Hannibal Lecter Republican, sorry for the accusation of being hysterical. My bad.
TTR: "Some people aren't as favorably disposed to lies and dishonesty though, wouldn't you know it."
And that is why the FBI was meeting in Andy McCabe's office to formulate an "insurance policy" while Strok and Page were meeting with a FISC judge at a six person dinner party.
Because lies and dishonesty are not favored by Leftist Collectivists. Got it.
Perhaps you did not intend it, but your statement came across as some sort of broad insult, in some sort of un-specific way. You also grouped me in with someone with whom who have a long-standing personal antipathy.
I consider you a person of the left, as is Inga. You seem much less foolish but you show the antipathy toward religion so common on the left.
I am agnostic and haven't been in a church since the last family funeral but I do get annoyed at what I perceive as contempt for religion.
To you it seemed that a religious person must be "odd" (your word) to agree to be on a Sunday interview instead of in church.
I had a Jewish classmate in medical school who was so devout that he would not do any study on the Sabbath. In fact, it is my understanding that physicians are exempt in the Hebrew religion from some of the restrictions of the Sabbath but he still insisted on spending the day at leisure.
He flunked out in spite of my attempts to help him study.
Anyone who goes into politics must make some compromises.
I don't mean the fake abortion tolerance of Catholic politicians like Pelosi and Biden.
I did not intend to make a "Broad Insult" but to comment on your reaction that is so common on the left.
I don’t pay much attention to Michael K anymore. He is personally affronted by opinions that differ from his own. There’s no arguing with that.
I guess I wasted my time trying to explain. Go to hell.
Blogger The Toothless Revolutionary said...
It's true that Michael K is incapable of handling disagreement,
I have tried to leave you alone as you are so often angry and obscene that I avoid you.
How is McDonald's by the way ?
It was stupid of Chuck Todd and it showed his ignorance of religion
How is McDonald's by the way ?
I wouldn't know.
I also wouldn't know what it's like to be so classist and elitist as to use accusations of a low income job as a way to insult someone.
How was it having a nursemaid raising you? Is that what made you into such a classist douche?
Ritmo is like a nasty dog that lives in a neighbor's yard. There is nothing to gain by having anything to do with him.
I try to avoid him and wwww now seems to have joined his team.
“I am agnostic and haven't been in a church since the last family funeral but I do get annoyed at what I perceive as contempt for religion.”
You are truly an ignoramus. You are agnostic, yet have the balls to accuse others of antipathy toward religion? I’m a Presbyterian and I believe God exists, so don’t lecture me you pompous ass. You get “annoyed” at almost everything that any person with views different than your own expresses. You’re nothing if not a crotchety old geezer who is a contrarian without a cause.
wwww,
Really, you might think twice about asking the old fool to explain himself again. Don’t drag my name into your senile blathering, you old fool, Michael K.
Inga said ... "I don’t pay much attention to Michael K anymore. He is personally affronted by opinions that differ from his own. There’s no arguing with that."
What a total lack of self-awareness!
Ditto for the nutty psychologist Francisco.
Boring, repetitive garbage.
Todd was out of line, but he is a dreadfully smug person in other areas, too, so I am not a surprised as i wish I could be.
Every few days, some Democrat (which Todd certainly is, not to mention his wife) reminds me that while I had to hold my nose to vote for Trump, given the choice I have no regrets.
Inga is losing it again.
Do you think I care what you say you think ?
“Do you think I care what you say you think ?”
Don’t know and don’t care. Leave me out of your tirades at other commenters, this time it was wwww.
Inga: "You are agnostic, yet have the balls to accuse others of antipathy toward religion?"
Lol
Just let that one percolate for awhile.
It gets funnier by the moment.
I try to avoid him...
You're not doing a good job of it but that's because you're a nasty shit who hides behind a phony, thin-skinned demand that all things nice and sunny in life derive from agreeing with you.
Again, why are you so fixated on using insinuations of class/wealth differences as an insult? Do you actually think that money buys virtue?
Christian politicians are generally pussy-whipped goofs, like this guy seems to be, and Toddy knows it. However, see if Toddy openly mocks a Muslim or Jew. One faith will cut your head off the other will unleash a shit storm upon you that just won't quit. Toddy is an asshole but he's not that stupid.
“I am agnostic and haven't been in a church since the last family funeral but I do get annoyed at what I perceive as contempt for religion.”
Nothing exposes the inherent fascism and incoherence of the right like their need to see others and society at large controlled by the same religious impulses that these many irreligious right-wingers themselves reject. Religion for thee but not for me, they say. Fuck them.
Upon further reflection, I believe that the host and guest both wear their respective religions on their sleeves. Both are a bit too proud.
I rather enjoy the Inga vs. Michael K back and forth - it’s the classic nurse vs. doctor antagonism.
Sorry, but I have to disagree about the undertone of religion in the above clip. Let's start with the Sabbath issue. Orthodox Christians are not Orthodox Jews. There is no injunction against working on the Sabbath since Good Christians DRIVE to Church, cook a wonderful Sunday Dinner, and probably eat pork with mashed potatoes with melted butter (or maybe even a Butterball Turkey). He is permitted (take note of Joe Lieberman and being on the floor during Shabbat) to come down to the office to represent his constituency, that he swore to God to protect.
Rather, I think he put that out there knowing something about Mr. Todd.
Sure enough, Mr. Todd started in on what Robert Bellah called Civil Religion. Trying to set Trump up to be a "Judas" for betraying McCabe with his tweets, at minute 2:32 he demands of Conaway "Don't you think this is an inappropriate use of the Bully Pulpit?"
BULLY FUCKING PULPIT??!!!! Seriously! Chuck Todd has deified Twitter? Twitter is The Bully Pulpit. Inappropriate Use? Suddenly there is a Religion of the Left (well, of course there is). Todd hammers away on this point performing his own transubstantiation turning this into the question if Conaway will REOPEN the investigation for what information?
Todd was playing at being The Grand Inquisitor grilling the Protestant. Totally disrespectful of the Congressman and smarmy contemptuous of the religion "thing" bringing it up at the end.
The Congressman repeatedly said that the Truth will come out and he had the chance to get his TRUTH out at the end--being true to God as he sees it, which is upon whose name he swore to uphold the Constitution. Todd my think it an empty symbol (or contemptuous as the French ridicule taking the oath of office on the Bible); but where the Congressman comes from it is serious business.
Todd's trying to take the high Moral ground is like some intellectuals of the Jewish persuasion trying to hold a Christian to the Jewish Shabbat instead of Calvin's Sabbath. That, too, is contemptuous.
Upon further reflection, I believe that the host and guest both wear their respective religions on their sleeves.
Thankfully, neither wears it as a physical armband — yet.
why are you so fixated on using insinuations of class/wealth differences as an insult?
You are the one who is so defensive about it. It must mean you have had an unsuccessful life which goes along with your angry obscene tirades. You certainly don't sound like anyone with education. McDonalds sounds about like your career aspiration.
Inga, you are not anyone I would ever want to have a serious conversation with but your hypocrisy proclaiming your religious devotion while you support Planned Parenthood and its industrial abortion operation is near the limits of what I have seen as crazy.
Michael K said: "Inga is losing it again."
She lost it a long time ago.
Actually she never had it.
The only thing dumber than Chuck Todd's hysterical, belligerent talk-speed and spastic bodily gymnastics is his ridiculous comb-over. They're all of a kind. He's a perfect mainstream-media Newz star.
Inga bleated: "Ditto for the nutty psychologist Francisco. "
All right! I have graduated from the "Running with Scissors Psychologist" to the "Nutty Psychologist."
Your growing esteem is really important to me.
You may be dense, but you are always good for a laugh, old gal.
You are the one who is so defensive about it.
I'm not defensive about it. I can insult people in many ways. But for you it's the only insult you seem to know. So obviously you're the one with the issue about it, which I can understand given your silver-spoon nursemaid upbringing - something about which you are and should rightly be defensive. An upbringing which BTW doesn't seem to have done you any favors. If you're as over-educated as you boast, then maybe you could be the one to act creatively for once in your goddamn life and figure out a new criticism, or a new epithet, or a new anything, really. But you can't and you don't and you still throw around all the same meaningless slights that you're addicted to like an addict who can't perceive the concept of life beyond crack.
Also, your sensitivity about "obscenity" is quite precious indeed. A man as well-educated and successful as you claim to be is hurt by a dirty word. Shiver me timbers what a catastrophe! Pardon monsieur!
See, that was ten times more creative, insightful, funny and probably correct than anything you can come up with but I can understand if your bottom needs some zinc oxide to soothe the sting it must have created, Mr. Sensitive. Yes, do try responding in a way that doesn't just scream out to everyone what a sensitive little boy you are.
Nasty dog in the neighbors' yard. Ignore it and stay away or it might bite my ankle.
“Inga, you are not anyone I would ever want to have a serious conversation with but your hypocrisy proclaiming your religious devotion while you support Planned Parenthood and its industrial abortion operation is near the limits of what I have seen as crazy.”
You, who has admitted to performing abortions, lecture me about supporting Planned Parenthood?
Think about that as well as the absurdity of lecturing me about religious intolerance.
You have a serious problem. I feel sorry for your children.
"'Meet the Press' is more important than showing up for church and Sunday school" because...?
In the 24-hour news channel/internet/social media age, I can't think of much of anything less important than being a guest on any given episode of Meet the Press!
That's it, baby Michael. Go run away and cry to nursemaid. I called you out and now you need baby rash salve. Waaah. Mean dog. Oh no!
Loser.
"I can insult people in many ways."
Sheep generally know how to bleat.
rcocean at 2:56 nails it.
If you are any kind of practicing Christian—even just an "Easter and Christmas" Christian—you can't help but notice that a casual acceptance of practicing Christianity that was common as recently as 20 years ago is not only dead as a doornail in the public sphere, but openly mocked in the media. The "New Atheists"—Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett—are, like Trump, not the disease, but merely the symptom. In a previous generation, their sneering condescending proselytizing would have been considered gauche by the more genteel previous generation of atheists—Antony Flew, Bertrand Russell. It still is by evenhanded agnostics—E.T. Jaynes, David Berlinski.
Christians are correct to observe that the culture has become more openly hostile. If anyone wants more concrete evidence, consider when anything calling itself a "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" first appeared on the legal scene. Now consider how that, by definition, rests on a very recent change in interpretation of the 1st amendment.
You, who has admitted to performing abortions, lecture me about supporting Planned Parenthood?
Think about that as well as the absurdity of lecturing me about religious intolerance.
You have a serious problem. I feel sorry for your children.
He's a narcissist. His kids exist to honor His Greatness and Majesty.
Yes, his hypocrisy is overwhelming - especially in its transparency. The fact that he can boast about His education and His intellect and His success and not have it dawn on His Highness that he insults others for supporting things that He Himself has had unusual license to perform is stunning.
But narcissists are not very self-aware that way.
Not with a bang but a whimper
I haven't seen either Conaway or Todd on television before. Didn't know what they looked like. Conaway seems to be some kind of Baptist or maybe SDA? It's a type. Todd was just weird. He seemed to have a list of Dem talking points he wanted to get through. What's with the hair & beard? Also Todd's interview style was odd. His manner of speaking was informal & meandering. He didn't seem to be serious about pursuing any questions, like he was just time filling. I wonder how he got his job. Lemme check Wikipedia . . . oh. He's a Democrat. Not surprising. I
He mentions Jesus Christ is his actual Pastor, which is an accurate point to make. Conway tries hard to be accurate in his answers, including the ones Tapper tries to put into his mouth.
I chalk it down to passive aggressor gets a slap down. Jesus laughs.
I enjoy the idea that TTR sincerely believes he insults people on the interwebs. If an insult falls in the web, does it make a sound? How many reasonably well adjusted adults read things on the internet and get upset?
Insult away, TTR. Nobody cares except to mock you.
(I think you likely believe people read what you write and do anything except laugh. I laugh at you because you think you are important in the tubes.)
You, who has admitted to performing abortions, lecture me about supporting Planned Parenthood?
Inga, when is Trump going to be impeached? At least talk about something you know about.
My experience with abortions (four I think ) is about a million time less significant than your friends.
I was not "lecturing you about religion" I was merely observing how a hypocrite presents herself.
Meh. Two people from two different tribes. Misunderstanding. Shocking.
I didn't think either were in any way angry or condescending.
The actual interview was far more entertaining. It is hilarious watching the democrats move the goal posts on "collusion." Chuck is clinging to his dream that somehow the Russians wanted Trump to win.
Only fucking idiots think the Russians preferred an America First nationalist to a corrupt grifter that had already sold north american uranium to Russia for $145 million dollars. The massive increase in US production of Natural Gas and Petroleum since Trump took over is the only thing Russia cares about.
You just have to be an absolute dumbfuck to think the Russians wanted Trump. But without stupid people there would be no democrats.
Comey and McCabe are both clearly up on perjury now and if they talked about it before hand conspiracy. Both were meeting with Mueller. All 3 are going to be hiring defense lawyers soon.
If you are any kind of practicing Christian—even just an "Easter and Christmas" Christian—you can't help but notice that a casual acceptance of practicing Christianity that was common as recently as 20 years ago is not only dead as a doornail in the public sphere, but openly mocked in the media.
Joy Behar's ridicule of Mike Pence's faith was proof.
“My experience with abortions (four I think ) is about a million time less significant than your friends.”
Oh my, how forgiving you are of yourself. Nor do you consider your own hypocrisy. Planned Parenthood is an organization, they are not my friends.
It must mean you have had an unsuccessful life which goes along with your angry obscene tirades. You certainly don't sound like anyone with education. McDonalds sounds about like your career aspiration.
As Hillary helpfully explained in India.
"Chuck Todd is an asshole." My first words after watching the video. Also comment #1 by DB@H.
Both those people talk too fast to follow, and fail to enunciate too many words. "in front of your committee" becomes "froyr cmity." First time I have seen Chuck Todd. He should get a job not requiring verbal communication.
The Congressman also talks too fast and smashes his words together, but did seem able to understand Todd's questions. He saw and avoided the traps Todd was trying to lay.
Todd was just an asshole. He asked the Congressman to explain the views of third parties and guarantee future events beyond his control. He continually misapplied the Congressman's statement about a specific case as applying to all cases.
Nothing much to say about the church issue, except to agree with Althouse that Todd deserved to get bitch-slapped at the end.
Lord, do we miss Wm F. Buckley leaning back and thoughtfully framing a question.
If Chuck Todd and his TV (Meet the Press or whatever--I can't be bothered to watch bloviating buffoons on Sunday morning) were to disappear---say retire to a monastery in Tibet--going en masse so not a single person involved with the show was still around would it matter?
As they say down in the Texas Panhandle, no more than a popcorn poot in a windstorm.
Inga said...
Oh my, how forgiving you are of yourself. Nor do you consider your own hypocrisy. Planned Parenthood is an organization, they are not my friends.
An organization of people that sell baby parts for money.
I am pro choice.
Planned parenthood is staffed by ghouls. It is inherently evil.
Religion for thee but not for me, they say.
Guilty. I am a deist, so I don't believe in religion.
However, I believe that civilization requires extrinsic motivators to enable large numbers of people to live close together peacefully. Religion is usually very good at this.
Eric Liddell, son of a missionary family, refused to run in a race in the Olympics because it was held on a Sunday.
Don't forget the great Sandy Koufax, who chose not to pitch Game 1 of the 1965 World Series because it fell on Yom Kippur (the Dodgers went on to win, thanks in no large part to Koufax's shutouts in two games).
That Chuck Todd fellow sure does have sleepy eyes.
Speaking as a pastor: it sounds like Mr Conaway is an active member of his church, so his pastor is probably just fine with him being called away for "work"; no need to ask for permission. Chuck Todd is speaking from ignorance, and Mr Conaway is light-heartedly correcting him as he would a young christian who doesn't know any better. I don't see malice or spite on either side.
Brian, I had a similar thought. Todd is speaking from the attitude of many on the Left, which has been on display since the 1980s, that a pastor is the determiner of a Christian's status the same way the social leaders on the Left can declare people to be apostates of their Faith. Conway just reminded Todd that Christians answer to a Higher Power.
"I don't need my pastor's forgiveness. I need Jesus Christ's forgiveness."
His belief that the son of a god knows and cares about what he's doing is incredibly egotistical.
Michael K pontificated...
I am agnostic and haven't been in a church since the last family funeral but I do get annoyed at what I perceive as contempt for religion.
That's because you're superstitious, so you give religious ideas special meaning. IOW, subconsciously afraid that Ole Debbil gonna getcha! Boo!
Michael K pontificated...
He flunked out in spite of my attempts to help him study.
Speaking of egotistical! Holy shit!
That guy must have been really stupid if the Mighty Michael K. couldn't come to his rescue!
This is the reason I don’t watch the Sunday press shows. They are shows – performances - just like a play. You have seen this play before and you know how it ends. To watch it again and expect a different ending is one of the definitions of insanity. Chuck Todd, and all the Chuck Todds are actors who say their parts. The people they “interrogate” are props.
But I do like the evergreen references to THE BULLY PULPIT and the accusation that Trump is demeaning the stature of the Presidency, as if there was an instruction manual about how Presidents must act. For iconoclasts, the Left is hilariously retrograde.
Reminds me of those stories after the last election about the media sending foreign correspondents into flyover country to try to better understand that strange land and its odd people.
Fernandistein said:
"I don't need my pastor's forgiveness. I need Jesus Christ's forgiveness."
His belief that the son of a god knows and cares about what he's doing is incredibly egotistical.
Look up "omniscience."
That guy must have been really stupid if the Mighty Michael K. couldn't come to his rescue!
The stalker keeps trying to sound intelligent. It's a loosing game, sweetie.
Seems like it is always a crisis when a Christian says something Christiany outside of his permitted context.
The guy had to say it: if he believes what Christianity teaches, it would have been an error to just let the comment hang uncorrected. Why does this need to be a big deal?
Ritmo lecturing the rest of us on contempt.
It is to laugh.
Orthodox Christians are not Orthodox Jews.
Indeed they’re not. But on the other hand (not Orthodox, not Catholics, but) Protestants in many states (including New York) of this-here United States of America less than 200 years ago used to treat (mandate that) the [Xtian] Sabbath (be treated) thusly — as perceptive, liberal French observer of the fledgling U.S., Alexis de Tocqueville observed way back in the 1830’s….
Alexis de Tocqueville on the subject of the then-existing “blue laws” in America — the details of which as Tocqueville observes are “well worth the reader's closest attention” (quoting…):
Although the strict puritanism that presided at the birth of the English colonies in America is already much relaxed, one does still find extraordinary traces of it in habits and in laws.
In 1792, that very year in which the antichristian French republic began its ephemeral existence, the Massachusetts legislature promulgated the following law to enforce Sunday observance. I quote the preamble and the main clauses of it, which are well worth the reader's closest attention.
“Whereas the observation of Sunday is in the public interest; inasmuch as it produces a useful suspension in labor, leads man to reflect upon the duties of life and the errors to which humanity is subject, permits the private and public worship of God the Creator and Ruler of the Universe, and dedication to the acts of charity which are the ornament and comfort of Christian societies;
“Whereas irreligious or light-minded persons, forgetting the duties which Sunday imposes and the advantages society derives from it, profane its sanctity by following their own pleasures or labors; inasmuch as this manner of acting is contrary to their own interests as Christians; that furthermore it is of such a nature as to upset those who do not follow their example, and being a real prejudice to the whole society by introducing there the taste for dissipation and dissolute habits;
{Continued on the next page… page 2}
{Continued from previous page… page 2}
“The Senate and the House of Representatives ordain that:
“1. No one will be permitted on Sunday to keep open his shop or workshop. No one on that day will occupy himself with any work or business whatsoever, attend any concert, dance, or entertainment, or indulge in any form of hunting, sport, or game, under penalty of fine. The fine will be not less than ten shillings and will not exceed twenty shillings for each infraction.
“2. No traveler, conductor, or driver, except in case of necessity, will travel on Sunday, under penalty of the same fine.
“3. Tavern keepers, retailers, innkeepers, will prevent any resident of their township from coming to their establishment on Sunday to spend time there for pleasure or business. In case of infraction, the innkeeper and his guest will pay the fine. Furthermore, the innkeeper can lose his license.
“4. Anyone who, being in good health and without sufficient reason, fails for three months to attend public worship, will be condemned to a fine of ten shillings.
“5. Anyone who, within a church, behaves improperly will pay a fine of from five to forty shillings.
“6. The tithingmen of the townships* are responsible for the execution of the present law. They have the right to visit all rooms of hotels or public places on Sunday. The innkeeper who refuses them entrance to his establishment will be condemned to a fine of forty shillings for this act alone.
“The tithingmen will stop travelers and inquire the reason why they are obliged to travel on Sunday. Whoever refuses to answer will be condemned to a fine which can be five pounds sterling.
“If the reason given by the traveler does not appear sufficient to the tithingman, he will prosecute the said traveler before the justice of the peace of the district.”
(Law of March 8, 1792, General Laws of Massachusetts, Vol. I, p. 410.) [{Translator’s note:} Tocqueville condensed the legal text; cf. op. cit., p. 407 ff.]
On March 11, 1797, a new law increased the rate of the fines, half of which was to go to the offender's prosecutor. (Same collection, Vol. I, p. 525.)
On February 16, 1816, a new law confirmed these same measures. (Same collection, Vol. II, p. 405.)
There are similar clauses in the laws of the state of New York, revised in 1827 and 1828. (See Revised Statutes, Part I, chapter XX, p. 675.) It is forbidden therein to hunt, fish, gamble, or frequent places where drink is sold on Sunday. No one may travel except in case of necessity.
––––
*Tithingmen of the townships: These are annually elected officers whose duties resemble those of both the garde champetre and the officier de police judiciaire in France.
(/unQuote)
(Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, first published 1835-1840; 13th Edition, 1850, edited by J.P. Mayer, translated by George Lawrence, Anchor Books, Doubleday, New York, 1975, pp. 712-713)
Post a Comment