Sunday, August 17, 2008
The Cut Of His Jib
This AmericanThinker article puts Obama's character front and center very well. Kyle-Ann has had Barry's number for quite a while now. I find it particularly appalling that this entrail of a man would, as his first action as president, support more killing of innocent human beings. What a slug! And he dares call himself a Christian. Shame on those who support this jerk.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
55 comments:
While I can understand someone being opposed to Obama's stand on abortion, that is not a reason to oppose him or support McCain. Abortion is simply not an important issue in this campaign, regardless of whether you want it to be.
We have a nation in the throes of an economic crisis, a nation that has lost its moral compass and is now a torture state on a level with the worst of the worst, and mired in 2 illegal and unnecessary wars. We have an administration that asserts unbridled and unprecedented executive power and has used it to perpetrate politically motivated crimes one after another.
Our very existence as a free people and as a democracy is at stake here. Legislating morality is not. Most Americans agree more with Obama on abortion than with McCain, assuming they can figure out where McCain stands on anything. Certainly one can wish it were different, but it is not and this election is too important to waste on tilting at religious windmills.
"Abortion is simply not an important issue in this campaign, regardless of whether you want it to be."
Way to dismiss a topic you're likely to lose.
"now a torture state on a level with the worst of the worst"
Hyperbole much?
"Most Americans agree more with Obama on abortion than with McCain,"
That's quite incorrect. The polls I have seen over the last 2 or three years put Americans consistently ambiguous on abortion - pretty much like McCain. They do not, however, support partial birth abortion, or killing a newborn baby that selfishly survived an abortion attempt.
I think the wanton disregard for a fellow human being's life is indeed a basis upon which to oppose the agenda of a Barry Obama. You actually see no problem with someone who feels a living, breathing baby should be left to die? This is the character of a president to you?
You speak of an economic crisis, which is also hyperbole, and can't see a connection between whether or not 50 million unborn tax payers put to death might have some impact on our economy? And Barry hopes to allow even more die with fewer restrictions. That's more people NOT contributing to Social Security. More people NOT paying taxes.
You speak of an economic crisis and you don't see a problem with someone willing to let Bush's tax cuts expire, someone who wishes to levee a proven failure of windfall profits taxes upon corporations, someone who, as far as I know, is unconcerned with the impact of having the highest corporate tax rate amongst industrial nations? Just chopping the tax rate for corporations will strengthen the dollar as fewer companies will bolt for tax breaks. More companies, more jobs, more revenue flowing through OUR system as opposed to a foreign system.
And puh-lease! Enough with the legislating morality crap. Immorality is being rammed down our throats all the time with Roe v Wade and homosexual marriage, as well as hate speech laws protecting the homosexual sensibilities. Non-enforcement of decency and pornography laws also contribute to immorality taking a hold, a protected hold, on our laws and society. Our moral compass has been ignored for some time now.
Well, I see this is a subject on which reality and logic are inoperative.
I prefer to believe that having a President who believes in the Constitution, who is not a belligerent war-mongering hypocrite, and who actually can hold a position for more than a couple of hours is more important than what he might believe about abortion. I don't see how abortion is a federal issue anyway, even if you consider it to be murder.
"Well, I see this is a subject on which reality and logic are inoperative."
I know, but I'm trying to be patient with you. I figure you'll get it eventually.
We currently have a president who believes in the Constitution. What we don't have is a consensus agreement on what the Constitution says. That's why we need more justices in the mold of Alito and Roberts, and fewer like Ginsburg. Our current president knows this. McCain seems to. Barry shows continually he isn't smart enough to know it.
I don't know where "belligerent war-mongering hypocrite," comes from. What is belligerent about standing up to terrorism and it's supporters? What is "war-mongering" about defending ourselves? In what way has he been hypocritical?
"...who actually can hold a position for more than a couple of hours"
You've got me on this one. No one holds as many positions at one time as Barry Obama. Not as much a flip-flopper as one who will pretend he's got both sides covered so as not to scare away any one group. I heard a good one on Medved's show today. I think the guy's name was Frank Luntz. He said Obama, should he win in November, will likely give his Inaugural and it's rebuttal at the same time.
"I don't see how abortion is a federal issue anyway, even if you consider it to be murder."
There's this little snippet regarding "right to life" in our founding documents.
We currently have a president who believes in the Constitution.
ha ha hahahahaha!
HO! Ha! Ha ha ha haa haa ha! hahahahhahahahahahhahahahah!!
Phew! Hoo, ha! ho oh, man.
Ha ha ha, no really. Stop it. Yer killing me.
"Shame on those who support this jerk."
Yeah, right back at ya.
Good response, Dan. One of your best. When you can show how Bush shows disrespect for the Constitution rather than have an interpretation that differs from yours, then you'll be getting somewhere. This psuedo-knowing guffaw doesn't impress.
Keep in mind, Dan, that I could easily use your own tactic and demand proof that Bush doesn't believe in the Constitution. What the hell, why not? SHOW ME WHERE HE SAID THAT HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!!
Les, you lurker,
What are you talking about? I don't support this jerk.
When you can show how Bush shows disrespect for the Constitution rather than have an interpretation that differs from yours, then you'll be getting somewhere.
BWAHAHAHAHA!! HO HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA! WHOO!!
Ho, ha hahaha ha, haha... please, please, this is the funniest irony ever... can't breathe... ha hahahaha...
...quit...
"or killing a newborn baby that selfishly survived an abortion attempt." - Marshall
"You actually see no problem with someone who feels a living, breathing baby should be left to die?" - Marshall
This is a phony and utterly false assertion. It is one of many, many Corsi falsehoods. Obama never, ever supported such a thing, never would, and never will. This is an outrageous lie and I would say, "Shame on those who" would perpetuate this hideous lie.
Regarding public support for abortion rights, I quote FoxNews.com:
The poll found that 59 percent say Bush should choose a nominee who would uphold the 1973 Roe v. Wade (search) decision that legalized abortion. About three in 10, 31 percent, said they want a nominee who would overturn the decision, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs.
I can cite more.
One thing I can say for Dan's latest replies is that it doesn't contain the convoluted logic of his usual responses. I don't know what it is he finds so funny since my statement was a challenge. I guess he's not up to it, so laughing is a pretense to avoid supporting his position.
Jim,
I've said nothing false whatsoever regarding Obama's position on abortion or the BAIP Act. Check out Eric's blog (Pearls and Loadstones found on my blog list of "Right Ones") where he has posted a video supporting my statements. If not satisfactory for you, check out Jill Stanek, the nurse who argued against Obama's abomination of a position. Without quoting him verbatim, I related exactly his position whether you want to believe it or not. It's not the type of issue where one can get a wrong impression when he comes right out as says such crap. Nor does it melt into the memory banks. He opposed every version of the BAIP Act, even when it met the standards that he claims were not met in the original versions. You, sir, do not know about what you speak regarding this issue, and I don't know or care who Corsi is.
Art, Corsi is a swift boat veteran who wrote a book about John Kerry during the last election and now has come out with a book about "the real Obama".
I haven't read it, but Hannity and Rush et al are pushing it to their listeners.
There must be something to it because the Liberals are attacking it without even reading or researching it to find out how factual it is. He has touched the proverbial nerve and the Liberals are attacking him vehemently.
Sorry, Art. Corsi is apparently not a Swift Boat Veteran. He was, however, a co-author of the book about the Swift Boat veterans for truth and John Kerry.
Here is more:
From Amazon.com:
DR. JEROME CORSI received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972 and has written many books and articles, including the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry. His latest best-seller was The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada. He is a senior staff reporter for WorldNetDaily.com and the author of two books on contemporary Iran: Atomic Iran and Showdown with Nuclear Iran. In his 2005 book Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil, which he co-authored with Craig. R. Smith, Dr. Corsi predicted oil prices at over $100 a barrel.
By the way, Amazon.com also has this to say about Dr. Corsi's latest effort:
THE OBAMA NATION Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality
Barack Obama stepped onto the national political stage when the then-Illinois State senator addressed the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Soon after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, author Jerome Corsi began researching Obama's personal and political background.
Scrupulously sourced with more than 600 footnotes, THE OBAMA NATION is the result of that research. By tracing Obama's career and influences from his early years in Hawaii and Indonesia, the beginnings of his political career in Chicago, his voting record in the Illinois legislature, his religious training and his adoption of Christianity through to his recent involvement in Kenyan politics, his political advisors and fundraising associates and his meteoric campaign for president, Jerome Corsi shows that an Obama presidency would, in his words, be “a repeat of the failed extremist politics that have characterized and plagued Democratic Party politics since the late 1960s.”
Thanks, Mark. I have seen the guy on H&C, and I believe I caught an equally small snippet of him interviewed on the radio.
Corsi???
snicker.. snk, snk....
BWAAAHHHAAHAHAHAHAHA!! STOP IT!
WOOOAH ho ho ho! HA HA HA!!
guffaw, guffaw, hahahahahaha...
I mean it, yer killing me...
Jerome Corsi, from wikipedia:
Jerome Robert Corsi (born August 31, 1946) is a controversial conservative author and PhD in the field of political science. He has two New York Times #1 bestselling books The Obama Nation and Unfit for Command (with co-author John O'Neill).
Both books, the latter written in 2004 and the former in 2008, are critical of Democratic presidential candidates and have received much criticism, including allegations of serious factual errors. He writes columns for conservative websites such as WorldNetDaily [BIG Red Flag!] and Human Events in which he promotes conspiracies about the secret formation of a North American Government — claims which he also alleges in two books...
Corsi has spent much of his career in the financial services industry, focusing largely on distribution and marketing...
In August 2006 he published Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America's Borders with Minutemen founder Jim Gilchrist). This book criticizes President George W. Bush's border protection policies, accusing him of furthering plans to create a North American Union...
Corsi reported in WorldNetDaily [snicker] that a "Muslim terrorist group with ties to criminal drug networks and al-Qaida" has given "strong support" to John McCain.
[Oh, really? Will you be reporting on that, too, Marshall and Mark? -dan]
Corsi is not a Republican and has complained that "the Republican Party is controlled by what used to be called the 'Rockefeller Wing'."
[If only it were so - dan]
In addition, Corsi has called for the impeachment of Geoge W. Bush.
[so, he's not all bad... -dan]
On August 15th, 2008, Corsi endorsed Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin, who has campaigned to reopen the investigation into the September 11, 2001 attacks in support of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
[The 9/11 Truth Movement is a group that... "Frequently expressed propositions among movement supporters are that the mainstream account of the events of 9/11 is false and that the perceived anomalies in the official account can better be explained by the theory that a "rogue network," including individuals in the US government, planned, carried out, and covered up the attack or deliberately allowed the attacks to take place." -dan]
======
snicker... okay, I'm killing myself, now.
This guy is a wack job. Do you want to now show us what the Unabomber thinks about Obama? How about Manson?
This entire thread is silly. Abortion just isn't on the radar screen this election year, as DL has made quite clear. Furthermore, the attempt to make it so will fail.
Second, Mark, Corsi is not a "swiftboat" veteran, but a racist, lying hack who somehow got a tissue of lies published in 2004, and tried again this year, only to run up against this thing called facts. He is devoutly to be ignored.
As for Bush respecting the Constitution . . .
I echo Dan's laughter, and raise him a "I have to go pee now". Anyone who thinks Bush even knows what the Constitution says hasn't been paying attention for the past eight years.
I'm returning to the real world now.
OK. Two things.
First, Dan, your little bio of Corsi from Wikipedia, that bastion of absolute truth stuck right smack dab in the middle of the political spectrum, does nothing to make me care more or less about Corsi than I already did.
Secondly, for you and Geoff, accusations of Corsi's trouble with facts is meaningless without examples or links to dispute them. Please, don't do it here, for as I said, I don't care.
Thirdly, if I concede that Corsi, about whome I care little, is the hack you've painted him to be, that doesn't guarantee that he has filled his book with lies, innuendo or distortions. Here's a tip: get a library card, check out his book and read it. Then you can tell us where he lied or got something wrong. Again, don't do it here. I don't care.
Fourthlyish, the reason I don't care about Corsi is because I don't need anymore reason to know that Barely Yomama is unqualified, unworthy and onion to be president.
Fifthty, wet yourself all you want, but Bush's interpretation of the Constitution has not resulted in any unanimous verdicts from the Supremes. And if either of you think YOU know better than Bush and his lawyers, then you'll just end up wetting yourselves again.
Oh yeah, Geoffrey. Don't kid yourself. Abortion is indeed on the table but convertly in the guise of SCOTUS appointments. Your guys definitely want Bucky Obamarama to win in order to get more idiots that will look to Europe for interpretations of our Constitution. They'll seek someone who can "see" that which was never intended in order to thwart the will of the people, that being the only way lefty social positions become law. (Yeah, Bush don't know nothin about the Constitution. Yeah. Sure.)
Here's just one example of Corsi's problem with facts. He couldn't even get the year right when Barack and Michelle Obama married and bought their first property. He pegged it as 1995.
Wrong answer.
Even something as simple as that - you call a county clerk's office and ask a question - and the guy flubbed it.
I don't even know why I'm trying here, because in fact, you want to believe the kind of bullshit Corsi is selling in his book. You don't care about facts, or reality, or anything. All you want is to have your narrow opinions validated, no matter now inconsequential or even questionable the source.
The facts are simple - George Bush has been a terrible, awful, embarrassing, criminal President, whom the American people only wish to go away and not darken our doorway again. John McCain promises four more years of the same, only with the added bonus that he has zero judgment on matters of national security and zero understanding on matters of economics and social policy.
As for abortion being on or off the radar screen - as soon as I see actual evidence for it, I'll accept it. Until then, meh. You go on and read Corsi's already discredited piece of aardvark tripe and enjoy all the little false facts and dangling participles in it. He's a racist hack, a lying racist hack who has zero credibility. He was torn to pieces on both Larry King Live and C-SPAN by a rep. from Media Matters for America that used actual facts to discredit him. Corsi's response? Liberals can't take a joke.
Yeah, we can. In fact, we know Corsi's a joke. Except, of course, he's the conservative kind. Not funny.
Geoff, old friend, I was wrong when I said Corsi was a Swift Boat veteran. I have never read his book, nor do I intend to. I was merely explaining who Corsi was to Art because he said he didn't know who he was. I answered Art without first learning anymore about Corsi than what I had heard on a couple radio programs while driving.
Be that as it may, in my very next comment I corrected myself. I acknowledged I had mistakenly identified him as Swift Boat veteran, but as usual, you read my comment selectively for the express purpose of attempting to make me appear stupid, which as everyone knows, is your opinion of me.
I was, initially, ignorant of Corsi, because, like Art, I don't need to read his books to know how unqualified and clueless Obamarama ding dong is.
Let the undecided voters read it and other works by Liberal authors and let them make their own decisions.
If that happened, I am confident they would vote against Obama, but you Libs don't want them to, so you defame and dismiss Corsi's book. Nothing scares Liberals more than the fact that undecided voters might actually do research before they cote.
Oops, I mean "vote", not "cote" Typos, Geoffrey, do not indicate a lack of intelligence. Merely a lack of manual dexterity.
"Obamarama ding dong"
Did you come up with that by yourself? Or did Marshall help?
One of the biggest disapointments of politics is just how completly boring conservatives are.
Let the undecided voters read it and other works by Liberal authors and let them make their own decisions.
Mark, does it not concern you that books are being written with wrong data, misleading information, apparently in an attempt to damage Obama's chances?
I mean, if someone had written a book with FALSE charges against McCain and it was being presented as valid info to help "undecided" folk decide, I'd want to hear the Left and Dems protest loudly, pointing out the mistakes. I don't want to see my preferred guy win based on deceptions and lies. That would be a corruption of the system as it exists.
We Christians need to stand up long and strong against falsehoods of this sort, whether they're for "our side" or not. There IS such a thing as right and wrong, you know.
Did you see the reference that Geoffrey cited? Where Corsi was called on the carpet for the false information and he just grinned a shiteatin' grin and shrugged saying, "can't the Dems take a joke?"
No. Slander is not a joke. Not for decent people, and especially not for Christians.
You shall not go about as a slanderer among your people, and you are not to act against the life of your neighbor; I am the LORD... [Leviticus]
He who conceals hatred has lying lips,And he who spreads slander is a fool... [proverbs]
For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. These are the things which defile the man... [Jesus]
Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice... [Paul]
...being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them... [Paul]
Come now, Mark, Marshall, you all don't want to be among those who are violating God's very direct command - showing yourself worthy of death! - do you?
Disagree with Obama's policies if you must, but let's distinguish between disagreeing with policies and actually spreading rumors and lies and supporting those who do.
Obamarama ding dong? Oh, good Lord, you are smart! And clever, too!
If you have not read Corsi, nor intend to do so, my suggestion, put as politely as possible, is to STFU about him and his book. He was dope slapped around national TV twice, and his best response was, and I really am quoting here, "Where's their sense of humor?"
If he truly believes his book is a joke, then perhaps he is in the wrong forum. The sad recourse to, "I was just funnin'" is the last, desperate recourse of those who have no response to the detailed description of just how full of shit they are.
And, as Dan points out in exquisite detail, there are one or two Bible versus about slandering others, and associating with those who do. If you are too lazy, or uninterested, or ideologically biased, to discover what a lying, racist whacko Jerome Corsi is, then perhaps you might take a moment and listen to people who do know, and are attempting to inform you.
In other words, if you're so damn smart, prove it for once. If you're so damn Christian, show at the very least a willingness to listen to others before consigning them to the deepest circle of hell. And if you are thick-skinned, stop whining about how I pick on you for not being as smart or educated as I am, because I have yet to actually call you out on that. You're the one who brought that up, months back, and I decided to light-heartedly tease you about it. Apparently, though, that chip on your shoulder is just too much to bear.
The entire business at the racist American Thinker (and, yes, Marshall, it is a racist on-line rag, like Stormfront for the type that doesn't want to hang with skinheads) is a load of lies. Period. Anyone who accepts this carton of crap without doing some actual investigation and research is beneath contempt.
"Racist" AmericanThinker? Come now. Who's full of it now?
Once again, boys, I don't give a flyin' rat's behind about Corsi. Is there something about this statement you find difficult to understand?
But let me ask you this: Did you, Geoffrey, research the rebuttal to Corsi when he supposedly had his ass handed to him, or did you just go, "Yeah, asshole, take that!"? Did you verify that that Corsi was wrong about the marriage date or that the other dude was right?
Truly, you don't need to answer, and I'd prefer you don't because
I DON'T FREAKIN' CARE ABOUT CORSI!!!!
But how DO you check facts, Geoffrey? Do you go to your favorite sources? Have you vetted them at ANY point? You'd like to believe the worst about AmericanThinker, but you failed an earlier challenge to dispute any Obama article (as you'll be sure to forget, you didn't address the point of the article, but things the author used to get to his point---thus, you failed the challenge---sorry if I forgot to thank you for playing---my bad), and I haven't seen you successfully rebut any others to which I've linked. I admit, however, that you did critique their writing styles. I'm still reeling from that zinger.
As for shutting the fuck up about Corsi, neither I nor Mark brought the dude up. Also, no one has to shut the fuck up here unless I tell him to, but you're free to tell people that at your blog.
Once again, regarding abortion, one would have to be in total denial to think that SCOTUS appointments revolve around the litmus test of support for abortion and not overturning Roe. The only reason Ginsberg and the other one haven't yet retired is because they don't want Bush nominating any other judges that would actually interpret the Constitution as written and risk the overturning of state-sanctioned baby killing.
The facts are simple - George Bush has been a terrible, awful, embarrassing, criminal President... You forgot "liar", a charge you have been woefully unable to substantiate. Must be why you didn't list it here. I can't wait to see how you support the charge of "criminal". That should be rich.
No. Slander is not a joke. Not for decent people, and especially not for Christians.
Unless the target is George W. Bush.
One of the biggest disapointments of politics is just how completly boring conservatives are.
This coming from one of the biggest disappointments, period.
Ooh, was that last one too hateful?
Yes, I think according to the Word of God, that was rather hateful, and slanderous, and at least a little insolent and arrogant.
But then, we all go there sometimes. The thing is, we need to be prepared to repent of such behavior. Not rejoice in it.
You see, Marshall, name-calling - as childish and ridiculous as it is - IS hateful. And some name-calling is more hateful than other.
It's one thing, for instance, to tease me or Geoffrey, calling us Loony Lefties with a smile in your voice. Good natured ribbing is appreciated, oftentimes (although it can be difficult to manage with strangers on the web sometimes).
But, "What a slug," "He dares to call himself a Christian," "Jerk," "Entrail of a man," these are not good-natured ribs of someone messing with someone with whom they disagree. These seethe with hatred.
Or at least they have that sound.
And when people promote books such as Corsi (and I understand you are not promoting, but neither are you rejecting that sort of loathesome behavior) or the sort of half truths and outright lies found at some websites and "news" sources - stories written with the purpose NOT of conveying facts but of twisting them to slander someone, this comes across as hateful and slanderous.
There is a bitterness to the dialog, even between Christians such as you and I and Geoffrey, that is, I think, harmful and, well, sinful. "worthy of death," according to Paul! Pretty strong warnings from God's Word. I think it behooves you and I and Mark and Geoffrey and all of us to take those words seriously as we write and be careful how we represent ourselves and be ever-ready to offer apologies if and when we cross lines.
The difference between us, Marshall, is I rely on facts. I may not like the fact that Obama is a pretty centrist politician, and always has been, but I won't deny it. I may not like the fact that, overall, Ronald Reagan was a pretty effective (although hardly outstandingly popular) President, but I won't deny it. I won't even deny the reality that, in another era (the late 1970's), the infamous Laffer Curve of economics fame actually described something in reality, even though studies since have shown it to be far more ephemeral, a weird quirk of the times rather than an ineluctable law of economic life.
See, you seem to think that my sources are biased because they disagree with what you believe. My sources are based, however, not on opinion, but on fact.
If you don't care about Corsi, why did you bring him up?
It is true that I do not pay much attention to right-wing on-line sources and resources. I do, however, pay some attention, and every time they reveal themselves as fact-starved, over-heated ideological cesspools. I have, on more than one occasion, wished to wash after visiting Town Hall and Michelle Malkin's site, because the anti-Islamic, racist rhetoric, and barely-contained violence of so much that exists there sickens me no end. These aren't conservatives, but violent reactionaries whose access to a computer is the only thing keeping them off the streets where they could be the source of no end of trouble.
Very well said, Dan. Were I a better man, I'd second those comments.
But I'm not. Until people like Mark stop looking at me like they would a murderer, they can pound sand.
(Sigh) So much on which to respond. Let's start here:
"I don't even know why I'm trying here, because in fact, you want to believe the kind of bullshit Corsi is selling in his book. You don't care about facts, or reality, or anything. All you want is to have your narrow opinions validated, no matter now inconsequential or even questionable the source."
Ok, Geoff. Let me make this so simple that even an egghead like you can understand. I said nothing about whether I believe the guy or not. As I said, I didn't read his book. I merely copied and pasted info about him and his book directly from Amazon.com, to explain to Art who Corsi is. That's all.
Next:
"Mark, does it not concern you that books are being written with wrong data, misleading information, apparently in an attempt to damage Obama's chances?"
No. As I said, whether he lied is not the issue. I merely copied and pasted info from Amazon.com. I didn't editorialize.
Next response:
"I don't want to see my preferred guy win based on deceptions and lies."
I thought your preferred guy was Obama. Now you are confusing me.
"Did you see the reference that Geoffrey cited?"
No, I didn't. He didn't link it.
" Obamarama ding dong? Oh, good Lord, you are smart! And clever, too!"
Thank you for finally acknowleding the obvious. And, for the record, Ben, yes, I did think of that all by myself with no help from anyone else.
"If you have not read Corsi, nor intend to do so, my suggestion, put as politely as possible, is to STFU about him and his book."
AGAIN, I SAID NOTHING ABOUT HIM OR HIS BOOK. I AM STILL JUST AS CLUELESS ABOUT BOTH AS I WAS WHEN I COPIED AND PASTED THE INFO FROM AMAZON.COM. Now, if you have a problem with what Amazon has to say, perhaps you should go there and complain.
"The sad recourse to, "I was just funnin'" is the last, desperate recourse of those who have no response to the detailed description of just how full of s**t they are." )Sorry I can't quote you exactly. I don't use that kind of language)
Uh, kind of like the time you explained you were only joking when you suggested I wasn't smart enough to understand your use of terminology. right?
"If you are too lazy, or uninterested, or ideologically biased, to discover what a lying, racist whacko Jerome Corsi is, then perhaps you might take a moment and listen to people who do know, and are attempting to inform you."
I am too lazy and uninterested, and I have read your opinionated comments concerning him, so thank you for informing me. But I am a bit confused--just exactly who are you referring to when you say "people who know"? Yourself? Dan? The absolutely Liberally biased rep from Media Matters? That sets up an entirely new set of questions, like: What makes you so sure they or you know? Who made you or they the ultimate arbitor of truth? Who made anyone besides God Himself the ultimate arbitor of truth?
"And if you are thick-skinned, stop whining about how I pick on you for not being as smart or educated as I am, because I have yet to actually call you out on that. You're the one who brought that up, months back, and I decided to light-heartedly tease you about it. Apparently, though, that chip on your shoulder is just too much to bear."
You are right, Geoffrey. I admit to being sensitive about being called stupid. I bet you are, too, but too intellectually dishonest to admit it. Oh, and there's that "I was just joking" excuse again. Remember what you yourself said about that? Let me remind you: "The sad recourse to, "I was just funnin'" is the last, desperate recourse of those who have no response to the detailed description of just how full of s**t they are."
Yes, I guess that chip on my shoulder is a little burdensome. I suppose I am human, after all.
How about you? How are you bearing up under the weight?
"If you don't care about Corsi, why did you bring him up?"
Art didn't, nor did I. Ben brought Corsi up.
Les??? "Until people like Mark stop looking at me like they would a murderer, they can pound sand".
Huh? I don't look at you at all. To my knowledge, I've never even seen you, and wouldn't know you if I did. Why are you so sensitive?
Methinks you protest too much. Have you murdered someone? Perhaps you should be talking to the police instead of me.
My apologies to Ben. I said, "Art didn't, nor did I. Ben brought Corsi up."
Ben didn't bring Corsi up. Jim did. It's hard for me to keep track of all the lunatic lefties that infest Art's blog.
Mark said:
No. As I said, whether he lied is not the issue. I merely copied and pasted info from Amazon.com.
He who conceals hatred has lying lips,And he who spreads slander is a fool...
they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil
So, do you really think passing on gossip and slander and bearing of false witness for others to read is okay, as long as you are not the one doing the slander and lying?
"So, I hear from Jerome Corsi that Mark molests puppies and then blew them up at the World Trade Center. Now, I'M not saying it's true, I'm just letting you know what I am hearing."
That is okay with you? Spreading rumors and lies is okay, but not starting them, is that your point? Do you really want to stick with that and feel you're righteous on that point?
"So, do you really think passing on gossip and slander and bearing of false witness for others to read is okay, as long as you are not the one doing the slander and lying?"
And this from the guy that supports Obama? Has Obama EVER told the truth? In his life? When? Where? How do you know? His words have been taken both in and out of context so often one can't possibly know. I doubt Obama even knows what he really thinks. He is a robot who only says and does what his campaign managers tell him.
As I said, whether he lied is not the issue. I don't know that he lied in the first place. You are the ones making that assertion. I neither confirmed or denied. I merely copied and pasted info from Amazon.com.
That's it, Art. I quit. I will not continue to try to reason with fools.
And this from the guy that supports Obama? Has Obama EVER told the truth? In his life? When? Where? How do you know?
Mark, do you understand the meaning of the word slander? Gossip?
You are spreading malicious words about a brother in Christ and you are doing so without supporting your accusations/implications.
These actions of yours are, according to Paul, "deserving of death," to give you an idea of how seriously this sort of behavior is considered in God's Word. And yet you continue to do so.
Do you understand what you're doing? That, by asking "Has Obama EVER told the truth?" you are implying that he always lies and in doing so, you are slandering Obama? That you are giving "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report"?
Do you have no concern for your own integrity? Your own soul?
Mark won't respond, of course. I hear from good sources that he is so opposed to abortion that he had half his brain sucked out by a Nazi mad scientist so that he wouldn't have to think about right and wrong anymore.
Now, instead of reasoning, he merely gets his marching orders from the frozen head of Hitler (Mark's mother keeps it in her freezer - she was a Nazi), who tells him to vote for Bush and to foam at the mouth anytime someone uses the word, "Obama."
Or at least that's what SOME people say. I'm not slandering him because I didn't say it, I'm just passing it on without making a judgement of it.
"So, do you really think passing on gossip and slander and bearing of false witness for others to read is okay..."
What are you saying, Dan? That we should seek out liars and expose them just to assure you that we don't support them? It's getting redundant to say so, but apparently still necessary: Neither Mark nor myself brought up Corsi. We neither support nor condemn remarks about which we know nothing. We have no desire to read his book, nor do we feel any more compulsion to do so simply because YOU think we should in order to agree with your beliefs about him. Regarding Corsi, WE DON'T CARE!!
This attitude in no way justifies your use of Scripture to attack us. Those tracts do NOT apply to us regarding Corsi OR Obama. We do not need Corsi's book to know about Obama's shameful position on abortion. It is well known and all by itself disqualifies him for consideration for president in the minds of many, and rightfully so.
In addition, your use of Scripture reeks of hypocrisy considering your faux laughter at the mention of Bush's respect for the Constitution. That's your opinion (a very poor and unsubstantiated one at that), whereas Obama's position on the value of the lives of infants is a matter of public record. Thus, you can drop your pretense of taking the high road.
"But, "What a slug," "He dares to call himself a Christian," "Jerk," "Entrail of a man," these are not good-natured ribs of someone messing with someone with whom they disagree. These seethe with hatred."
He'll let babies die. When he repents of this position, then the shoe will no longer fit. I hate his position on the issue. It's appropriate, justifiable and worthy of such emotion. If I applied such words to a man who sought to slaughter millions of Jews, effeminate homosexuals, and people of faith on his way to conquering the world for Aryan purity, would you feel the same way?
"The difference between us, Marshall, is I rely on facts."
So you say, Geoffrey, and so I'm sure you believe. Yet I must again refer to your list of "Bush lies" that belies the comment. Now, I don't read your blog regularly, but as far as the political, I've never seen anything that suggests you go farther than your favorite sources, which aren't likely to support the opposition's position on whatever issue being discussed. This is just an observation based on incomlete data, but there it is.
Now Vinny, who visits occasionally, insists that he delves deeply into various sources in order to divine the truth. I don't know if he does or not, so I can't call him on it anymore than what I'm now doing with you: it's your sources against mine, and no one's shown me why I should rely soley on the sources they use rather than mine. Nor, has anyone shown where my sources, such as AmericanThinker, is unworthy of my confidence. (One way to do this would be to present actual facts, not just say AT has none. The idea that there exists no writer there that does research is laughable and unbecoming a serious debater. Bias does not denote falsehood.)
Facts.
"Obama is a pretty centrist politician..."
This is not even close to a fact. It can't even see fact. It doesn't even know fact exists. It is not a fact in even the loosest sense of the word. In fact, this one statement makes a lie of your exerpted statement at the top of this comment.
"you seem to think that my sources are biased because they disagree with what you believe."
Not so. They're biased because they flow from a particular belief, but as I said, bias does not denote falsehood. More to the point is that YOU are biased toward your sources because they agree with YOU. I guess the same could be said about me, but at the same time, my sources haven't been proven false, only rebutted(?). I wouldn't rely on "facts" from your sources anymore than you would rely on "facts" from mine.
Take the Laffer Curve. I don't think it's been proven false because what I read suggests variables that aren't taken into account. The curve has to be looked at apart from outside influences to determine it's validity. It's easy to see that when one has less money taken from him in taxes, one has more money with which to invest, hire, or whatever. But, it's taken by some as fact that the theory is without merit.
The point is, your sources are opinions based on facts as they see them, just as mine are, and neither is worth a damn without checking them out. Each of us believes our sources do that, and to the best of our abilities, each of us does it on our own.
Now, your last paragraph is especially troublesome. You couldn't, on your best day, prove the allegations you've made regarding either Townhall or Malkin. If you didn't mention names I wouldn't know about whom you were speaking because your comments are so far from reality it is staggering in its distance. And again, you've never successfully proven your point regarding AT. I continue to look forward to any such attempt.
Les,
I'm truly bothered by your attitude regarding Mark because it has to fit me as well. We both see human beings where others don't. Some had the same problem seeing the humanity in black people as the pro-abortion movement does with the microscopic. We see extreme lameness in justifications for either. No difference whatsoever.
YOU, however, have expressed the sentiment that you would not be in favor of your girlfriend getting an abortion, thus it seems to me that you don't personally endorse the practice, at least in general terms. Thus, you aren't truly justified in taking offense at the notion that you would be akin to an accomplice to murder unless you defend others' ability to end the life of the unborn. In that case, you are an accomplice from our perspective, just as would be someone who supports the ability of another to own a slave, even if that someone doesn't personally intend to get one.
If the unborn, at each stage of development is indeed equal to every person existing outside the womb, which they are, any who supports laws allowing abortion will be seen as accomplices in their deaths. It would not be consistent otherwise. In fact, it'd make us worse than the abortion supporters as far as honesty goes.
I understand. No one likes being called a murderer. Even murderers bristle at the thought. But if we truly believe those unborn are people, which we do because they are, how could we then feel any differently toward any who believe abortions should be allowed? They ARE enabling the killing of innocent and defenseless people.
But here's a way out: support the pro-life position. Don't pretend that there's no connection between intercourse and any pregnancy that might result.
"...where others don't."
That's the whole point. "Murder" is a very specific word that involves intent and carries malicious connotations. If a person's intent is to have what they truly believe is nothing more than a medical procedure, and such a belief cannot definitively be disproven scientifically (save it - we've already gone over the biology), then you simply cannot accuse that person of MURDER. I'm honestly shocked you can't grasp this distinction.
"...you would not be in favor of your girlfriend getting an abortion..."
That's because I want kids.
"...your attitude regarding Mark because it has to fit me as well."
In all the hundreds of times you and I have attacked each other over the years, Art, you've never openly threatened divine punishment to back your claims like Saint Mark has, to the best of my recollection. I have absolutely ZERO tolerance for such sanctimony.
So, as the Holy Spirit says:
"Today, if you hear his voice,
8do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion,
during the time of testing in the desert,
where your fathers tested and tried me and for forty years saw what I did.
That is why I was angry with that generation, and I said, 'Their hearts are always going astray, and they have not known my ways.'
So I declared on oath in my anger,
'They shall never enter my rest.'"
See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness.
As has just been said:
"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion."
Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the desert? And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed?
So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief...
Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them...
It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience. Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before:
"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts..."
Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
~from the book of Hebrews
Let he who has ears, hear.
If I applied such words to a man who sought to slaughter millions of Jews, effeminate homosexuals, and people of faith on his way to conquering the world for Aryan purity, would you feel the same way?
It would still be wrong to demonize such a man, to twist his words, to make up lies and spread slander. Yes, it would be wrong.
By all means, stand up to wrong. But if you engage in wrong to stand up to wrong, you are just as condemned.
"I hate his position on the issue." No, you hate the position that others have falsely accused of him.
Jim and Dan,
I have reported his position accurately. Now, you can go to Eternity Matters, Neil's blog, and view two more vids that will further support the facts, using, as I have, Barry's own words. His position is clear on both abortion in general and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. You defend the spin. I'm reporting the facts.
Dan,
Doubtless you enjoy posting Scripture. I've no problem with it. A little word to explain relevance would be helpful, though I'm sure you've once again misapplied those verses to me.
Glad to further illuminate.
The scriptures often use the imagery of "hardening of heart" to describe those who have heard a word of instruction and refused to heed it. God keep striving to reach out but, many scriptures suggest, eventually our own hardheaded-ness renders us less and less likely to hear.
Pharoah was someone the Bible talks about hardening his heart - even though Moses made the case that Pharoah should let the Israeli slaves go free, Pharoah refused to listen, indeed, even clamping down more harshly.
In the new testament, the same idea is repeated, as you see in Hebrews. I've pointed out that you and Mark are spreading rumors. You're passing along scurrilous commentary about another even though it's been discredited, rumor-mongering, and while it's true that you have not endorsed Corsi, neither have you rebuked his false testimony.
That IS passing along rumors and false testimony. As are several of you and yours other comments here.
Mark, for instance, said this: "Has Obama EVER told the truth?" Implying that he always lies. It is an unfounded, unsupported comment and as such, it is slander.
But you all not only ignore that, you seem to rejoice in slander and childish name-calling.
I'm calling upon you to look at what you've written, prayerfully consider it. Don't harden your heart.
And, yes, I do enjoy the teachings of the Bible. They are good words to consider. Even if it's being cited by those you disagree with.
Again, the tract does not apply to me. Mark's question was rhetorical and you willfully do to him of what you accuse him by pretending he was stating fact.
Regarding his stance on abortion, I not only speak the truth, I presented sources with his own words, spoken out of his own mouth that are, like I said, public record.
Regarding Corsi's book, I would need to read the book to know that he spreads lies and falsehoods. Without doing so, I cannot literally judge this book by either it's cover or your supposed knowledge of it (have you read it yourself, or are you relying on the word of others---you harden your heart against Corsi on the word of others---have even they read it, or do they just rely on reps from Media Matters? Get yourself a mirror). I have no such intention of reading it. I'm not concerned with the words of everyone with an opinion, and my lack of interest in Corsi cannot be justifiably taken as support, tacit or otherwise. Thus, you lie.
Regarding name calling, the actual words used might be as you say. That negative terms can be justifiably applied to Obama is not. Just as one can reasonably call Hitler a bad man for his obvious crimes against humanity, so can we call Obama a bad man for his shameful stance on abortion and what he is willing to allow to happen to those unfortunates who survive an abortion. Keep in mind, throughout all this little controversy, Barely has never suggested any alternative that would protect the child of this situation. He merely voted against any measure put forth to protect them. Thus, he's more conccerned with protecting the mythical right of selfish men and women to kill their kids, than protecting the kids themselves. No term of endearment is appropriate for such an individual.
Least of all, "Mr. President".
How does one explain Marshall's behavior? Well, SOME might say...
"that Marshall is SO opposed to abortion that he had half his brain sucked out by a Nazi mad scientist so that he wouldn't have to think about right and wrong anymore.
Now, instead of reasoning, Marshall merely gets his marching orders from the frozen head of Hitler (Marshall's mother keeps it in her freezer - she was a Nazi prostitute), who tells him to vote for Bush and to foam at the mouth anytime someone uses the word, "Obama."
=====
Again, I'm not slandering Marshall because I didn't say it, I'm just passing on what SOME might say without making a judgement of it.
And by your reasoning, passing on this sort of material is okay? It's not slander?
Is that what you think?
"Who were they who heard and rebelled?"
Tell me you aren't comparing Obama favorably with God. Are you saying we should believe in Obama or risk his judgement? Because that's surely what it looks like.
"Mark, for instance, said this: "Has Obama EVER told the truth?" Implying that he always lies. It is an unfounded, unsupported comment and as such, it is slander."
It's not an implication. It's a question, idiot. Why can't you answer it?
OK. That's it. I won't attempt to reason with fools any longer.
Don't be ridiculous, Mark. EVERYONE has told the truth sometimes. By saying what you said, it was not an honest question, "Hmmm, I wonder: Has Obama ever told the truth???" By saying like that, the implication is that he never tells the truth.
Were you sincerely wondering? That's a strange way to ask it, but if you were sincerely wondering then, yes, in all his life, Obama has at some point told the truth. You have told the truth at some point in your life.
And still I wonder, Mark, if I pass on the rumor that your wife's first 50 lovers (male and female) were all liars when they said she was beautiful, does it make it okay that I pass on the rumor, as long as I don't endorse it?
Tell me you aren't comparing Obama favorably with God. Are you saying we should believe in Obama or risk his judgement? Because that's surely what it looks like.
???
How in the heck did you get that out of that passage? Obama is not even mentioned in that passage (he's never mentioned anywhere in the Bible, or so I'm told).
I am SINCERELY interested in how you think I was implying that, because that is an astoundingly distant way off of ANYTHING I was suggesting.
As I noted, the passage was quoted as a warning to not ignore fellow Christians when they warn you about slandering and passing on rumors. Because if you continue to ignore real warnings, your heart might be hardened to God's still small voice.
Are you all not familiar with these passages?
Cut the crap Dan. No one's passing on rumors here. As I said, Mark's question was rhetorical and your insisting on pursuing that road does you no good service.
And I take great exception to your "examples" regarding Mark and myself. You delight in saying vile things about us under the pretense of illustrating your pointless point. Again, continuing to expect us to refute a book we've never read is stupidity and hoping to condemn us because we don't even more so. Perhaps you could find something even less relevant on which to make your bones.
Post a Comment