June 24, 2009

"Pitney asked his arranged question. Reporters looked at one another in amazement at the stagecraft they were witnessing."

"White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel grinned at the surprised TV correspondents in the first row. The use of planted questioners is a no-no at presidential news conferences, because it sends a message to the world -- Iran included -- that the American press isn't as free as advertised. But yesterday wasn't so much a news conference as it was a taping of a new daytime drama, 'The Obama Show.'"

AND: "Remember the outrage over Jeff Gannon?"

235 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 235 of 235
Jeremy said...

Chase said..."Liberals using the Bible - that;s the definition of irony."

Chase, if you actually knew anything about Jesus (or anything for that matter)...you'd know that damn near everything he ever taught or said would constitute "liberalism."

Jeremy said...

Chase said..."Jeremy claims to be a Bible expert..."

I never said anything of the kind.

Why would someone discussing God and Jesus, just arbitrarily lie like that?

Unknown said...

Have you ever read the whole Bible, Jeremy?

Or do you just do the typical liberal dance: select stuff you like and then ignore the rest?

Don't bother. We all know the answer already.

Jim said...

chase -

NP..I should have realized it was a typo...

Jeremy said...

Brent said..."Have you ever read the whole Bible, Jeremy?"

First of all, what in the world does that have to do with anything I've said? I asked a straight forward question of Jim, Chase and Shanna...which God are they referring to.

Second, why would you care?

Third, fuck off.

Synova said...

"If the synovian policy of opening up press conferences to members of the general public had been in place, no one would have criticized "Gannon" for his lack of experience and lack of credentials."

I had thought that what Bush did was attempt to open up the press conference a bit... to move toward a "synovian" policy of admitting some odd-balls from small publications. People were so horrified by Gannon that they investigated and dug up everything about his past to destroy him.

Am I forgiving? I don't know if I am so much, but I do have a real aversion for going out of my way to get the dirt on someone, to find out their secrets and open their closets. The man wasn't applying for access to classified military and national security secrets... he was asking public questions. At what point is *anything* about his personal life or his past relevant? It's just not.

The offense came first... that some no-body got a chair and got to ask a question that wasn't rabidly hostile. Whoop-de-doo.

The destruction came after. And it was inexcusable. It was every bit as indecent as any information about Gannon that was revealed. The fact that Gannon wasn't clean as pure driven snow is almost irrelevant. Had he been, would everyone have said, well, okay then, he gets to ask questions?

Of course not.

Jim said...

What Jesus taught was equality, charity and love for all.

But he also taught a strict moral code, and that is distinctly different than the "anything goes" attitude of the amoral modern liberal.

Jesus' teachings weren't political. They were personal. His teachings are a challenge to each one of us to try to live up to the ideals set forth each and every day in our personal lives.

I'm sure I would remember if Scripture had instructed that individuals abdicate their obligation of loving their neighbor and performing personal acts of charity to some amorphous government body.

He didn't. It can't be found in Scriptures because it's not there. If my neighbor is having difficulties, it is up to me to be there. Not a government agency. Not some bureaucrat cutting a check a thousand miles away. Me.

That is what Jesus taught. Trying to find justification for big government spending in His teachings is twisting Scripture in a way it was never intended. It's an abdication of personal responsibility to claim that the government is there to do what you are unwilling to do yourself.

When we have had friends in difficulty, my wife and I have taken them in, given them money, or whatever help we could provide. We didn't just say "hey we pay our taxes, so we've done our part. Here's the number to the nearest government office where you can get some money." Because that's what our faith and our consciences require.

To claim that Jesus was about "liberalism" is to fundamentally misunderstand both Jesus and modern "liberalism."

Jim said...

Synova -

"The destruction came after. And it was inexcusable."

So was the abuse of government power that ensued in their persecution of "Joe the Plumber" for having the temerity to speak his mind before the Left's Messiah.

Jeremy said...

Jim said..."What Jesus taught was equality, charity and love for all. But he also taught a strict moral code, and that is distinctly different than the "anything goes" attitude of the amoral modern liberal."

Like "family values?"

Can we all assume you're not real big on this bit of advice from you-know-who?

"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone..."

You are a hypocritical fool.

Beth said...

"libtard"?

Chase, you're an idiot. Just lettin' you know, because I bet your friends are too bored to bother.

Jeremy said...

Why can't anybody here say which God they're talking about?

You're obviously ALL experts on the Bible and religion, yet you just can't bring yourself to say who you're talking about.

Do you think that may be because you're all full of shit and think spouting silly comments about the Bible and God make you more credible?

Beth said...

I've come to this discussion late, and don't have the patience to wade through it, but someone clue me in: is there actually an argument going on whether liberals can be Christian, or cite the Bible as a reference? I don't get it. Help, please.

Jeremy said...

Jim said..."So was the abuse of government power that ensued in their persecution of "Joe the Plumber"...

The "persecution" of Joe the Plumber??

You call the press asking this idiot specific questions relating to his lies and distortions...a form of "persecution??"

He lied about being a plumber, and he lied about buying a business.

Isn't lying a sin...?

Beth said...

Jim, I laughed at Joe the Plumber because he's a nimrod, not because he challenged Obama. JtP got his 15 minutes and then some, despite being dishonest and spouting drivel.

My favorite part of his whole little ride on the fame wagon were the Pajamas Media ads for their CPAC 2.0 conference, with Joe looking off into the distance, mouth slightly open in wonder. I'm still wondering what they thought they had in him.

But please, keep bringing on the Joes! I love the circus.

You ought not to mistake criticism of this particular guy with an attack on working people, blue-collar men, or any other group. He doesn't represent anything all that noble - he's just another reality TV character.

Jeremy said...

Beth - "...is there actually an argument going on whether liberals can be Christian, or cite the Bible as a reference? I don't get it. Help, please."

According to Jim Chase and Shanna...liberals apparently can't be Christians or quote anything from the Bible...because they lack a "strict moral code."

*And none of them can say which God they're talking about.

Jeremy said...

Joe the plumber...isn't a plumber.

Jim said...

Beth -

"Jim, I laughed at Joe the Plumber because he's a nimrod, not because he challenged Obama."

But that's precisely the point. You shouldn't know anything about the guy. He wasn't seeking out celebrity. Obama walked up to him. But because he said something the Left didn't like, they went into full-on attack mode digging into every aspect of the guy's life - even going so far as to abuse the government power to do so.

Name one other person who said something the Left did like who was subjected to such scrutiny. Just one. Any one. Any one at all.

Should I be holding my breath or have you given up?

Jim said...

Beth -

The argument isn't whether liberals can be Christians at all. In fact, in an earlier post I said that Jesus would probably be considered to be social progressive (with the disclaimer that there's a difference between a true social progressive and statist authoritarianism).

The argument is whether certain of the Leftists here on this board who suddenly decided to cite Scripture to score some political points have any clue what they're talking about.

It was the Leftists who turned this into a theological discussion and now have turned angry that they were shown not to have a clue what they talked about.

Jeremy said...

Jim - "He wasn't seeking out celebrity."

Another flat out lie.

If this idiot wasn't "seeking out celebrity" his exchange with Obama would have been it.

But he did seek it out, he lied to Obama about being a plumber, he lied about buying a business.

And then the Republicans used him as some kind of example of a "working" man, when in fact he doesn't do anything.

Synova said...

Yes, JtP is another very clear example of "destroy the person" and it's a sad thing. Who goes digging into people's back-grounds like that just because they said something you don't like? It's ad hominum except it's not an *argument* it's actual destruction.

Jeremy said...

Jim said..."The argument is whether certain of the Leftists here on this board who suddenly decided to cite Scripture to score some political points have any clue what they're talking about."

And who are YOU to say? Are you representing yourself as some kind of religious expert?

You don't know any of these people, you just tear into them because you think that if they're liberal, they can't know anything about religion or the Bible.

That's not only ridiculous it's a disgusting use of religion to further your own political views.

You're a fool.

Jeremy said...

Synova - "Who goes digging into people's back-grounds like that just because they said something you don't like?"

It had nothing to do with not "liking" the man.

He lied about being a licensed plumber and he lied about buying a business.

Beth said...

Jim and Synova, whoever went into the guy's state records should have been fired.

But as for the rest? He embraced the attention, and set himself up to pontificate on lots of things he knew absolutely nothing about. He loved the attention, and some folks seemed to want to make him a blue-collar messiah - he just wasn't suitable for it. He's put himself out there on the public stage, so I'm going to respond when he says stuff about not wanting gays near his children, for instance. He's a maroooon (cite: Bunny, Bugs.)

Beth said...

Since we've been debating the meaning of the scriptures for millenia, I'm not sure how much ground anyone has to stand on in claiming someone from another political standpoint lacks a clue about theology. That's certainly a very broad brush stroke to make.

Synova said...

"It had nothing to do with not "liking" the man.

He lied about being a licensed plumber and he lied about buying a business.
"

And you know that, why?

I don't recall that he stepped up to Obama and said, "Mr. Obama, I am a licensed plumber in the process to purchase my very own business..." BUT IF HE HAD... why would you or anyone else have him INVESTIGATED to see if he had told the truth or not?

It's all excuses for you... you (and those like you, and some state employees trusted with the private information of citizens) are using it as an excuse for inexcusable behavior, behavior that came BEFORE the knowledge that justifies it in your mind.

When his privacy was violated and his life investigated and state employees were pulling his files... all he was, ALL he was, was some guy who asked Obama a question.

I'd explain the concept of asking a question as a hypothetical according to where you'd *like* to be in your life without first issuing a lengthy and detailed life history... but it really would be pointless to do so. So we'll just say... pretending that you're right and he's a liar... nothing is changed and nothing is different and nothing done to him is excused in any way.

Synova said...

"Jim and Synova, whoever went into the guy's state records should have been fired."

I'd heard something about fines.

"But as for the rest? He embraced the attention, and set himself up to pontificate on lots of things he knew absolutely nothing about."

True enough, but I have at least some sympathy for the concept of making lemons into lemonade.

And I think it's not trivial that the digging and investigating, as with Gannon, preceded any information that may have prompted it other than his apparent political views.


I was ignoring the religious argument. I do notice that Jeremy selectively quoted Chase at the top of this page, leaving out the qualifier. I did also notice that a couple of people took the time to say they considered Jesus apolitical.

Jim said...

Beth -

I wasn't speaking about all Leftists lacking any knowledge of theology: just the particular ones who were trying to claim that the passage cited meant what they thought it meant.

It's the same mistake Obama made in Cairo by citing the Koran exhortation to jihad because he thought those particular verses meant something that they didn't.

There are factions of my own faith that draw some different conclusions based on what they read in Scriptures, and they would be considered Marxists in their political leanings.

I don't question their theology because they understand what the verses mean. They just draw different conclusions from it. These particular individuals here though didn't even clear the initial bar of understanding what it meant.

Jim said...

Beth -

As far what happened post-attack, I don't necessarily disagree with you regarding his public statements.

However, it's important to remember the chronology. The attacks came first before he had done anything other than talk to Obama.

The reality is that no one should have checked on whether or not he was a licensed plumber or whether he was going to purchase a business. Even as a hypothetical, it was a valid question. But Obama fumbled the answer, so the Left immediately jumped into action attacking the person who asked the question to divert attention from how poorly Obama answered it.

At that moment, Joe wasn't any different than anyone else who ever asked a candidate a question. Do we know that they didn't have any skeletons in their closets? Do we know that their questions were sincere? Do we care? Apparently only if not Leftists.

If the Left hadn't made him a celebrity, no one would ever have heard from this guy again. Not one person would have cared any more about what the guy had to say. Any more than we care what any other anonymous questioner has to say.

Synova said...

"If the Left hadn't made him a celebrity, no one would ever have heard from this guy again. Not one person would have cared any more about what the guy had to say. Any more than we care what any other anonymous questioner has to say."

Not personally, no. But he might have been used as a symbol, the representation of small business owners for at least that *week* as when McCain mentioned him during a debate. Beyond that week, no.

Jim said...

Synova -

"But he might have been used as a symbol, the representation of small business owners for at least that *week* as when McCain mentioned him during a debate."

Which makes my point exactly. Remember the moment during the debate where Obama had to look at his wrist to see what the soldier's name was that was written on the bracelet there?

What was that soldier's name? What was the name of the soldier's name that was written on McCain's bracelet?

I'd be willing to bet that not one person here could name them without Googling it first.

Yet the very next day we all knew about Joe's tax lien - which means they had to have already "dug up the dirt" on Joe before McCain ever mentioned his name. It was dirty and despicable, and it was done to intimidate other people from asking tough questions of Obama for the rest of the campaign.

That's not politics: it's extortion.

Methadras said...

What did the sycophantic press corp expect? Actual questions that had value, substance, and where in total contradiction to what the head of state was spewing? To call them collaborators would be an insult to people who are actually trying to practice journalism. The whole think is Kabuki.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Joe the plumber...isn't a plumber.

Why not? He does plumbing work. How is that not being a plumber?

RueMom said...

I'm sorry I can't remember where I read this or who the author is, but the best comment I've read recently about Obama's relationship with the MSM is that the MSM is doing for Obama what Monica Lewinsky did for Clinton!

Arturius said...

Chase, if you actually knew anything about Jesus (or anything for that matter)...you'd know that damn near everything he ever taught or said would constitute "liberalism."


Yet he is shunned and his followers scorned and ridiculed by most liberals. Some might call that ironic.

Shanna said...

According to Jim Chase and Shanna...liberals apparently can't be Christians or quote anything from the Bible...because they lack a "strict moral code."


I'm way, way to late to answer this, but this is basically BS. Don't include me on your list. My comment was only that Jesus was apolitical, so try to read the thread before you go nuts.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 235 of 235   Newer› Newest»