Obama Makes Fun Of The Bible

I've been watching the counter for hours the replies keep going in but they've frozen the counter.

"Only a Muslim Would Do This" is the subhead for the video. Fuck, that's all kinds of pathetic...

Hahaha, that video is hysterical!

Obama started out as a populist reformer in order to win the nomination and has now moved to the center to win the election. It seems to be a planned strategy; whether it will work is a gamble he's taking.

Maybe he could win by being the inspiring shining knight his early followers perceived, but he obviously thinks he needs to appeal to a broader, more moderate range of voters. Maybe. Right now, to some, it just looks like the air is leaking from the balloon.

"Only a Muslim would do this":

No, plenty of christians and jews who have actually read the Bible find many parts of it impossible to accept literally, and inconsistent with modern concepts of justice, morality, and common sense.

The voters are in control. Vote.

Obama is correct. The bible is full of incredible cruelty, contradictions and generally indecipherable jibberish.

Most christians cherry pick passages from the bible that support or otherwise illustrate particular points while ignoring the ludicrous and often contradictory passages. The bible is a conglomeration - oft translated and oft altered -a mish-mash of baloney written (and altered)thousands of years ago by people with their own agendas and prejudices. To believe that the bible or any such text is "holy," supposedly written by god is in itself ludicrous. Also, to believe that those ancients were somehow inherently wiser or more prophetic than the rest of us is equally balderdash.

Certainly, there have been those who, throughout human history have made wise observations regarding the human condition. Afterall, our behaviour, our motives and so on have not changed all that much over time. But those chroniclers were no more wise, nor in some other way gifted, or "touched" by god than others who have come since.

B

Real,

If not Biden, who then? Bayh or Caine? Either would have been an "okay" choice, but certainly not anything special or electrifying.

Clinton? Picking Hillary would have been a disaster for Obama. One could picture her, with the aide of hubby, Bill, attempting to bully Obama and his staff, essentially attempting an in-house coup.

I would have been perfectly happy with Richardson, but his being Hispanic may have been too heavy a hit on a campaign already burdened with racial issues.

No one else seemed to be particularly interested in the job, and no one else had the credentials that Biden brings to the table.

Realist, your rhetoric belies your moniker. You look upon the government as being rife with corruption and totally under the thumb of corporate America. I don't doubt that a good deal of corruption and undue influence abound in government at all levels. When did it not? I just don't see Obama's opting for Biden as the straw that broke... yada, yada, yada. Perhaps you were expecting for far too much from Obama. He's just a cog in the machine like everybody else. That Obama might provide some kind of "deliverence" from the evils of government is, at best, a vain hope.

B

You can consider that the government is under the thumb of corporate America, but I consider it more truthful to say that they are only extensions of each other. Big corporations and big government are one and the same. Each half of that beast points the finger at the other and the citizenry is thus divided and conquered.

Dems only see one half of the problem, big business, republicans the other (big government). Each side places foolish blind faith in their half and allows the unholy alliance to continue and thrive.

Doug has an interesting point...

Doug,

I hadn't really thought of it that way before, but you probably have an excellent point. Perhaps it might be among the reasons why antitrust enforcement has been so very anemic in recent years. I don't see vigorous antitrust enforcement as a panacea, but think it could help all of us very substantially. Unfortunately, it seems low if it even rises to that giddy height that on the agendas of both parties.

Dan

Realist,


How is this hindsight?


Doug,

I think they (politicians) all know this. It's we voters (pawns) to don't understand the game afoot.

I don't know if all this rises to the insidious level that Doug suggests. However, I have long thought that the problems arise, not from two separate camps, but rather, from a symbiosis of the two. One feeds and feeds off of the other. Perhaps eventually they'll devour each other.

More likely, it is all of us who will become fodder for them.

B

Re: #

There goes the entire idea of White supremacy. I'd be mad at InThe(flush)Know if I wanted to maintain my superior position. Wow. For some reason I don't think we can blame excessive partying in college on this one. It just is what it is. Boy

And the video.... You can tell that the person who "produced" it is proud of their analysis. They think they are deep and made a slam dunk against Obama(chuckles). What is sad though is that many will think that what he said is meaningful.

Question: If someone killed their child because they believed god told them to, would we be understanding? Especially if no ram showed up, tangled in the bushes to save the day. Just wondering.

Republicans.

"I don't know if all this rises to the insidious level that Doug suggests."

Perhaps my language was a bit colorful but I wouldn't attribute it as necessarily evil or insidious, just the survival of a system. It's not in the best interest of the government or the business world to expose their misuse of power and beyond that who is going to tell you? Bloggers.....roflmao!

Dan, Doug, et al

Personally I think the relationship has to be in place. It is this relationship which defines our type of governance. Whether we are communistic, socialistic or capitalistic, this relationship must exist.

Republicans like big government, they just don't like big government which tells them "no". Dems like big business, as long as they adhere to their policies. That is the real tussle. It's only in the rhetoric that one picks up that there is an us against them. ACTUALLY that artificial divide was manipulated most effectively, AGAIN, by the Reps. In the 80's it became part of the deal to tag the Dems with wanting government in your home and in every crevice, while painting themselves as anti government, pro business and therefore pro efficiency. What was funny to me was that everyone had a job and knew full well that business is not run all that efficiently.

Re: #1

There goes the entire idea of White supremacy. I'd be mad at InThe(flush)Know if I wanted to maintain my superior position. Wow. For some reason I don't think we can blame excessive partying in college on this one. It just is what it is. Boy

And the video.... You can tell that the person who "produced" it is proud of their analysis. They think they are deep and made a slam dunk against Obama(chuckles). What is sad though is that many will think that what he said is meaningful.

Question: If someone killed their child because they believed god told them to, would we be understanding? Especially if no ram showed up, tangled in the bushes to save the day. Just wondering.

Republicans.

Zedd,

Welcome back. I've missed you!

Some people think that abortion is the most important issue, others think that global warming is the most important, and others find some other issue of supreme importance -- race, sex and age, for example -- and vote on a one issue basis. To me, that seems juvenile.

Although I think that vigorous antitrust enforcement is very important, I recognize that there are other issues of equal or greater importance.

I have never voted for a Democrat, or against a Republican; nevertheless, I consider myself to be in neither camp.

There is obviously a symbiotic relationship between business and Government, and to some extent it is necessary. In my ideal world, however, both Government and business would be smaller, would have far less power than they now do, and the voters would have the intelligence and the information upon which to base decisions without regard to the demonization of either by the other. Ditto race, sex and the other stuff. Sadly, I don't see any realistic chance of this happening while I am around to enjoy it.

Dan

Opps,

I did vote for Perot once, and I guess that was a protest vote.

Dan

Dan,

I must say that your statement regarding your (nearly)100% Republican voting record and your protestation that you are NOT aligned with either camp brought to mind a statement once made by Jack Nicholson regarding his use of marijuana.

He was asked if he was addicted to it. In answer he said, "No. I've smoked it everyday for fifteen years, and there's no way I'm addicted."

Hmmm.

B

Baritone,

You may well be correct. I do lean toward Senator McCain. However, I have yet to decide for or against whom I shall vote this time. I may surprise myself.

Dan

Am I the only one that sees many eerie similarities between the Obama campaign and Nazi Germany's rise to power?

I've already surprised myself and it feels damn good Dan.

I'm voting for Chuck Baldwin and even though I knw he hasn't a shot I'm happier about my vote than I have ever been before.

Obama = Nazi Germany? Oh, yeah, I see it. Look out all you Juden. Better find a good glass company. Obama and the brown faces are gonna smash your windows one night soon.

B

Am I the only one that sees many eerie similarities between the Obama campaign and Nazi Germany's rise to power?

funny, i thought the same thing when reagan was elected. sig heil!

Now he's a leftist baby-killing Bible-mocking Nazi.

And I thought he was supposed to be inexperienced!

He was asked if he was addicted to it. In answer he said, "No. I've smoked it everyday for fifteen years, and there's no way I'm addicted."

Sounds funny, but he was right, B-tone. From a medical standpoint pot is not addictive. Mere repetitious use of something is not a sign of addiction; inability to control such usage is.

Ask any physician who practices addiction medicine.

Clav,

I really wasn't making anything more out of it than the apparent irony of the statement. Actually, as far as I know, there is no evidence that MJ has any addictive qualities unlike tobacco. I suppose that one could acquire a psychological need for it as for about anything.

Anyhow, it was just good to tell a story about Jaaaaaaack.

B

Sorry, B-tone. I agree with your #27.

Folks,

Anything has the potential of being addictive.


Arch,

that was priceless. I laughed out loud. Either you are making a good yet insulting parody of a right winger or you are as mad as a hatter. FUNNY. The comments that followed were priceless


Dan,

It's too early for wit. I kept reading your comment over and over again. I thought it was me smarty pants.

I'm just relieved that you are not the same as Dan. I thought I'd lost you.

May I ask

1. why you vote Republican
2. why are you not a Libertarian if you like small everything?
3. how would small gov work (in a huge, HIGHLY diverse country)?
4. how does small gov and small business work? What does it look like?

Every Democratic presidential candidate moves to the left to get the nomination, then moves to the middle to get the presidency. Every Republican presidential candidate does the equivalent, moving rightward then toward the center.

With Bill Clinton it was a little different, as he really believed in the perpetual campaign. McCain is going to follow a different path because he hasn't secured the right wing of his party yet. But otherwise, everyone does it. Hillary can and did upset members of her party's left wing by moving rightward, and she'd be doing the same right now if she were in Obama's shoes.

Doug - There's one thing you forgot in your analysis, the role of big labor. It was a major player back when government was becoming big in the US. Big labor has become more institutional and unresponsive than big government or big business has. Originally the three held each other in check, but they've all become too comfortable.

RE: As much as I hate to say this, hindsight suggests that the better man for the job was a female.

This is getting SO old. Because Clinton is not the nominee, it is easy to transform her into the perfect hypothetical candidate. The only problem is that this fantasy only perpetuates the main problem of her entire candidacy, that is was built on the equally false hypothetical that simply because she was the wife of a successful governor and president, she had magically absorbed his knowledge and experience.

America has already declined into a near second rate power with the election of Bush, the incompetent son of a competent president. There is simply no reason to adopt the practice of lesser countries in making the spouse of a leader the heir presumptive.


RE: I still don't like Hillary or her platform, but at least she wouldn't have surrendered her values (such as they are) in trade for success and status so readily.

Hillary Clinton surrendered her values when she married Bill Clinton. And her vote on Iraq was a clear ploy to beef up her warmonger credentials. And of course, her behavior during the primary, where she was willing to pander to voters on the issue of a gas tax holiday, clearly indicates that Clinton will happily toss away any principled position if it will help her politically.

To be clear, Clinton has been, and will continue to be, a good senator. But to view her as the superior presidential candidate is not only a waste of time (there is not going to be any magical vote switching), but is contradicted by all available facts.

Zedd,

re your Comment #29 -- I am not ignoring you. I was drafting a response to your questions when our electricity started to fluctuate and then went off for about four hours. I will try to get back to you soon, if not today then tomorrow.

Dan(Miller)

Here is a shot at your questions (your Comment #29).

1. why you vote Republican

Looking back to the time when I first voted, I think it was probably 1964, I liked Goldwater and did not like Johnson. Goldwater seemed, to me, to be honest and to have some good ideas. Johnson seemed to have used his political offices in the past mainly to gain power and money for himself. In the final analysis, it probably had more to do with my perceptions of character than anything else. In 1968, I didn't see much to like about Huphrey; Nixon, warts and all, seemed to be the better choice. In retrospect, I was wrong. In 1972, ditto. Toward the end of Nixon's term, I made my first and only donation to the ACLU based on my strong dislike of Nixon. In 1976, I voted for Ford because I considered Carter to be a very weak person, unfit to become the President. In 1980 and again in 1984, I voted for Reagan. At first, I dismissed him as a washed-up movie actor. Eventually, I changed my mind and decided that I really liked him and thought that he might be instrumental in getting the U.S. on the track which I thought best. In 1988, I voted against DuKakis, and in 1992 and 1996 I voted against Clinton because I could not stand him (he seems even worse now, if that is possible). It was either in 1992 or 1996 that I voted for Perot, because I couldn't bring myself to vote for either major party candidate. In 2000 and 2004, I voted against Gore and Kerry because I thought they were stereotypical phonies; my perception has not changed.

In the final analysis, I guess it all came down to my personal likes and dislikes, based on my gut feelings and perceptions of character. During our years sailing around the Caribbean (1996 - 2001), I didn't pay much attention to politics because I was very much out of touch with what was happening in the U.S., having only very infrequent access to sources of information; I was was more concerned about the local weather, very important on a sailboat out in the open ocean and even at anchor or in a marina. We settled back on land in 2002, and finally got internet access on a regular basis. That has made a big difference and I now have lots of access to news.

2. why are you not a Libertarian if you like small everything?

In many respects, I probably am a Libertarian. Unfortunately, the party seems to attract more than its share of fruitcakes; even were it otherwise, I don't see any realistic chance of a Libertarian getting elected.

3. how would small gov work (in a huge, HIGHLY diverse country)?

That's a very good question, and since it hasn't been tried during my adult life, it is impossible to answer with any degree of confidence. However, "small" is a relative term, and I do think the economy would function better with less Governmental interference except in the area of antitrust enforcement. In college, I majored in economics and tried to focus on microeconomics. This led me to conclude that antitrust enforcement is a good thing, much needed not only to make business run better but also to minimize other behavioral, as distinguished from structural, regulation. In law school, I tried to focus on antitrust law, and during the four months following graduation (1966) and before going on active duty in the Army JAG corps, I worked in the Justice Department's Antitrust Division and was impressed with what was going on. When I got out of the army four years later, I went back to the Antitrust Division and soon decided (a) that little was going on and (b) that there was no future in becoming an antitrust attorney. This notion was confirmed soon thereafter by some of my friends who were antitrust attorneys and were trying to get into other specialties. I am concerned that little has happened since then to make me sanguine that we are on the right track.

4. how does small gov and small business work? What does it look like?

I think I answered this as best I can in #3, above. With less concentration of power in big business, and less in the way of intimate Governmental intervention in how businesses function on a daily basis, there would be more competition. There would, I think, also be a less symbiotic/parasitic relationship between business and Government. I may be wrong, but think it would be worth a shot. Unfortunately, I don't see any real likelihood of that happening.

Dan(Miller)

It would serve Obama right if Hillary and her hard core Medusas do pull off a nomination upset in Denver this coming week.

From your lips to God's ears!

That being said, Obama's failure to nominate Hillary VP, proves one thing - the gender divide is alive and well in the Democrat Party. Come on, folks. Think about it. It's being said behind the scenes -- "at least Obama's a man." As a black friend of mine pointed out to me yesterday, "what black man is going to take orders from a white woman?" There's a debate worth having. It was at that point I realized if anything fringes on the outskirts of political incorrectness it doesn't get picked up by the press or discussed in the national discourse. All those men and women who have died over the last 200+ years in the name of this experiment in democracy. All that blood shed -- and for what? For this?

With my wife in the hospital most of this election season, I have had a unique opportunity to discover that most of her nurses, who are more than 95% black females, voted in the primary for Hillary, which surprised me, as I thought, before I began my little unscientific poll, that more would have voted for Obama.

This somewhat bears out Silas' observation above, that "the gender divide is alive and well in the Democrat Party," and the women (of all races) know it.