Patterico's Pontifications

9/2/2008

How Low Can They Go?

Filed under: 2008 Election,Media Bias — DRJ @ 6:06 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

First they said Palin is an inexperienced woman and I thought: Identity politics is a part of the landscape. Deal with it.

Then they said Palin is a lousy mother to abandon a Down Syndrome baby and a pregnant teen and I thought: GOP children are fair game these days. Look at the way the media lampooned the Bush twins.

But the Miami Herald has published an email from Obama campaign spokesman Mark Bubriski that is too much even for me. Palin the Nazi sympathizer:

“Palin was a supporter of [MSNBC analyst] Pat Buchanan, a right-winger or as many Jews call him: a Nazi sympathizer,” Obama spokesman Mark Bubriski wrote in an email.

The campaign also alerted reporters to the fact that Palin supporters, when she ran for mayor of the little Alaska city of Wasilla, was hailed by a supporter as “the first Christian mayor,” something that irked predecessor John Stein because he, too, is Christian.

Now comes this piece in Talking Points Memo connecting the Palin-Buchanan dots. It says Obama’s pick of Joe Biden to be his vp “pretty much eliminated Obama’s ‘Jewish problem.’” Does that mean Obama had a problem in the first place?”

That’s disgusting and there’s no excuse for a campaign spokesman tarring Palin as someone who supports or is a Nazi-sympathizer.

NOTE: A McCain-Palin spokesman said Palin, as Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, attended a Buchanan for President rally in her town and wore one of his buttons as a courtesy. At that time, she immediately sent a letter to the town newspaper stating she did not endorse Buchanan.

– DRJ

71 Responses to “How Low Can They Go?”

  1. Well, she is inexperienced. I still can’t believe that McCain thought she was 1. Suited to be president if he dies and 2. More so than any other candidate.

    Joe (c0e4f8)

  2. Ya know, Joe, DRJ’s question isn’t meant to be a challenge.

    Icy Truth (80b4e7)

  3. This has been debunked quite throughly on volokh.com, with many citations obtained through Lexis. What bothers me is the equation of a right-winger with “Nazi sympathizer”. I suppose once you’re a right winger, anything else is only frosting on the cake.

    great unknown (b751d2)

  4. Nazi sympathizer? And here we thought that “secret Muslim” or “terrorist lover” were over the top.

    Hmm. A couple of things.

    1. Joe, I think a side by side comparison of executive experience between Senator Obama and Governor Palin does not assist the MSM’s bizarre viewpoint regarding Senator’s “readiness” to be President. That is far, far worse than an “unprepared” VP. Every time someone brings this “Palin is inexperienced” meme, it just reminds people that Senator Obama is, well, not all that experienced himself…and is running for the top of the ticket.

    Unless you agree that running a campaign (!) is experience!

    And I still cannot believe that Senator Obama selected Senator Biden as VP, given the latter’s history of multiple acts of plagiarism, gaffes on camera, and far-Left voting record. So is that an example of “experienced vetting” and “Change we can believe in”?

    2. I am waiting now for Senator Obama to fire Mark Bubriski for making those kinds of comments regarding the Governor—since they are inaccurate, as well as political hit jobs. Perhaps Mr. Bubriski was not properly…. vetted by the Obama campaign?

    Mr. Frey, DRJ….has anyone come up with a list of the times that Senator Obama has had to contradict/apologize for/explain statements made by his incredibly experienced campaign staff?

    Readiness to lead, right?

    Eric Blair (2708f4)

  5. If he’s a Nazi sympathizer why the hell is MSNBC paying him to appear on their telecast? I mean, there’s got to be at least one other paleo-con out there who makes good television, no?

    Fritz (a2e65a)

  6. “Palin was a supporter of [MSNBC analyst] Pat Buchanan, a right-winger or as many Jews call him: a Nazi sympathizer,”

    See, she leaves clues, though.

    Like sticking a flag on her windowsill that is the exact mirror image of the Israeli flag.

    http://alaskapodshow.com/index.php/2008/02/20/my-visit-to-juneau-alaska/

    It’s a secret neo-Nazi symbol!

    It’s true!!!!!!

    Anon (03ab2e)

  7. I forget which one of the front page posters here were so adamantly supportive of the National Enquirer for steadfastly digging into the private life of political figures such as Edwards and their families while the MSM had the decency to ignore it. I think it was Justin Levine, I apologize if I have that wrong.

    Well, the Enquirer has its sights on another big story and seem committed to pursue it to the end. I’m guessing somehow digging into the private family business of a failed candidate is excusable while digging into the private family business of a current VP candidate is horrible. Looking forward to having the difference explained to me.

    In my mind, both inquiries are disgusting.

    Aplomb (b6fba6)

  8. Or was it an upside-down Israeli flag?…I forget, but it’s one of the two!

    Anon (03ab2e)

  9. Comment by Aplomb — 9/2/2008 @ 6:30 pm

    Aplomb, for starters – one’s the kid and one’s the actual candidate (who made his relationship with his wife the centerpiece of his campaign).

    Second, though, the press sat on one story for a year and a half while jumping on the other the second it broke on the internet.

    Anon (03ab2e)

  10. Pat’s response was even better… Shall I quote it?

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  11. Anon 9: but did the Enquirer sit on it for a year and a half? I think they jumped the second they got a whiff of something new that would sell paper, regardless of ethics and integrity.

    My comment is directed to the idea that the Enquirer is a noble correction to the MSM that reports the important stuff the MSM refuses to address. What they did with Edwards was disgusting, what they are about to do with Palin is disgusting.

    As for the MSM reporting on the Palin story, it was in response to a press release by the McCain campaign stating that the VP candidate’s daughter was pregnant. Of course they would report that, it came from a campaign press release for heaven’s sake.

    Aplomb (b6fba6)

  12. Comment by Aplomb — 9/2/2008 @ 6:30 pm

    Well, if I was a liberal I would say that on the Edwards story they were completely credible, more than the MSM ever is… on the Palin story they’re just a scandal-rag that nobody should pay any attention to.

    Unfortunately, I’m not a liberal and can’t hold two diametrically opposed thoughts simultaneously. Gotta go with Anon’s take on this.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  13. Joe Scarborough ripped Bubriski a new one in absentia on his show this morning. Even Mika was in agreement. Newsbusters has the clip.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  14. Aplomb – That you are confused is of no surprise.

    JD (5f0e11)

  15. JD – that you insult me without being otherwise illuminating or interesting is also no surprise.

    Aplomb (b6fba6)

  16. Aplomb, you really already know the difference. So why are you pretending not to?

    What the MSM is doing to Palin is far more disgusting than what happened to Edwards. In the case of Edwards, the MSM ignored substantiated stories until it was too late. In the case of Palin, they are reporting unsubstantiated rumors as news.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  17. Aplomb – How is it that you are able to compare the actions of John Edwards to that of Gov. Palin’s daughter? Even Baracky says what you are engaged in is out-of-bounds.

    JD (5f0e11)

  18. Ironic that the Left was eager to note that Pat thought Baracky’s speech was great last week. When he agrees he is a truth-teller. The next week, Mengele.

    JD (5f0e11)

  19. Anon 9: but did the Enquirer sit on it for a year and a half?

    Nah, and I don’t have much regard for them.

    It may sound nuts, but specifically to that link – I actually don’t necessarily have a problem with the article you posted re: them digging into Palin–it’s vague – whether I’ll have a problem with it depends on just what they’re alleging and how much evidence they have of it. If they had credible evidence Sarah beat her it kids, I’d be interested to know. Of course, if this evidence is coming from Wooten (the guy they reference in the article), Sarah’s ex-brother-in-law and a guy who once said he’d make her father “eat a f-ng bullet.” I’d consider that evidence more suspect.

    It’s really the double standard that gets me more. Chelsea? The press makes a point of laying off her and takes pride in it? Al Gore’s kid busted for drugs? The press lays off it. Jenna Bush caught drinking underage? Now, there’s a story, feeding frenzy time! Palin’s kid has a problem? Feeding frenzy time. I do believe there should be a distinction here between the candidate and his/her family, and especially kids.

    Anon (03ab2e)

  20. SPQR: In the Edwards case, they reported that their operatives cornered Edwards in a hotel under really suspicious circumstances meeting with a woman he used to know who happens to have a newborn. The Enquirer’s response was BABY DADDY, instantly, without enough proof for anyone to be sure about it. It was vague rumor about an affair (not any of our business by the way), so the MSM ignored it. The Enquirer made it a story by stalking Edwards and catching him in a very suspicous situation.

    As it turned out, Edwards admitted an affair with the woman, to his shame, but there is still question whether the baby is Edwards’. He, the mother, and someone who claims to be the father deny it. Why go further? Why is this news or of interest anyway? The whole thing was shameful, but somehow someone on this site wanted to extol the Enquirer and all the valuable work they do probing into the sordid lives of Democratic figures while the MSM ignores it.

    Now, the Enquirer is pointing its focus to a GOP VP candidate’s family, just as inappropriately, disgustingly, and pointlessly. And I wonder if all the praise I read on this site about the tenacious way the Enquirer hits the important stories the MSM finds distasteful will continue now that the nozzle of sleaze is pointed in the other direction.

    Aplomb (b6fba6)

  21. Aplomb,

    It’s fine with me if a media source wants to investigate stories about Palin or any politician but a published story should be based on more than speculation, and that’s especially true if it’s about a politician’s kids. Further, the media should run a big risk if that story isn’t solid and relevant, but the truth is they probably don’t. That’s why, if it were up to me, politician’s children would not be public persons for the purpose of the media malice standard.

    Bottom line: I don’t have a problem with the National Enquirer’s investigations into Edwards. I don’t have a problem with investigations into Palin. I object to investigations of their children, e.g., the National Enquirer can follow John all they want but not baby Frances; They can follow Sarah but not Bristol; etc.

    DRJ (7568a2)

  22. Aplomb, you still are intentionally ignoring the difference between the way that so-called mainstream media have treated the two.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  23. For reasons of his own, Buchanan has chosen to lie about this. That alone should disqualify him from his MSNBC gig. She was a registered Republican and was a supporter of Steve Forbes at the time Buchanan was claiming she was one of his fund raisers (she was not on his campaign documents). The AIP story is just a local Alaska story that no one outside the state understands.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  24. Aplomb is not talking about the media. He is talking about us. Our disposition to take the National Enquirer as gospel when it was about Edwards. And he’s right.

    nk (21731d)

  25. Day after day, Mark Bubrisk does nothing to stop child molesting – indicating they he is either secretly approves of child molesting, or is a child molester himself. Why does Obama have an adviser who does not stop child molesting? Its up to the public to fill in the dots and draw their own conclusions.

    /s

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  26. NK,

    I agree that was Aplomb’s point but I disagree that everyone took the National Enquirer’s story as gospel just because it was about a Democrat. We gave it attention because the Enquirer provided credible details and followed it with photographic proof and confirmation from named witnesses.

    DRJ (7568a2)

  27. SPQR 22: OK, maybe we have a different view of what happened. Let me set forth what I think probably happened.

    Edwards: There were vague rumors that Edwards was cheating with a specific woman, and that woman had a baby. However, because of either lack of evidence or because the various MSM outlets are NOT the Enquirer, they don’t follow up. Then the Enquirer finds Edwards skulking around a hotel where the woman was staying and announces BABY DADDY. The MSM takes notice and starts looking into it, but isn’t ready to pull the trigger on the BABY DADDY accusation without some more information, and the fact that Edwards was acting shifty in a hotel with a woman he knows. They simply don’t have the info to run with an affair story, let alone a baby daddy story, despite what the Enquirer reports.

    Then Edwards admits the affair and denies the paternity. With that info, it blows up big in the MSM, as they have enough info to report.

    So: in that case, the MSM reports a story about a private family matter when the involved party himself admits it to the press. Why wouldn’t the press report that?

    Palin: Gets nominated to VP by the GOP pretty much surprizing everyone. Days later, liberal bloggers start posting insane tin foil hat theories that her daughter is the real mother of her latest kid. As far as I know the MSM didn’t report this. But, on Monday the McCain campaign issues a press release stating that the daughter is pregnant. Again, this was issued as a press release, like Edwards’ admission of an affair, and it blows up big. Why wouldn’t the press repeat it?

    I honestly don’t know what the difference is in terms of the MSM, they waited until the affected party gave a statement about it and then blew it up big. Until then, the MSM seemed to respect privacy. It’s the Enquirer, or the blogs on the left, right or center that seem to dig into the private lives and bring these things to a head.

    Aplomb (b6fba6)

  28. Fair enough, DRJ. Some of us reserved judgment but we are rightfully tarred with the same brush as those of us who did not.

    nk (21731d)

  29. I am watching people destroy themselves with their hate.

    Cate (9d9b60)

  30. We gave it attention because the Enquirer provided credible details and followed it with photographic proof and confirmation from named witnesses.

    Yup, like real journalists are supposed to do.

    Paul (ac3cf3)

  31. Aplomb, no you did miss it. The MSM was reporting on the actual lefty rumors of Palin faking her pregnancy.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  32. 31 SPQR: cites? I know some MSM sources invoked the lefty rumors as a reason why Palin was making the announcement, to correct the fallicy, but I don’t know of any MSM sources that reported the false lefty rumors before the Palin family made the announcement.

    Aplomb (b6fba6)

  33. I am watching people destroy themselves with their hate.

    Yeah, it is kinda sad, isn’t it…

    It makes me cry, what the Democrats have become…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  34. Democrats have become so slimy and deranged that they can walk upright under worms and declare themselves the winners of any poll without a single vote taken.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  35. NK,

    Reasoned judgments are the same as unreasonable judgments?

    DRJ (7568a2)

  36. I’m sorry, DRJ, but I believe the question is credible sources. Whether the National Enquirer is one?

    nk (21731d)

  37. Ok, ok, at least that’s the only question I want to address. ;)

    nk (21731d)

  38. Ob_ma, may his name be praised: Speaks! ” I just want to tell my loyal cadres, er, ‘supporters’ that I want to chastise, remonstrate and otherwise chide my staff for saying that Gov. Palin was or is a cruel Nazi she-bitch.”

    Californio (47b678)

  39. My reasoned judgement is that Aplomb:
    has been unbalanced;
    is currently unbalanced;
    and, in the future will continue to be unbalanced!

    Another Drew (dbf36d)

  40. The Buchanan story is clearly a non-starter. Not only did Palin not support Buchanan, he is clearly no Neo-Nazi. Shameful of the Obama campaign to say that.

    However, speaking of Jews, there was an interesting piece about her church I just saw:

    An illustration of that gap came just two weeks ago, when Palin’s church, the Wasilla Bible Church, gave its pulpit over to a figure viewed with deep hostility by many Jewish organizations: David Brickner, the founder of Jews for Jesus.

    Palin’s pastor, Larry Kroon, introduced Brickner on Aug. 17, according to a transcript of the sermon on the church’s website.

    “He’s a leader of Jews for Jesus, a ministry that is out on the leading edge in a pressing, demanding area of witnessing and evangelism,” Kroon said.

    Brickner then explained that Jesus and his disciples were themselves Jewish.

    “The Jewish community, in particular, has a difficult time understanding this reality,” he said.
    Brickner’s mission has drawn wide criticism from the organized Jewish community, and the Anti-Defamation League accused them in a report of “targeting Jews for conversion with subterfuge and deception.”

    Brickner also described terrorist attacks on Israelis as God’s “judgment of unbelief” of Jews who haven’t embraced Christianity.

    “Judgment is very real and we see it played out on the pages of the newspapers and on the television. It’s very real. When [Brickner's son] was in Jerusalem he was there to witness some of that judgment, some of that conflict, when a Palestinian from East Jerusalem took a bulldozer and went plowing through a score of cars, killing numbers of people. Judgment — you can’t miss it.”

    Palin was in church that day, Kroon said, though he cautioned against attributing Brickner’s views to her.

    This was two weeks ago.

    I think I can anticipate where this discussion is likely to lead–namely, Obama supporters can’t bring this up because Obama has his own crazy-ass pastor who says ridiculous things. But that has it exactly backwards. The McCain campaign and conservatives generally were the ones insisting that Jeremiah Wright was a huge issue for Obama. Now that there is a very similar story for Palin, either it is an issue for her or it isn’t an issue for Obama. Some might try and nitpick and say calling terrorist attacks God’s judgment on Jews is not as bad as damning America–good luck with that.

    I don’t really care what people’s pastors/preachers say, but that doesn’t mean I can’t argue for equal standards for both candidates.

    Russell (da1856)

  41. Experience is now an issue. Family and children are no longer off limits. Pastors are now relevant. Balanced budgets are important. Up is down. Black is white.

    Racists.

    JD (5f0e11)

  42. Russell, more dishonesty on your part. Jews for Jesus is not an organization that is advocating extremist un-American ideological and political positions and whacky conspiracy theories about modern events in American history. Wright was so doing.

    Complete failure on your part. You should demand your money back on that talking point.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  43. “Jews for Jesus is not an organization that is advocating extremist un-American ideological and political positions and whacky conspiracy theories about modern events in American history.”

    No its just a bunch of anti-semitic freakazoids. Clearly no problem seeing that in a church.

    kirby (76ee1f)

  44. The dead are already queuing up to vote for BO in Chicago.

    torabora (5b3f44)

  45. Experience is now an issue. Family and children are no longer off limits. Pastors are now relevant. Balanced budgets are important. Up is down. Black is white.

    I’ve already addressed experience, I haven’t talked about families and children. What do you mean about the budget?

    Allow me to explain once again: “I don’t really care what people’s pastors/preachers say, but that doesn’t mean I can’t argue for equal standards for both candidates.

    Jews for Jesus is not an organization that is advocating extremist un-American ideological and political positions and whacky conspiracy theories about modern events in American history.

    So I guess calling terrorist attacks on Israel “God’s judgment” on the Jews for having the incorrect religion is, uh, a mainstream American ideological and political position?

    Russell (da1856)

  46. Looking forward to having the difference explained to me.

    No you’re not. But I’ll educate you anyway:

    A) John Edwards impregnated his mistress while he was running for president. She traveled with him because he gave her a cushy job as his videographer, a job at which she had absolutely zero experience. He spent, and is spending, hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep her away from the press. He convinced his assistant to claim paternity, and has been providing him with hush money as well. Almost a year after the story first broke, Edwards still hasn’t admitted he’s the father. The Enquirer has provided copious details about all of this (your claim that they didn’t have enough proof is simply false), and they were talking about it before anybody else.

    B) Sarah Palin’s daughter is pregnant, and she came clean about it four days after being announced as McCain’s running mate. Now that she has, and after the mainstream media has passed along the insane conspiracy theory about her youngest son, the Enquirer is providing further details about her daughter’s pregnancy. The worst thing I can find in that story is that Palin wanted to wait until after the convention to announce it. Repeat: She was already planning to announce it.

    C) Nice try.

    Jim Treacher (592cb4)

  47. Good grief. You can disagree with Jews For Jesus, and with 99% of the Christian faith that has for 2000 years professed that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation. You can say they’re mistaken and that your alternative, Judaism or Islam or whatever, is just fine. But you can’t logically say that people who want to “save” other people are “anti-semitic.” Their primary claim is that you can be BOTH Jewish and Christian – as Jesus was. So it’s not like they’re trying to “eliminate” Jews either – just hoping that Jews will accept Jesus as the Messiah.

    Compare that to the damning and condemnation of Jeremiah Wright.

    Don (9ca635)

  48. They’re fine with attacking daughters: how about the gratuitous remarks from Kerry and Edwards about Cheney’s lesbian daughter?

    Patricia (ee5c9d)

  49. And as for “calling terrorist attacks on Israel “God’s judgment” on the Jews for having the incorrect religion” – that might be Buchanan, I don’t know. But it’s not Jews For Jesus. I’m somewhat familiar with their materials. I don’t believe you can point to that in any of them.

    In fact, I’d love to see you find any example of hateful speech in anything they’ve published.

    Don (9ca635)

  50. Olberassface and Mathews could not be any different in their role at the Republican convention. They attack Palin, fact check speeches, and critique electoral strategies. Quite a contrast to their 4 days of gargling Baracky love spunk.

    JD (5f0e11)

  51. Russell, Jim said your attempt was a “nice try”.

    It is one of those times when I strongly disagree with Jim. Your attempt wasn’t.

    You know that Wright’s positions are not comparable to even your misrepresentations of the Jews for Jesus message. Your attempt to pretend not to understand is unconvincing.

    Of course, what you should worry about is actually convincing us that you don’t know the difference. That’s not something you really want to have happen.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  52. If we’re interested in spreading Jew rumors about Sarah Palin in order to hurt her likability among that part of the electorate, I figure it deserves this in response:

    [Stolen from NR]

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTA4NGZlZjE0MWEzY2NiY2JjNWY3N2U3OGQyZmIxZGE=

    http://lubavitch.com/news/article/2023848/Alaskas-Jewish-Community-on-Palin-Selection.html

    In this article the local Lubavitcher rabbi (Orthodox) in Anchorage discusses his relationship with Palin, and has extensive praise for her actions, personal and public, including her ability to balance motherhood and governing — though he specifies that he is not making an endorsement.

    http://www.frozenchosen.org/_kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&item_id=1498&destination=ShowItem

    This is a feature story about the Jews of Alaska in general. There is nothing political in it. It does, however, mention that when Reform Temple Beth Shalom of Anchorage installed a new Rabbi, Governor Palin stopped by to welcome him and wish him well. The rabbi, who had come from California, was not used to such an official reception. In addition to negating fears of anti-semitism, Palin’s behavior highlights her political skill.

    And like I mentioned above, it’s kind of odd that this crypto anti-Semite spent her time as governor with an Israeli flag next to her in her office.

    As an aside, at first I found the number of new trolls and Mobies after Sarah’s announcement funny, and I guess I still find it funny – however, given the sheer volume of this stuff I’m beginning to think I’m less of a conspiracy nut for thinking these smear posts might be orchestrated than I originally thought a couple days ago.

    Anon (03ab2e)

  53. Russell – Congrats on picking up that story on Jews for Jesus now being retailed by Excitable Andy and Daily Kos. So Palin’s church gets a guest preacher from a group whose mission it is to convert jews to christianity. The guy is based in Jerusalem. Can you explain the equivalence to 20 years of racist antisemitic America bashing Obama got at TUCC please?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  54. I think Wexler and Obama are worried about the jewish vote, particularly in Florida, is what is going on. Hence the Miami Herald story today and the smear from the Obama spokesperson.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  55. I keep meaning to read The Yiddish Policeman’s Union by Michael Chabon, an alternate-history novel in which a Jewish state was established in post-WWII Alaska instead of the Middle East. Now I guess I’ll have to…

    Jim Treacher (592cb4)

  56. From the McCain campaign:

    Buchanan Endorses Obama’s Position on Israel

    The story that Governor Palin was a supporter of Pat Buchanan in 2000 first got legs at the Nation, but it was at MSNBC that the story really took off–not that the network every produced a shred of evidence to back up their claims. In light of the smearing of Governor Palin by Obama surrogate Robert Wexler and Obama spokesman Mark Bubriski, both of whom alleged Palin was a supporter of Patrick Buchanan and therefore a “Nazi sympathizer,” this statement from Buchanan today seems noteworthy:

    Let me say about Israel here. My position on Israel is frankly awful. It is like Mika [Brzezinski]‘s father’s, it’s a lot closer to Barack Obama’s than it is John McCain. I think Barack is right, we ought to talk to the Iranians, he’s right to oppose the war and, frankly, he’s right to say the Palestinian people have got a terrible deal over there and their suffering ought to be recognized. That’s Obama’s position. It’s my position. I don’t think it is a Nazi position.

    Governor Palin never supported Pat Buchanan, having supported Steve Forbes in both 1996 and 2000. Still, it must give great comfort to Wexler and Bubriski that Pat Buchanan does support Obama’s position on Israel.

    ROA (f7cdf8)

  57. Kirby,I saw a Jews for Jesus presentation in a church a number of years ago. It was anything but antisemitic. It was steeped in Jewish dance and music. They are Messianic Jews who believe Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah.

    bill (11afe9)

  58. Russell whiffs again. I think he’s about 0-20 today.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  59. Godwin’s Law: Election over, we win.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  60. I think I can anticipate where this discussion is likely to lead–namely, Obama supporters can’t bring this up because Obama has his own crazy-ass pastor who says ridiculous things. But that has it exactly backwards. The McCain campaign and conservatives generally were the ones insisting that Jeremiah Wright was a huge issue for Obama.

    Sweet baby Jesus, it’s like you write this stuff JUST so we can mock it. Allow me to enlighten you, bubba…

    Now that there is a very similar story for Palin, either it is an issue for her or it isn’t an issue for Obama.

    No. It isn’t.

    Rev Wright – Pastor and spiritual mentor for Barack Obama for over 20 years.

    David Brickner – Guy who spoke at her church once.

    Do I need to break out the charts and graphs? Compare Brickner to Louie Farakahn’s speaking at Sen Obama’s (former) chruch if you like, that is certainly fair…

    But only a complete, total, and utter fucking moron would even start down the “Brickner = Wright” path.

    Then again, this is you we’re talking about. I’m hardly shocked.

    And not to mention that the attempt to connect Palin to – as the MSM would like to think of him regardless of truth – that Nazi-supporter Buchanan opens up the LITANY of openly anti-Israel members of Obama’s staff/advisors…

    So really, you wanna play this game, Rus?

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  61. “It was anything but antisemitic. It was steeped in Jewish dance and music. They are Messianic Jews who believe Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah.”

    Its an organization devoted to telling Jews that they are wrong and converting them. It doesn’t really matter how many Jewish sights and sounds it shows.

    kirby (36ddaf)

  62. My god… talking to people to try and convert them…

    Those cold, heartless bastards!

    *looks left, then looks right, and speaks in a hushed tone*

    Oh god, do you think the Jehova’s Witnesses are in on it?

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  63. “My god… talking to people to try and convert them…”

    Imagine that, telling people their religion is wrong is considered to be against their religion.

    “Oh god, do you think the Jehova’s Witnesses are in on it?”

    I think what specifically is annoying about Jews for Jesus is it targets Jews for being told they are wrong. That’s kind of where “anti-semitic” comes in — it targets Jews.

    kirby (857adb)

  64. That’s kind of where “anti-semitic” comes in — it targets Jews.

    It always comes back to the Jooooooooooooooooooooos.

    It is like kirby is pissed that Levi, peter, and the drive-by concern trolls yesterday were better than he is.

    JD (75f5c3)

  65. I think what specifically is annoying about Jews for Jesus is it targets Jews for being told they are wrong. That’s kind of where “anti-semitic” comes in — it targets Jews

    A smarter man would have gotten the joke…

    Which is to say, anyone else would have gotten the joke.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  66. Imagine that, telling people their religion is wrong is considered to be against their religion.

    Better yet, try to imagine the alternative: a religion NOT telling people that their own religion is right and the others are wrong.

    Xrlq (b71926)

  67. I think he’s just mad that beheadings don’t come as part of the christians’ attempt to convert people…

    I mean, it’s only legit if there are death threats… Right?

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  68. kirby: every religion (serious religion) believes that they are the way to Heaven, otherwise they wouldn’t really be a religion.

    One of the core principles of religion is to convert others to your religion so they can also get there. It is in no way ‘anti’ anything to try to convert someone to your religion for the purpose of getting them to the promised land. No matter who you try to convert.

    Lord Nazh (899dce)

  69. This just in – what’s left of the Grateful Dead will reunite and play at an Obama rally at Penn State University. That’ll show ‘em!

    Jack Klompus (cf3660)

  70. “kirby: every religion (serious religion) believes that they are the way to Heaven, otherwise they wouldn’t really be a religion.”

    I don’t know much about all serious religions to know. But I do think that not every religion targes others for conversion, for telling them they are wrong.

    “One of the core principles of religion is to convert others to your religion so they can also get there.”

    I do not think this is true of all religions. for example, I have never met or heard of a single Jew that tried to convert others.

    kirby (0b3979)

  71. I have never met

    Must be true then :)

    Lord Nazh (899dce)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3212 secs.