Patterico's Pontifications

3/12/2010

Obama’s Oscar-Worthy Performance

Filed under: Obama — DRJ @ 6:36 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

Chuck Norris thinks President Obama should win an Oscar:

“I am no pinnacle of humility, and I’ve learned my fair share of hard lessons from the camps of conceit. But I’m not sure the former Chicago politician occupying the White House has ever been schooled with a primer on the perils of pride.

It’s one thing (though still distasteful) to be boastful in a sports or fighting ring – it’s quite another in the Oval Office. We were promised change, but it seems to me this White House’s smug swagger and strut rivals the great taunts and bluster of Mohammed Ali in his heyday. In fact, if I were handing out awards, President Obama would win hands down the Oscar for overconfidence and arrogance.”

Norris is unhappy with the way Obama treats Supreme Court justices, military commanders, other politicians, his opponents, broadcast agencies, the American people, and America’s founding documents. But he saves his contempt for the way Obama treats Scriptures:

“In possibly his gravest error, Obama haughtily placed himself above Judeo-Christian Scriptures when speaking at a church in June 2006 as a senator. In that message, he denigrated biblical books, including Leviticus and Deuteronomy, ridiculed the issue of the Bible’s inerrancy, called the Sermon on the Mount a radically inapplicable passage of Scripture, and declared that basing public policies upon the Bible “would be a dangerous thing.” He arrogantly concluded that “folks haven’t been reading their Bible,” setting himself above not only most others’ understanding of Scripture but also all of us who read it. In olden days, such sacred contempt would have been regarded as an abominable desecration — a man standing in the house of God claiming to be like a god, above others and even Scripture itself.

President Obama, I don’t know whether you’ve spent a day in a Sunday school class, so here’s a verse that might help you. Proverbs 16:18: “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.”

– DRJ

58 Comments

  1. That, my friends, is the rhetorical equivalent of a roundhouse kick to the head.

    Comment by DelD — 3/12/2010 @ 6:48 pm

  2. Do you know what the bible says about judgeing?

    Comment by RMatthews — 3/12/2010 @ 6:53 pm

  3. The master schooled the grasshopper there, indeed. And if Norris is right about what Obama did inside a church, then as far as I am concerned, Obama proved he is no Christian despite assertions otherwise.

    Comment by John Hitchcock — 3/12/2010 @ 6:56 pm

  4. RMatthews, do you? Apparently not.

    Comment by John Hitchcock — 3/12/2010 @ 6:56 pm

  5. Or are you going to take a specific 7 words out of context from the next set of words and from the rest of the Bible?

    Comment by John Hitchcock — 3/12/2010 @ 6:58 pm

  6. RMatthews? Are you there? Or were you just a drive-by who hoped people didn’t know their stuff?

    Comment by John Hitchcock — 3/12/2010 @ 7:31 pm

  7. Do you know what the bible says about judgeing?

    Well, since there was an entire book of the Bible called Judges, I’m pretty sure God was in favor of it at some level.

    Comment by Some chump — 3/12/2010 @ 7:38 pm

  8. I’ve seen that vacuous, intellectually dishonest tactic used on a great many occasions, usually by non-Christians in an attack on Christians. I think I’ll do a write-up later tonight or tomorrow.

    Comment by John Hitchcock — 3/12/2010 @ 7:42 pm

  9. Link it over here in the comments if you do, John Hitchcock. I’m sure it will be interesting.

    Comment by DRJ — 3/12/2010 @ 8:21 pm

  10. Chuck Norris on acting. What next, you’ll repeat Victoria Jackson rants about leftist comedy ?

    Comment by imdw — 3/12/2010 @ 8:33 pm

  11. All you got out of that was that Chuck Norris was talking about acting?

    Reading for comprehension just isn’t high on your priority.

    Comment by Some chump — 3/12/2010 @ 8:36 pm

  12. Some chump – do you think it is unwilling or unable to read for comprehension?

    Comment by JD — 3/12/2010 @ 8:41 pm

  13. Well, I wouldn’t mind listening to Sean Penn’s thoughts on the craft of acting.

    His rants on Chavez leave something to be desired.

    Comment by Ag80 — 3/12/2010 @ 8:41 pm

  14. No, Some Chump, its not. That’s not part of the imdw act.

    Comment by SPQR — 3/12/2010 @ 8:45 pm

  15. What next, you’ll repeat Victoria Jackson rants about leftist comedy ?

    Heh. Obviously we already have our own ranting in-house leftist comedy here.

    Comment by Dana — 3/12/2010 @ 8:50 pm

  16. Dana – That’s performance art. I wouldn’t call it acting.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 3/12/2010 @ 8:58 pm

  17. Or comedy.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 3/12/2010 @ 8:58 pm

  18. I’m just that easily amused, daley.

    Comment by Dana — 3/12/2010 @ 8:59 pm

  19. (sarc tags somewhere…)

    Comment by Dana — 3/12/2010 @ 9:00 pm

  20. Dana – Whatever gets you through the night, as they used to say.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 3/12/2010 @ 9:07 pm

  21. I think daleyrocks enjoys getting skulled with Jimmy Choos.

    Comment by JD — 3/12/2010 @ 9:25 pm

  22. The Bible Says Don’t Judge, Right?…

    Wrong. The Bible definitely does not say “don’t judge.” I have heard that argument countless times, as far back as my school days in the 1970s, nearly always as a defense for something worthy of judging. And most of the time, the argu…

    Trackback by Truth Before Dishonor — 3/12/2010 @ 11:09 pm

  23. There ya go, DRJ. You made me do it.

    Comment by John Hitchcock — 3/12/2010 @ 11:16 pm

  24. What would you expect from someone who sat for a millennium of Sundays listening to a nutbag, hate – filled preacher, then claimed he didn’t hear any of it.

    Comment by Dmac — 3/13/2010 @ 6:59 am

  25. “Reading for comprehension just isn’t high on your priority.”

    Well I really don’t want to take on Chuck Norris… on scripture.

    [note: fished from spam filter. --Stashiu]

    Comment by imdw — 3/13/2010 @ 7:08 am

  26. My only question about Norris’ comments is that he left out Obama saying that he had the power to heal the sick and return the oceans to their rightful place.

    I wonder when they will replace portraits of the president in federal buildings with little (or not so little) gold statues?

    (FWIW, the Sensei at the dojo where my daughter trains knows Norris personally at some level, and includes him on his short list of people who he can trust to stand by his word.)

    Comment by MD in Philly — 3/13/2010 @ 7:59 am

  27. Norris is unhappy with the way Obama treats…

    And to go from the absurd to the ridiculous, Obama also has a knack for humbling, if not humiliating, himself at truly inopportune moments. Such as when he’s giving a huge smile and shouts-out response to Hugo Chavez at a cocktail reception or, more grotesquely, bowing before the king of Saudi Arabia or the Emperor of Japan.

    The guy in the White House takes the art of ass- backwardness — even when it comes to his hubris and arrogance — to the next level.

    Comment by Mark — 3/13/2010 @ 11:31 am

  28. <n that message, he denigrated biblical books…, etc.etc…. and declared that basing public policies upon the Bible “would be a dangerous thing.”

    I doubt he really said that, and that is a poor translation by Chucky.

    He arrogantly concluded that “folks haven’t been reading their Bible,” setting himself above not only most others’ understanding of Scripture but also all of us who read it.

    Now THAT is pure Obama, urban liberal know-it-better. Completely believeable. Obama also loves to say how when the people disagree with him, they haven’t listened to him correctly.

    Comment by Jack — 3/13/2010 @ 1:03 pm

  29. The drive-by troll, RMatthews, couldn’t even spell “judging” correctly, let alone be honest with “judge not, lest ye be judged”. But then, this same person is probably a big fan of Roe v Wade, and the CA SC decision on gay marriage. Selective judging is good.

    Comment by Icy Texan — 3/13/2010 @ 1:37 pm

  30. I would want to see the transcript of what Obama actually said in that church in 2006 before believing this in full. In particular, I doubt that Obama would disparage the Sermon on the Mount.

    Comment by Joshua — 3/13/2010 @ 2:55 pm

  31. Joshua,

    It may be this June 28, 2006, speech. Here is a video excerpt.

    Comment by DRJ — 3/13/2010 @ 2:59 pm

  32. While Americans seem to believe there is no lower limit on the criteria necessary to express authoritative opinion on the Christian religion, I take Chuck’s expressions to be orthodox.

    Knowing Rev. Wright to be an import from the Nation of Islam preaching in a UCC congregation I do not find any period of Obamessiah’s life to have exposed him to orthodox Christianity.

    I say the onus is on those doubting the authenticity of Dear Leader’s quotes to provide actual evidence for their expression that opinion.

    Comment by gary gulrud — 3/13/2010 @ 5:10 pm

  33. When Chuck Norris wants to read the Bible, God turns the pages for him.

    Comment by LYT — 3/13/2010 @ 6:08 pm

  34. Ya know what, drive-by troll LYT, I should hope every true Christian could say that from time to time. It’s called Divine Guidance.

    Comment by John Hitchcock — 3/13/2010 @ 6:15 pm

  35. Sort of on topic: If you haven’t read “Son of Hamas,” do.

    Comment by Dan S — 3/14/2010 @ 9:03 am

  36. Hey, Chuck Norris Truths are not trolling.

    Comment by SPQR — 3/14/2010 @ 9:51 am

  37. I would like to simply point out that in this country there is separation of church and state and Mr. Norris’s remarks while rah rah red meat for his theocratic American Taliban friends, are painfully and woefully inapplicable outside that sphere of influence.

    Chuck Norris needs to put down his bible and read the U.S. Constitution sometime. Because it does supersede the bible in matters of government and the citizenry of this fine nation.

    Comment by Assclown dooderheads — 3/14/2010 @ 10:48 am

  38. I’m surprised by this post. Usually PeePeeBlog does a better job of concealing it’s theocratic tendencies. PeePee your slip is showing….wink.

    Comment by Assclown dooderheads — 3/14/2010 @ 10:50 am

  39. His quote just shows how much Chuck Norris actually knows about the Oscars… they don’t give them away for arrogance.

    Though if they gave away Oscars for being oblivious to the gigantic joke that is constantly being told about him and his career… that one would go to Mr. Norris.

    Comment by Intelliology — 3/14/2010 @ 10:56 am

  40. His quote just shows how much Chuck Norris actually knows about the Oscars… they don’t give them away for arrogance.

    Judging by the movies that have received Oscars over the last 20 years or so, they don’t give them away for quality, either.

    Comment by Another Chris — 3/14/2010 @ 11:04 am

  41. Vulgar named troll didn’t notice who wrote this article.

    Comment by John Hitchcock — 3/14/2010 @ 11:21 am

  42. Oh, and vulgar named troll, like most leftists, has no idea what the Constitution actually says.

    Comment by John Hitchcock — 3/14/2010 @ 11:25 am

  43. Why don’t you go ahead and copy and paste the parts of the Constitution that ‘actually says’ the Bible supercedes it in governmental affairs? Otherwise you can apologize and keep your comments to yourself.

    Comment by Intelliology — 3/14/2010 @ 11:30 am

  44. introlliology has difficulty with reading comprehension. In other news, liquid water is wet.

    Comment by John Hitchcock — 3/14/2010 @ 11:44 am

  45. The real Constition, JH, not the one the Texas Textbook Taliban fantasizes about when they rewrite history.

    We’re waiting.

    Comment by Assclown dooderheads — 3/14/2010 @ 11:51 am

  46. Tag Team Trolls Traumatize Strawman Army, video at 11.

    Comment by John Hitchcock — 3/14/2010 @ 12:05 pm

  47. We’re waiting.

    Moreover, since so many liberals throughout the Western World tend to grow misty eyed when it comes to the sad, misunderstood, suffering Third Worlders of the Middle East — including the Taliban — who, after all, are fighting the good fight against the mean, greedy, imperialistic, war-mongering United States (and Western civilization in general, not to mention racist Israel!), perhaps “Taliban” actually is a positive code word in your twisted mind.

    Expertlaw.com:

    As the ongoing debate over what exactly the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution means continues into the twenty-first century, the Supreme Court finds itself without a bright line rule proscribing where exactly America stands on the issue of “to what degree should America separate religion from state.”

    Originating back to 1791 when the United States Constitution was officially ratified, the drafters granted freedom of and from religion to those who wished to be part of America. However, as time passed, this freedom of and from religion began to take on new interpretations that the original drafters of the Constitution may not have foreseen.

    Taken literally, the Establishment Clause does not mention anything about a “separation between church and state.” This notion, which came about through a letter written by President Jefferson to the Danbury Connecticut Baptist Association in an effort to support the Establishment Clause, has now become a major source of discussion in the Supreme Court. In fact, the Establishment Clause and this fiction of a “separation between church and state” have been the driving force in many Supreme Court decisions that have little to do with establishing a national religion. It seems as if they arise as a way for state institutions to stay politically correct, so to not offend the melting pot American religions.

    Modern interpretations of the Constitution have allowed the Supreme Court to stretch the meaning of the Establishment Clause beyond its original intent.

    While the Establishment Clause puts restrictions on the rights of the government with regards to religion, it does not require a complete separation of church and state. In fact, “some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable.” The Establishment Clause “affirmatively mandates accommodations, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.”

    Comment by Mark — 3/14/2010 @ 12:30 pm

  48. In other news, John Hitchcock is a poser.

    Comment by Intelliology — 3/14/2010 @ 1:03 pm

  49. Introlliology, I, among others, have caught you straight-up lying. You created a strawman by asserting I said something I did not say. Your intentional false assertion is also called a lie. You are a known liar and I highly doubt you are even capable of honest debate.

    Comment by John Hitchcock — 3/14/2010 @ 1:16 pm

  50. Actually you haven’t caught me lying. But since you said you did that makes you a liar. BUSTED.

    Comment by Intelliology — 3/14/2010 @ 8:30 pm

  51. Isn’t Spring Break a wonderful thing?

    John, remember this goofball’s entire reason for being. He’s not serious, he is a proven troll. And a jerk besides. Heck, he has even admitted it.

    He likes it when you engage him. He likes it even more when you get irritated by him. I cannot think of a better definition of a silly little troll. Until he tries to actually, well, make some kind of argument, you should either laugh at the young fellow, or ignore him.

    Comment by Eric Blair — 3/14/2010 @ 8:36 pm

  52. I caught you lying, Intelliology. And above, your misrepresented what Hitchcock wrote. That’s why you have that reputation for dishonesty.

    Comment by SPQR — 3/14/2010 @ 8:39 pm

  53. Point and laugh.

    Comment by JD — 3/14/2010 @ 8:58 pm

  54. SPQR…. when was this? Did I say that, when released, objects fall back to the earth? You disagreed with that and that makes me a liar? Typical rethuglican… anybody who disagrees with you is a ‘liar’. Join reality.

    Comment by Intelliology — 3/15/2010 @ 1:54 am

  55. Heh, I knew I should’ve bookmarked where I personally caught introlliology lying explicitly. Of course, I caught it lying explicitly long after others had already caught it lying explicitly.

    EB, while I agree with you in that introlliology likes when it irritates people, I am uncertain of your underlying statement or if you even had an underlying statement. If you are suggesting it irritated me or I showed irritation in my response, you would be mistaken. I have shown my irritation on multiple occasions before and this doesn’t rise to that level. My statement was, indeed, a “point and laugh” statement.

    But you may have already realized that. Thus your “irritation” statement wouldn’t necessarily have an underlying statement.

    I leave you with this thought: Introlliology has pock-marks all over its body from being touched with a ten-foot pole.

    Comment by John Hitchcock — 3/15/2010 @ 2:46 am

  56. [...] comment, as if I didn’t know anything about anything. But there was another comment I recently read on a different topic by a different commenter whose chosen moniker is unfit to be used on my site. [...]

    Pingback by Liberal Racism And Historical Revisionism « Truth Before Dishonor — 3/15/2010 @ 7:58 am

  57. John, the only reason I wrote what I did is that you clearly spend a lot of time thinking about and writing your posts.

    The troll? Not so much.

    And that is what trolls are about: getting other people to do work, while they sit on their parents’ basement couch with Cheetoh crumbs all around their mouths, giggling at the computer screen.

    Comment by Eric Blair — 3/15/2010 @ 8:04 am

  58. [...] comment, as if I didn’t know anything about anything. But there was another comment I recently read on a different topic by a different commenter whose chosen moniker is unfit to be used on my site. [...]

    Pingback by Common Sense Political Thought » Blog Archive » Liberal Racism And Historical Revisionism — 3/15/2010 @ 8:06 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Bad Behavior has blocked 16338 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Page loaded in: 2.4931 secs.